“The Ethics of Understanding: Why Language Matters for Making Peace”
by Dr Stefano Intropido*
Abstract
This essay examines the ethical significance of language and culture in international conflict mediation, arguing that effective peacebuilding requires more than procedural negotiation; it demands a morally attentive practice of linguistic cultural mediation. Drawing on the divergent Biblical Hebrew, Arabic, and English conceptual frameworks that shape understandings of conflict, peace, and the mediator’s role, the essay shows how linguistic and cultural assumptions carry ethical weight and influence political expectations. With a brief analysis of the failed U.S. mediation between Israel and Syria in the 1990s, the essay illustrates how the absence of linguistic cultural mediation can contribute to misunderstanding, mistrust, and diplomatic stagnation. By foregrounding the ethical responsibility to understand and translate across cultural worlds, the essay highlights the centrality of intercultural ethics, dignity, and peacebuilding in the work of conflict resolution.
Primary Keywords: Ethics of War and Peace, Peacebuilding, Inculturation, Society & Culture, Dignity.
Secondary Keywords: culture, language, mediation, conflict resolution, linguistic cultural mediator, Israel–Syria, intercultural ethics
* Stefano Intropido is a political scientist and humanitarian scholar whose research bridges academia, policy, and practice. He holds a PhD in Politics and International Relations (Religion & Humanitarianism) from the University of Glasgow and an MPhil (International Peace Studies) from Trinity College Dublin. He researches religious aid networks, the Holy See in global politics, and forced migration. He served as Assistant to the Head of Global Advocacy at Jesuit Refugee Service International Office and has published peer-reviewed articles in politics and public policy. His contributions have appeared on Avvenire, La Croix, Nuova Rivista Storica, Open Research Europe, the Scottish Council on Global Affairs, and Oxford University Press. Fluent in English, Italian, French, and Spanish, Stefano has conducted fieldwork in Rome and in the Vatican and has collaborated with leading UK and European universities, research centres, and faith-based networks. Dr Intropido is member of the Refugees & Migrants in Our Common Home: Mobilizing Academic Communities for Action project and regular contributor to the Emerging Scholars Forum of the Catholic Theological Ethics in the World Church network.
Introduction
“Peace be with you all!” These were the words with which Pope Leo XIV introduced himself to the Church and the World from St Peter’s central loggia on the day of his election, on 8th May 2025. The same greeting of the Risen Christ: “Peace be with you” (Jn 20:19). As we draw nearer to Easter, these words resound ever more pertinent, and urgent. The new pontiff repeatedly invoked “an unarmoured and disarming peace” in the face of increasing violence across the globe. But what do “war” and “peace” mean? Do we all understand them in the same way?
With interstate conflicts on the rise, it is useful to remember that peacebuilding is never merely a technical exercise. It is a profound ethical and dynamic process grounded in how human beings understand one another, make sense of reality, and imagine a shared future. Peace and Conflict Studies have long examined how conflicts are resolved, managed, or transformed. Yet while culture is often acknowledged as a factor in ethnic and intrastate conflicts, the linguistic and intercultural dimensions of how parties understand “conflict” and “peace” remain underexplored. Because language and culture are inseparable, especially in intercultural mediation, this essay argues that language is a decisive mediating factor shaping shared understandings of conflict, and of resolution.
Culture, Language, and the Ethics of Mediation
Conflict is understood here (in English) as tension over symbolic or material resources between parties with incompatible goals (Ross 1993). This article focuses on armed conflicts, defined by the Uppsala Conflict Data Programme as incompatibilities involving government or territory and resulting in at least 25 battle related deaths (Gleditsch et al. 2002). Mediation refers to third party facilitation of communication between conflicting actors (Tobalase 2017; Kleiboer 1996). Culture shapes how parties interpret the causes, nature, and resolution of conflict (Ross 1993). Levine and Adelman (1993) describe culture as shared intellectual, aesthetic, and moral standards that give meaning to communication. Because language expresses and embodies culture (Francis 2002), it becomes central to mediation.
