This is not my area of expertise as a Mediator, however here are a few ideas for those of you who do Mediate International Disputes of this nature:

I think that the key is to explore and reveal ‘common ground’, by shifting the focus from ‘theological truth’ to ‘physical survival’.

Mediator Tools:

1. ‘Reframe the Narrative’ – Move the conversation away from ‘Who is right?’ toward ‘What is the cost of total destruction?’

2. ‘Identify Shared Sacred Values’ – Find ‘neutral’ religious tenets, such as the protection of non-combatants, holy sites, or the preservation of the faith itself.

3. ‘The “Lesser Evil” Argument’ – Frame a ceasefire not as a compromise of faith, but as a necessary pause to prevent the total erasure of the people the faith is meant to protect.

4. ‘Intra-faith Diplomacy’ – Engage respected religious scholars or clerics from within the same tradition to provide alternative interpretations of scripture that permit peace.

5. ‘Decouple Politics from Prophecy’ – Help leaders distinguish between their immediate ‘political survival’ and the ultimate religious ‘end times’ timeline.

6. ‘Focus on “Life-Support” Interests’ – While interests may not converge on a ‘spiritual level’, they must converge on a ‘biological level’.

This is linked to:

6.1 ‘Humanitarian Corridors’ – Establish shared ‘zones’ for food, water, and medicine.

These also create a ‘habit of cooperation.’

6.2 ‘Resource Interdependence’ – Highlight shared needs like ‘water rights’ or ‘environmental stability’ that exist regardless of the religious outcome.

7. ‘Strategic Ambiguity’ – In religious conflicts, ‘winning’ is often defined as fulfilling a ‘prophecy’.

A Mediator can use ‘Strategic Ambiguity’ to:

7.1 Draft agreements that allow both sides to claim their religious requirements have been met, or at least not violated.

7.2 Avoid language that requires one side to admit their theological vision was ‘wrong.’

8. ‘Time-Framing’ / The ‘Not Yet’ Strategy – If a group believes a holy war is inevitable, a Mediator can push the ‘convergence’ into the timing.

Instead of arguing against the prophecy, argue that ‘now is not the appointed time.’

This allows parties to ‘de-escalate’ without feeling like they have betrayed their core beliefs.

What other Mediator Tools can you recommend?

In an eschatological conflict, where the aggressor believes that they are fulfilling a divine end-times prophecy, a ‘Chosen People’ narrative often creates a rigid in-group v. out-group binary.

Using the ‘Brotherhood of Man’ concept can disrupt this by shifting the framework from theological exceptionalism to universal kinship.

Mediation can pivot the definition of being ‘chosen’ from a status of privilege or dominance to one of stewardship and responsibility.

If all men are brothers, then being ‘chosen’ means being the first-born sibling tasked with protecting and caring for the rest of the human family, rather than a mandate to eliminate them.

Most eschatological frameworks (especially Abrahamic ones) share a common lineage.

Reminding the aggressor that their ‘enemy’ is a literal or spiritual descendant of the same father (e.g., Adam or Abraham) forces them to reconcile their religious aggression with the divine prohibition against fratricide.

It turns a ‘holy war’ into a ‘family feud,’ which carries a different moral weight.Eschatological fervour depends on dehumanization.

The ‘Brotherhood of Man’ concept, reintroduces the faces of mothers, fathers, and children into the equation.

It challenges the aggressor to see the divine image in their opponent, suggesting that to strike their ‘brother’ is to strike at the Creator who made both.

If the goal is a ‘Kingdom of God’ or a state of ultimate peace, Mediators can argue that such a destiny cannot be built on the blood of brothers.

By emphasizing shared humanity, they can argue that the ‘end-times’ peace is only valid if it encompasses the whole human family, not just a select branch.

In colonial history, eschatology – the theological study of the ‘end times’, was frequently usurped as a psychological and political tool to justify expansion, pacify resistance, and moralise resource extraction.

By framing colonial conquest as a divine mandate necessary to fulfil biblical prophecy, imperial powers transformed geopolitical violence into a sacred duty.

European powers often adopted the ‘chosen people’ narrative from Old Testament conquests (e.g., Canaan).

This provided a moral framework where conquering indigenous lands was seen as a divinely ordained step toward the ‘Second Coming’ of Christ.

In various colonial contexts, particularly in Africa, introduced eschatological doctrines served to dampen collective resistance. By focusing the indigenous population’s attention on a future ‘heavenly’ reward, colonial authorities could more easily maintain exploitative earthly arrangements.

Modern critiques argue that eschatological rhetoric (such as ‘Zionist Christian’ narratives) continues to provide an aura of ancient legitimacy to contemporary campaigns of sovereign violation and resource control.

Rhetoric used by influential preachers and policymakers often links biblical terms like ‘justice’ or ‘redemption’ to colonial or neocolonial outcomes like ‘regime change’ or ‘oil-sector stability’.

See also:

Game Theory #9: The US-Iran War: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIS2eB-rGv0

Game Theory #10: The Law of Asymmetry: Game Theory #10: The Law of Asymmetry – YouTube

Game Theory #11: The Law of Escalation: Game Theory #11: The Law of Escalation

Game Theory #12: The Law of Eschatological Convergence’:
Game Theory #12: The Law of Eschatological Convergence

Comments added:

Anthony Paphiti  –  Academic Associate at Cornwall Street Barristers

These are some excellent suggestions.
If I may, I would add, Start out slow: limit your initial agenda to a small number of ‘easy wins’ (eg ceasefire; prisoner exchanges; political dialogue). This establishes a positive relationship of cooperation, which is important for gradually developing in subsequent sessions. Then gradually work up to the meat of the issues in subsequent sessions. This means identifying beforehand the number of sessions you are likely to need to discuss the most important issues, and how you can build a progression model that starts from the easy points to the trickiest. To ensure there is always a positive message at the end, include an “easy win”.
After each dialogue, and whenever possible, agree a joint press statement that instils a positive message of progress.
Always treat each side with courtesy and respect. Although it is a given, it is in my view worth emphasising, especially when matters of religion play such an integral role in the vision of each party.