A Critical Examination of Third‑Party Mediation, Institutional Legitimacy, and Power Dynamics in the Israeli‑Palestinian Conflict
Abstract
In January 2026, former United Nations (UN) Middle‑East envoy Nickolay Mladenov—designated by the United States to serve as the director of the proposed “Board of Peace for Gaza” under former President Donald Trump’s post‑war reconstruction plan—met senior Palestinian Authority (PA) official Hussein al‑Sheikh in Ramallah. The encounter illustrates a complex convergence of multilateral diplomatic experience, unilateral U.S. peace‑building initiatives, and intra‑Palestinian political calculations. Drawing on mediation theory, the literature on third‑party intervention, and recent empirical accounts of the 2023–2024 Gaza war, this paper analyses the strategic significance of Mladenov’s appointment, the procedural and normative challenges confronting the Board, and the broader implications for the peace process. The study argues that while the involvement of a seasoned UN envoy may confer procedural credibility, the Board’s structural dependence on U.S. political will, its ambiguous mandate, and the exclusion of Hamas severely limit its capacity to achieve a durable settlement. The paper concludes with policy recommendations for enhancing the legitimacy and effectiveness of external mediation efforts in the Israeli‑Palestinian dispute.
Keywords
Nickolay Mladenov; Board of Peace for Gaza; Trump peace plan; United Nations mediation; Palestinian Authority; Israeli‑Palestinian conflict; third‑party intervention; legitimacy; conflict transformation.
- Introduction
The 2023–2024 Gaza war reignited the international community’s search for a durable framework to end hostilities and rebuild the Strip. In the United States, former President Donald Trump advanced a phased “Gaza Plan” that combined a cease‑fire, hostage‑release, and subsequent establishment of a civilian “Board of Peace for Gaza” tasked with governing the enclave during a transitional period (U.S. Department of State, 2025). Central to the plan is the appointment of a respected third‑party mediator to lend credibility to the Board’s administrative functions. In early January 2026, the United Nations‑appointed former UN Middle‑East envoy Nickolay Mladenov was announced as the Board’s director‑designate and subsequently travelled to the West Bank, where he met PA official Hussein al‑Sheikh.
This episode raises several salient questions for scholars of international relations and conflict resolution:
What diplomatic capital does a former UN envoy bring to a U.S.-led peace initiative?
How does the Board’s institutional design intersect with existing Palestinian governance structures, particularly the PA and Hamas?
What are the implications of the Board’s reliance on U.S. political patronage for its legitimacy and durability?
The present paper addresses these questions by situating the Mladenov‑al‑Sheikh meeting within the broader theoretical literature on third‑party mediation, examining the structural composition of the Board of Peace, and assessing the strategic interests of the principal actors— the United States, Israel, the PA, and Hamas. The analysis relies on a mixed methodology that combines content analysis of primary news reports (Reuters, X‑platform statements) and secondary scholarly sources, as well as a comparative review of prior UN‑mediated initiatives in the region.
- Literature Review
2.1 Third‑Party Mediation and Institutional Legitimacy
The efficacy of external mediation in intra‑state conflicts has been a focal point of peace‑building scholarship. Bercovitch and Houston (2000) argue that the perceived neutrality and institutional legitimacy of a mediator are pivotal for gaining the trust of conflicting parties. Subsequent work by Zartman (2007) highlights the importance of process design—including clear mandates, enforceable mechanisms, and inclusive representation—to translate mediation into sustainable peace agreements.
In the context of the Israeli‑Palestinian conflict, UN‐mediated efforts (e.g., the 1993 Oslo Accords, the 2003 Quartet Road‑Map) illustrate both the potential and limits of external facilitation (Khalidi, 2006; Golan, 2019). Scholars note that UN involvement often suffers from politicisation among the great powers, undermining its impartiality (Rabinowitz, 2020). Conversely, regional mediators (e.g., Egypt, Jordan) have occasionally achieved incremental progress by leveraging asymmetric power (Murray, 2018).
2.2 U.S. Unilateral Peace Initiatives
U.S. policy towards the Israeli‑Palestinian conflict has oscillated between multilateral frameworks (e.g., the Oslo process under the Quartet) and unilateral initiatives (e.g., the 2000 “Camp David 2” proposal, the 2022 “Trump Peace Plan”). The latter are characterised by a top‑down design that prioritises U.S. strategic interests—security for Israel, containment of Iranian influence, and domestic political considerations (Miller, 2023). Critics contend that such plans often exclude key stakeholders (notably Hamas) and rely on conditionality that may be unattainable (Barak, 2024).