The ethical dimensions of mediation are often overlooked in political science approaches that treat it as a strategic process. By contrast, scholars such as Jean Paul Lederach and Raymond Cohen emphasize that language forms the “shared stock of meaning” (Cohen 2001) necessary for reconciliation. Mediation requires not only procedural fairness but hermeneutical humility to enter another’s linguistic and cultural world. This paper therefore adopts an approach to mediation that recognizes the need for a third party capable of facilitating not only communication but also the parties’ understanding of each other’s cultural frames (Väyrynen 1998).
Interpreters and the need for Linguistic Cultural Mediation
Interpreters in conflict settings have historically been overlooked, yet recent scholarship highlights their essential role (Baker 2006). Conflicts in the 1990s, such as those in the former Yugoslavia, revealed that interpreters were not merely linguistic brokers but facilitators of intercultural dialogue (Todorova 2016). Interpreting is embedded in social and cultural practices (Baker 2006), requiring interpreters to navigate the parties’ “cultural idiosyncrasies”, as well as power dynamics and ethical dilemmas (Ruiz & Rosendo 2016). Linguistic cultural mediation enriches traditional interpreting by bridging cultural contexts through dialogue (Greco Morasso 2011).
Its significance rests on two points:
- Language mediation is indispensable for shared understanding (Gómez Amich 2013).
- Meaning cannot be interpreted without cultural awareness, since language reflects culturally embedded assumptions.
Although some scholars distinguish between “cultural mediators” and interpreters (Katan 1996), practitioners increasingly see themselves as both (Ruiz & Rosendo 2016). This paper argues for explicitly recognizing the LCM as a necessary praxis that integrates linguistic and cultural interpretation in conflict mediation.
Language, Culture, and Ethical Frames of Conflict
Because conflict perceptions are culturally and linguistically shaped (Opara 2016), mediation requires shared understandings of key concepts such as “peace,” “resolution,” and “mediator” (Cohen 2001). This section highlights major differences in Hebrew and Arabic.
Hebrew
The Biblical Hebrew term שָׁלוֹם – šālōm (shalom) often translated as “peace”, has broad polysemic connotations that do not entirely fit the English equivalent for the absence/resolution of conflicts, while the Aramaic verb פְשַׁר – peshar (“to interpret”, as in the interpretation of dreams in the Bible, commonly linked to “to compromise”, “to solve”), etymologically linked to פִתְרוֹן – pithron, better captures the Hebrew notion of conflict settlement and further reinforces the pragmatic approach to a reasoned middle ground.
The modern Hebrew term for conflict, סתירה – sikh’sukh’, covers a broad spectrum from interpersonal disputes to international wars (Cohen 2001). Conflicts can be ultimately reduced to arguments where dialogic reasoning can be used both for minor disputes and major escalations of violence (Cohen 2001). Logical persuasion is thus at the heart of Jewish argument, historically deriving from textual debates pertaining to the Talmud’s legal interpretations, and linguistically expressed by the fact that “to argue” and “to prove” stem from the same verbal root י-כ-ח in Mishnaic Hebrew.
Consequently, the Biblical Hebrew word pithron represents the “resolution” of conflicts by evoking the notion of a correct answer to a disputed matter which can only be found if those debating are wise enough to find a good formula through reasoned interaction, and normally through compromise (ibid.: 43). The concept of “resolution”, pithron, thus evokes finding the correct answer through reasoned interaction and compromise. The word for “mediator”, metavech, refers to a commercial broker, implying vested and material interests in the outcome of negotiations. This can partially explain Israel’s suspicion of third-party international mediation (Matz 1991).
Arabic
The Arabic term ṣulḥ denotes conflict settlement or resolution and is etymologically linked to the ideas of “right” and “good” (ibid.), thus to moral rightness. Assessing Arabic interpretations of conflict resolution therefore entails considerations pertaining to the ethical principles underpinning Arab states’ approaches to international conflict mediation.
Arabic understandings of conflict are shaped by honour and Islamic ethics. The term nizāʿ refers to both verbal disputes and violent conflict (Cohen 2001). Honour requires avoiding shame for all parties, influencing how solutions are framed.
Islamic principles such as ʿadl (justice) and ḥaqq (right, truth) inform conflict resolution. The mediator, وسيط – wasīṭ , would be a respected figure whose decision is expected to be accepted without challenge (Irani 1999). Translating wasīṭ as “mediator” in the Western sense is misleading, because the person acting as wasīṭ is not expected to facilitate a process of mediation, but rather to provide a final solution; in order to prevent the mediator from being shamed, the two parties are hence morally expected to accept the wasīṭ’s proposition (ibid.: 39-40; Irani 1999: 5).
