Bunche And Carter Argumentative Analysis

This essay seeks to provide a convincing argument for the notion that amongst Henry Kissinger, Ralph Bunche and James Carter, James Carter was in the best position to mediate the Arab-Israeli conflict. This argument will be based on premise that James Carter was the most powerful mediator with the ability to bring forth a long lasting agreement between Israel and Egypt.

Bercovitch (1997) defines mediation as “ a process of conflict management, related but distinct from the parties’ own negotiations, where those in conflict seek assistance or accept an offer of help from an outsider (who may be an individual, an organisation, a group or a state) to change their perceptions of behaviour , and to do so without resorting to

In order to critically assess who was in the best position to mediate the Arab-Israeli conflict between Kissinger, Carter and Bunche, one must analyse their strategies, tactics and the outcome of their mediation. Studies have suggested that a mediators strategy and behaviours play a crucial role in the mediation process and it’s outcome so they should also be analysed (Bercovitch,

Bunche was successful in negotiating an armistice agreement between Israel and Egypt in February 1949 (Waage, 2011). Bunche, however, faced many difficulties during the mediation process because he lacked leverage against the Israel (the stronger disputant), and Israel also received unparalleled support from those with the ability to affect the direction of the negotiations (Waage, 2011). Although the armistice designed by Bunche set the groundwork for further negotiations in the Arab-Israeli conflict, it did not lead to peace between Israel and her Arab neighbours (Waage, 2011). Israel had not only won the war against the Arabs but had strong and biased support from US president (Harry S. Truman) and the UN secretary-general (Trygve Lie). Truman at the time as he sought the votes of Jewish Americans and Israel sympathisers in order to win the next US presidential election while Lie had strong personal sympathy for Israel and wanted the negotiations to end in their favour (Waage, 2011). Both parties constantly intervened during Bunche’s negotiations and tipped the negotiations in Israel’s favour. Bunche had little strategic strength in the mediation process because he lacked the