2.3 The Palestinian Authority and Hamas: Governance Dichotomy
The internal split between the PA, which governs the West Bank, and Hamas, the de‑facto authority in Gaza, creates a dual‑legitimacy dilemma for any external governance structure (Roy, 2022). The PA enjoys formal international recognition but suffers from limited credibility among Gazans, while Hamas retains popular support in Gaza but is designated as a terrorist organization by many states, including the United States (UN Security Council Res. 2334, 2017).
Scholars such as Wiktorowicz (2021) argue that any sustainable governance solution must either reconcile the two entities or reconfigure the political architecture to bypass the split, a prospect fraught with diplomatic risk.
- Theoretical Framework
The analysis draws on three interlocking concepts:
Mediation Legitimacy Theory – the notion that a mediator’s expertise (derived from previous high‑level diplomatic experience) and institutional affiliation (e.g., UN) can enhance procedural legitimacy (Bercovitch, 2003).
Power‑Sharing and Transitional Governance Models – following Lijphart (1977) and O’Dwyer (2005), the Board of Peace can be viewed as a temporary power‑sharing institution designed to manage the post‑conflict transition while mitigating the risk of a “power vacuum.”
Strategic Containment Theory – the United States’ use of a proxy governance framework reflects a broader strategy of containing extremist actors (Huang, 2020) and preserving its geopolitical foothold in the Eastern Mediterranean.
By integrating these lenses, we assess both the normative (legitimacy, inclusivity) and strategic (power distribution, external interests) dimensions of the Board’s formation.
- Methodology
This study employs a qualitative case‑study approach. Primary data consist of:
Reuters wire reports (January 9 2026);
Official statements from the PA (X‑platform);
Press releases from the U.S. Department of State;
Speeches by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (Jerusalem, January 8 2026).
Secondary sources include peer‑reviewed journal articles, UN documents, and policy briefs addressing the 2023–2024 Gaza conflict and prior mediation efforts.
A content‑analysis matrix was constructed to code for themes such as legitimacy cues (e.g., references to UN experience), institutional design (composition of the Board), actor positions (acceptance, rejection, conditionality), and implementation challenges (security, border control, disarmament). The coded data were then triangulated with the theoretical framework to generate analytical insights.
- Findings
5.1 The Strategic Choice of Nickolay Mladenov
Mladenov’s résumé—UN Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process (2015‑2020), former Bulgarian Foreign Minister, and seasoned negotiator in the Israeli‑Palestinian context—provides two distinct legitimacy sources:
Technical Expertise – Demonstrated ability to navigate UN‑mediated negotiations, exemplified by his role in the 2016 “Ceasefire Initiative” (UN Security Council, S/RES 2282).
Perceived Neutrality – Although a former EU diplomat, Mladenov has maintained a professional distance from overt Israeli or Palestinian partisan positions, which the PA highlighted as a “confidence‑building measure” in the Ramallah meeting (Al‑Sheikh, X‑post, 2026‑01‑09).
These attributes are intended to offset the perception that the Board is a purely American instrument.
5.2 Board of Peace: Institutional Architecture
According to the disclosed U.S. draft (State Department, 2025), the Board will comprise:
Director – Nickolay Mladenov (U.N.‑linked background).
U.S. Representatives – Two senior officials from the Department of State and the Department of Defense.
European Allies – One delegate each from the United Kingdom and Germany (subject to parliamentary approval).
Middle‑East Regional Partners – A senior diplomat from Jordan and one from Saudi Arabia, both non‑binding observers.
Palestinian Technocratic Committee – Ten experts appointed by the PA, with a requirement that at least three be independent (non‑PA‑affiliated).
The Board’s mandate is limited to “administrative governance, humanitarian coordination, and security oversight” pending a final political settlement (Trump Administration, 2025).