Case Study: U.S. Mediation Between Israel and Syria (1991–2000)
The U.S. led process following the 1991 Madrid Conference sought to address Syrian demands for a comprehensive peace agreement and Israeli concerns over security and normalization. The process traces back to the United Nations’ Resolution 242 in the aftermath of the 1967 Arab-Israeli conflict which ruled out territorial acquisition by war and initiated negotiations for peaceful settlement of Middle Eastern hostilities through the so-called formula “land for peace”; following the 1967 Six Day war whereby Israel occupied the Golan Heights and the 1973 failed military attempt by Syria to repossess those territories, the Madrid Peace Conference was hence convened in 1991 (Hajjar 1999). While many factors contributed to the stalemate, linguistic cultural misalignments played a significant role.
Firstly, Syria approached negotiations through mabādiʾ (“principles”, etymologically linked to bad’ = “start”), understood as the necessary starting point for any dialogue (Cohen 2001). These principles, namely land, dignity, and rights, were rooted in honour. President Hafez al Assad insisted that recovering territory must not come at the expense of national dignity (see Sela & Kumaraswamy 2001).
Israel, by contrast, adopted a pragmatic approach grounded in peshar (“interpretation/compromise”). Israeli Prime Ministers such as Ehud Barak and Rabin emphasized “vital interests” including security and water resources. Israel offered withdrawal to the 1923 border but not the pre 1967 line; Syria rejected this as insufficiently principled. Israel consequently conceded to withdraw from the Golan Heights to the 1923 International Border but not to the pre-1967 line, epitomising American and Israeli procedural perceptions of the importance of compromising; Syria rejected the offer and reiterated its principled stance (Cohen 2001). The principled-pragmatic dichotomy was not addressed during third-party mediations and consequently contributed to the stagnation of the process.
Secondly, Israel’s concept of metavech aligned with the American view of a facilitator helping parties negotiate. Syria, however, expected the U.S. to act as a wasīṭ, an authoritative figure enforcing outcomes of the Madrid Conference. Assad therefore anticipated that Washington would compel Israel to withdraw fully, not merely relay proposals of a compromise. Without linguistic cultural mediation, these incompatible expectations remained unaddressed.
Finally, Arabic distinguishes between salām (a contractual end to war) and ṣulḥ (reconciliation for future harmony). Modern Hebrew shalom encompasses both, implying broader cooperation than mere restoration of diplomatic relations. Syria sought salām; Israel envisioned something closer to shalom. The U.S. mediation did not bridge these conceptual gaps.
Conclusion
Grounded in the ethics of war and peace, this article has argued that language is a central cultural factor in conflict resolution and linguistic cultural mediation is essential in third party negotiations. By examining English, Hebrew, and Arabic conceptualizations of conflict and peace, and by analysing the case of U.S. led Israel–Syria negotiations in the 1990s, the article shows how linguistic cultural misunderstandings contributed to diplomatic failure. Recognizing the LCM as distinct from both interpreters and cultural mediators can strengthen intercultural dialogue and foster shared understandings necessary for resolving armed conflicts.
References
Baker, M. (2006) Translation and Conflict: A Narrative Account, Routledge, London/New York.
Bos, G. & Soeters. J. (2006) “Interpreters at Work: Experiences from Dutch and Belgian Peace Operations.” International Peacekeeping, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 261–268.
Cohen, R. (2001) “Language and Conflict Resolution: The Limits of English”, International Studies Review, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 25-51.
Francis, D. (2002) “Culture and Conflict Transformation” in Francis, D. (2002) People, Peace and Power. Conflict Transformation in Action. London: Pluto Press.
Gadamer, H-G. (1979) Truth and Method. London: Sheed and Ward.
Gleditsch, Nils P., Wallensteen, P., Eriksson, M., Sollenberg, M. & Strand, H. (2002) “Armed Conflict 1946–2001: A New Dataset.” Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 39, 5, pp. 615–637.
Gómez Amich, M. (2013) “The Vital Role of Conflict Interpreters” Nawa Journal of Language and Communication, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 15-28.
