The paper aims to explore influence of impartiality of the Turkey’s mediation efforts since 2002 in the conflicts of Israel-Syria and Israel-Palestine on the Turkey’s mediation outcomes perceived by the disputants which are Israel, Palestine and Syria. This research examines the mediation process as a triangular process rather than dyadic by taking every disputants’ perception towards the mediator into account. To this aim, comparative case study is used which is Turkey’s mediation efforts in Syrian- Israeli and Israeli- Palestinian conflicts since 2002. The comparative case study method I use is the Most Similar System Designs (MSSD) in which cases are chosen because they are similar in most of the aspects. The cases differ on only one or two independent variables The research consists of a textual analysis and in depth interviews. Most of the data used in this study derived from the official declarations of high level policy makers of Turkey, Israel, Palestine and Syria since 2002 as well as qualified newspaper accounts and academic writings. In order to complement those sources, interviews were conducted with the high level foreign policy makers of Turkey. The research question focuses on a particular area of disagreement in the mediation literature which pertains to the role of impartiality in facilitator/communicator strategies. The findings of the research have implications both in theory and policy. Theoretically, the research indicate that ongoing discussions in the literature about the influence of the impartiality on the effective mediation outcome is not sufficient enough to capture all the aspects of the mediation process. I argue that impartiality single-handedly is not solely enough to initiate a successful mediation, rather a mediator ought to have balanced bias with each disputant. Second theoretical implication as this study demonstrated that the distinction between impartiality in behavior and attitude should be differentiated as they causes different outcomes in the mediation process. In terms of policy implications, the findings show that Turkey as a mediator could utilize its partiality by establishing a balanced relative bias towards disputants in order to achieve successful outcomes. Secondly, Turkey’s impartiality in behavior, not necessarily impartiality in attitude; has a more positive influence on achieving successful outcomes.