Not a Good Time to Negotiate? Adapting Track Two Mediation Discourse to Changing Protracted Intergroup Conflict Contexts

Intergroup conflicts such as the recent Ukraine invasion of Russia usually end through negotiations, but arguably not all time points are equally suited for formal diplomacy. Unofficial ‘Track Two’ mediation is a valuable approach aimed at changing intergroup disputes and preparing formal negotiations. To better understand how different protracted intergroup conflict contexts influence mediation discourse, this paper examines linguistic process patterns of Interactive Problem-Solving mediation in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict over several decades. Specifically, we analyze mediation discourse within four conflict settings: 1982 (beginning of the Lebanon war), 1993 (Oslo Process), 1999 (onset of the Second Intifada), and 2013 (growing national-religious polarization, long years of official negotiation standstill). Combining natural language processing (LIWC) with critical discourse analysis, we outline approaches for the effective integration of contextual factors into protracted conflict mediation. The paper demonstrates how linguistic indicators such as positive emotional tone, resolve, I/we-ratio, and prosocial behavior increase over time, while certain others such as vulnerability towards the outgroup decrease. Social context changes towards deeper societal entrenchment and polarized national-religious worldviews gain popularity in each society at the same time. While discourse groups seem to increasingly work well with each other, they are less and less mainstream in each society, indicating that their capacity to transfer the mediation results is impaired. Overall, we suggest that Track Two mediation such as Interactive Problem Solving evolves in distinct patterns between groups, and contextual cues must be considered for the transfer and effectiveness of the approach. Theoretical and applied implications for mediation practice in protracted intergroup conflict settings are discussed.