Greco Morasso, S. (2011) Argumentation in Dispute Mediation: A Reasonable Way to Handle Conflict. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
Hajjar, S. G. (1999) “The Stalled Peace Process: Israeli Syrian Track” in Blank, S. J. (1999) (ed.) Report “Mediterranean Security into the Coming Millennium”, Strategic Studies Institute, US Army War College, pp. 317-348.
Hsieh, E. (2002) “Necessary Changes in Translation Ideology” Studies of Translation and Interpretation, Vol. 7, pp. 399-435.
Irani, G. (1999) “Islamic Mediation Techniques for Middle East Conflicts” MERIA Journal, Vol. 3, No. 2., pp. 1-5.
Katan D. (1996) Translating across Cultures: An introduction for Translators, Interpreters and Mediators, Trieste: S.eR.T. 5, SSLMIT.
Kleiboer, M. (1996) “Understanding Success and Failure of International Mediation”, The Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 40, No. 2, pp. 360-389.
Lederach, J. P. (1996) Preparing for Peace: Conflict Transformation across Cultures. Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse University Press, pp. 74-78.
Leonard P & Law, E.F. (2004) Culture Language and online Dispute Resolution. Victoria: RMIT University and Dispute settlement Centre.
Levine, D. R. & M. B. Adelman (1993) Beyond Language: Cross Cultural Communication. New York: Prentice Hall Regents.
Matz, D. (1991) “ADR and Life in Israel”, Negotiation Journal, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 11-16.
Neusner, J. (1997) “Ethnic Trait or Religious Value: Why We Jews Enjoy a Good Argument”, Judaism, Vol. 46, No. 1.
O’Sullivan, T., Hartley, J., Saunders, D., Montgomery, M., & Fiske, J. (1998) Key concepts in communication and cultural studies. London: Routledge.
Opara, C. G. (2016) “Language and Culture as Conflict Resolution Tools: Rethinking English as Lingua Franca”, British Journal of English Linguistics, Vol. 4 No. 5, pp. 11-15.
Ross, M. H. (1993) “Conflict, Culture and the Cross-Cultural Method”, chapter in The Culture of Conflict: Interpretations and Interests in Comparative Perspective. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1993., pp. 15-32.
Ruiz Rosendo, L. & Barea Munoz, M. (2017) “Towards a typology of interpreters in war-related scenarios in the Middle East”, Translation Spaces, Vol.6, No.2, pp. 182-208.
Ruiz Rosendo, L. & Persaud, C. (2016) “Interpreting in conflict zones throughout history” Linguistica Antverpiensia, New Series: Themes in Translation Studies, Vol.15, pp.1–35.
Savir, U. (1998) The Process. New York: Random House.
Sela, A. & Kumaraswamy, P.R. (2001) “The Perils of Israeli Syrian Diplomatic Stalemate”, Security Dialogue, Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 11-25.
Straniero Sergio, F. (1998) “Notes on cultural mediation”, in: The Interpreters’ Newsletter, Vol. 8, Trieste, EUT Edizioni Università di Trieste, pp. 151-168.
Tobalase, A., Ogbonna, E. & Alao, O. (2017) “Conflict and Resolution: The Roles of Language, Culture, Gender and Literature” chapter in Ogbonna, E. (ed.) (2017) Discourse on Peace and Conflict: An Interdisciplinary Approach, pp. 2-23.
Todorova, M. (2016) “Interpreting conflict mediation in Kosovo and Macedonia”. Linguistica Antverpiensia, New Series: Themes in Translation Studies, Vol.15, pp. 227–240.
Uppsala Conflict Data Programme (UCDP) (2018) in Dupuy, K. & Rustad, S. A. (2018) “Trends in Armed Conflict, 1946-2017”, Conflict Trends, Vol. 5, pp. 1-4.
US Government Publishing Office (1994) “The President’s News Conference with President Hafiz al-Assad of Syria in Geneva” Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, Vol. 30, No. 3, pp. 91-96.
Vayrynen, T. (1998) “Ethnic Community and Conflict Resolution”, Cooperation and Conflict, Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 59-80.
Vayrynen, T. (2005) “A Shared Understanding: Gadamer and International Conflict Resolution”, Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 347-355.
Zartman, I. W. and M. R. Berman (1982) The Practical Negotiator. New Haven: Yale University Press.