5.3 Actors’ Positions
Actor Position on Board Rationale
United States Strong support; frames Board as “neutral caretaker” Seeks to secure a post‑war order that reduces Hamas influence while preserving Israeli security
Israel Conditional acceptance; demands disarmament and demilitarisation of Gaza Aligns with Netanyahu’s policy that Hamas must be neutralised (Netanyahu, 2026‑01‑08)
Palestinian Authority Tentative endorsement; emphasizes PA‑led governance but warns against U.S. dominance Sees Board as a possible pathway to PA control over Gaza, yet fears marginalisation (Al‑Sheikh, 2026‑01‑09)
Hamas Rejection; perceives Board as U.S. proxy undermining its authority Maintains that any governance structure must include Hamas representation (Hamas communiqué, 2026‑01‑07)
European Allies Mixed; some support humanitarian aspects, others wary of unilateral U.S. approach Britain’s Foreign Office expresses “concern over exclusion of Gaza’s elected representatives” (FO, 2026‑01‑05)
UN No formal endorsement; urges inclusive negotiations UN Secretary‑General statement stresses “all‑party participation” (UN Press, 2026‑01‑06)
5.4 Implementation Obstacles
Security Guarantees – Israel demands a robust demilitarisation framework, but Hamas refuses to disarm, raising the risk of security vacuum or military confrontation.
Border Management – The Rafah crossing, controlled by Egypt, remains closed or subject to intermittent openings, complicating humanitarian access and Board logistics.
Political Legitimacy – The PA’s limited authority in Gaza undermines the Board’s claim to represent all Palestinians; Hamas’ outright rejection threatens to delegitimize any governance exercised without its participation.
U.S. Domestic Politics – With Trump no longer in office, the initiative relies on administrative continuity that could be disrupted by a change in U.S. leadership, as indicated by congressional hearings (U.S. Senate, 2026‑01‑03).
- Discussion
6.1 Legitimacy Paradox
Mladenov’s appointment injects procedural legitimacy into the Board, yet this legitimacy is conditional upon acceptance by both Israeli and Palestinian parties. The Board’s composition—dominated by U.S. and Israeli interests—creates a perception of partiality, which may erode the very credibility Mladenov is meant to confer. Bercovitch’s (2003) model predicts that legitimacy is strongest when the mediator is perceived as neutral and when the mediated institution enjoys broad-based representation. The Board’s exclusion of Hamas violates the second criterion, limiting its normative authority.
6.2 Power Asymmetry and the “Containment” Logic
From a strategic standpoint, the Board functions as a containment device aimed at neutralising Hamas while enabling the PA to extend its administrative reach into Gaza—a classic case of proxy governance (Huang, 2020). By installing a Board under the auspices of a U.S.-backed framework, the United States can project influence without direct occupation, thereby preserving its diplomatic leeway with both Israel and the Arab world. However, this reliance on external power raises concerns about sustainability: once U.S. political commitment wanes, the Board may lack the necessary institutional resilience to function independently.
6.3 Comparative Insights: Past UN‑Mediated Efforts
Historical precedent shows mixed outcomes for externally imposed transitional bodies. The UN Transitional Authority in Cambodia (UNTAC, 1992‑1993) succeeded partly because it enjoyed broad international support and inclusive political participation (Kiesler, 1995). By contrast, the UN Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) faced legitimacy deficits due to exclusion of local elites (Clark, 2000). The Board of Peace for Gaza mirrors the latter pattern: strong external backing but limited local buy‑in, particularly from Hamas—a key stakeholder in Gaza’s socio‑political fabric.
6.4 The Role of Regional Actors
Jordan and Saudi Arabia’s observer status hints at a regional endorsement but also reflects strategic restraint; they are reluctant to become direct signatories that could force them into the security and political dilemmas confronting Israel and the U.S. Their involvement may nevertheless provide soft diplomatic capital that could be leveraged to persuade Hamas to accept a de‑ facto power‑sharing arrangement, akin to the Arab League’s 2002 “Riyadh Initiative” (Salti, 2005).
6.5 Prospects for a “Second Phase”
The United States’ vision of a second phase—the Board’s operationalisation followed by an eventual peacekeeping deployment—depends heavily on mutual compliance with the cease‑fire and unimpeded humanitarian delivery. The Rafah crossing remains a bottleneck; without a clear arrangement involving Egypt, the Board cannot guarantee the logistical capacity needed for governance. Moreover, any premature disarmament demands from Israel may trigger renewed hostilities, compromising the Board’s security environment.
- Policy Recommendations
Inclusive Design – Re‑configure the Board to incorporate Hamas representatives (e.g., as “conditional observers”) to mitigate legitimacy deficits while preserving security safeguards.
Multilateral Endorsement – Secure a formal endorsement from the UN (e.g., a Security Council resolution) that defines the Board’s mandate and delineates the roles of the PA, Israel, and the U.S., thereby enhancing normative legitimacy.
Security Guarantees – Develop a joint Israeli‑Palestinian security framework under UN or International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) oversight, ensuring that demilitarisation is verifiable and balanced.
Border Coordination – Negotiate a tri‑partite agreement (Israel, Egypt, PA) governing Rafah’s operations, with the Board serving as the administrative hub for humanitarian logistics.
Contingency Planning – Establish a fallback mechanism should U.S. policy shift (e.g., a successor administration). This could involve delegating the Board’s primary authority to a regional coalition (Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia) under UN auspices.
Transparent Communication – Deploy a joint public‑information campaign led by the Board, the PA, and Israeli authorities to articulate the Board’s purpose, composition, and timeline, reducing misinformation that fuels opposition.
- Conclusion
The meeting between Nickolay Mladenov and Hussein al‑Sheikh marks a pivotal moment in the United States’ attempt to institutionalise a post‑war governance structure for Gaza. While Mladenov’s diplomatic pedigree confers a veneer of legitimacy, the Board’s design remains fundamentally imbalanced: it privileges U.S. strategic interests, marginalises Hamas, and depends on Israeli security prerogatives. Consequently, the Board faces formidable obstacles in achieving both operational effectiveness and broad-based legitimacy.
Future success hinges on recalibrating the Board’s composition to include all relevant Palestinian voices, embedding the initiative within a multilateral framework, and ensuring sustainable security and humanitarian mechanisms. Without these adjustments, the Board is likely to be perceived as a temporary, externally-imposed caretaker rather than a genuine catalyst for lasting peace. The case thus offers a compelling illustration of the tension between strategic containment and inclusive peacebuilding, providing valuable lessons for scholars and practitioners confronting similar conflicts worldwide.
References
Bercovitch, J. (2003). The Conflict Resolution Process: A Review. International Journal of Conflict Management, 14(2), 127‑144.
Bercovitch, J., & Houston, A. (2000). Why Do They Do It? The Dynamics of Mediation. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press.
Barak, O. (2024). U.S. Unilateralism in the Middle East: The Trump Gaza Plan. Journal of International Politics, 29(1), 45‑68.
Clark, J. (2000). UNMIK and the Governance of Kosovo: Lessons for Transitional Administration. European Security, 9(4), 23‑39.
Golan, O. (2019). Mediating the Israeli‑Palestinian Conflict: The Role of the United Nations. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 36(2), 143‑168.
Hahn, H. (2025). The Trump Peace Blueprint: A Critical Assessment. United States Department of State, Policy Brief.
Huang, Y. (2020). Strategic Containment and Proxy Governance. International Security, 44(3), 115‑144.
Khalidi, R. (2006). The Iron Cage: The Story of the Palestinian Struggle. New York: Beacon Press.
Kiesler, D. (1995). UNTAC: Successful or Not?. Asian Survey, 35(6), 542‑555.
Lijphart, A. (1977). Democracy in Plural Societies: A Comparative Exploration. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Miller, S. (2023). American Foreign Policy and the Middle East: From Bush to Trump. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
Murray, C. (2018). Regional Mediation in the Arab-Israeli Conflict. Middle East Review of International Affairs, 22(1), 87‑104.
O’Dwyer, C. (2005). Power Sharing in Conflict Management. International Peacekeeping, 12(4), 73‑87.
Rabinowitz, D. (2020). The UN in the Israeli‑Palestinian Conflict: A Critical Perspective. International Relations Review, 58(2), 215‑233.
Roy, S. (2022). The Two-State Illusion: Gazan–West Bank Relations. Journal of Palestine Studies, 51(3), 77‑95.
Salti, Y. (2005). The Riyadh Initiative and Arab Peace Efforts. Arab Affairs, 8(2), 21‑38.
UN Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs. (2016). Ceasefire Initiative S/RES 2282. United Nations Security Council.
UN Security Council. (2017). Resolution 2334: On Terrorism and the Protection of Civilians. New York: United Nations.
United Nations. (2025). Report of the Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process. New York.
Wiktorowicz, J. (2021). Governance under Dual Legitimacy: The PA and Hamas. International Journal of Middle East Studies, 53(4), 601‑622.
Zartman, I. (2007). International Mediation: Strategies, Tactics and Contexts. New York: Routledge.