Madrid, 2011. Israelis, Palestinians, and Europeans gather in a magnificent hall. The atmosphere is festive; the prestigious refreshments served to everyone and consumed by all attendees include glasses of champagne and small sandwiches decorated with pork. The conference marks the twentieth anniversary of the 1991 Madrid Conference: an international conference on Middle East peace convened by the United States and the Soviet Union, uniquely attended by the leaders of almost all Arab countries, along with Israeli leaders. The menu would not have been pertinent were it not for a meeting between Israeli and Palestinian leaders, who sought to resolve a bloody century-old conflict over the Land of Israel in general and Jerusalem and the Temple Mount in particular—a sacred land, city, and site with very deep religious significance for Jews and Muslims alike.

With a 30-year perspective, one can say that the Oslo Accords entirely failed to achieve their architects’ goals. The right in general and the religious parties in particular are deeply rooted in Israeli governments; among Palestinians, Hamas has grown stronger and Fatah weaker, while the Islamic movement has become predominant on the Israeli Arab street. Israeli politics have become increasingly aware of what my friends Ofer Zalzberg and Roie Ravitzky wrote:

It is insufficient to instrumentally harness members of a competing camp to secure an approval for a precooked path. Israeli society needs a new conversation about possible peace. A conversation through which disputants can form competing justifications within their disparate worldviews in order to support a new political reality. For such a conversation to be possible, each party ought to seek what is possible within the other’s view and perspective, rather than the most effective scheme to win him over and establish facts despite his opposition. In the intra-Israeli sense, peace cannot exist when one camp inflicts defeat on another. There is no value to an agreement which shatters the dream of a significant part of the Israeli public, destroys their worldview or ruins its Israeli-Zionist tale.[1]

The same goes when turning our eyes to the neighbor—a durable agreement cannot rely on the decision of a dictatorial leader or on an incidental majority in parliament that for many years has not been elected in a democratic process.

Contrary to what the media and interested outside parties try to depict, reality proves time and time again that the Israeli public is religiously motivated. For it, the question of the Land of Israel is not a real estate question, and the Temple Mount is not just a historic or political site but the nation’s heart and the site of its longing for many generations. Things are similar on the Arab side: al-Ard al-Muqaddasa is not mere real estate where territorial compromise is easy, and the al-Aqsa Mosque is not just one mosque among many.

So far, our Muslim neighbors have only encountered secular Israeli views, or at most those of religious groups from Israel’s political left. In each such meeting, they learned that the Israeli public with whom they have met supports their national aspiration, or at least understands this aspiration and is willing to compromise on the Land of Israel to achieve peace. The Israeli side also met only with Muslims who laud peace, truly or falsely. How disappointed both sides have been that, despite the mutual agreements, no progress has been achieved.

To rectify this deficit, one must bring together right-wing and nationalist religious authorities, Jewish and Muslim. Even if these would be tense meetings, the truth emerging from them will lead to a real chance for a solution. I have the gratifying privilege of being among the pioneers in this field in recent years.

It should be clear to any political leaders and policymakers that for a policy to receive broad, stable, and durable support, it requires four components, three of which were aptly identified by Ofer Zalzberg and Roie Ravitzky: “First, allow for multiple concurrent justifications and reasons to support such policy; second, actively strive for holders of competing worldviews to formulate justifications that fit their own perspectives; third, design policy steps in ways that can be congruent with the disparate, pertinent worldviews”,[2] and finally, to be open to the notion that peace arrangements can be very creative and meet religious and historical aspirations.

In any case, for such arrangements to become a reality, we must all accept the fact that they may be different from what has been established in the Israeli, Arab, and international consciousness—two states for two peoples based on the 1967 lines.

Out-of-the-Box Peace Agreement

A peace agreement is a formal accord between two hostile nations that officially ends a state of war and establishes peace between them. A peace agreement is intended to be a permanent resolution, distinguishing it from other temporary cessation-of-hostilities arrangements such as ceasefires or armistices.

When discussing a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians within the framework of the classical definition above, we are inevitably setting ourselves up for failure. If both sides expect to reach a peace agreement in its traditional form, they will not only fail to meet these expectations but will also, inevitably, be drawn into recurring cycles of violence and bloodshed.

Why? How Is This Conflict Different From Most Others Worldwide?

First, the geographical area is small, the population is dense, and the inhabitants are deeply interwoven. More importantly, the national aspect of the conflict is secondary to its religious dimension. The Land of Israel is regarded as the Holy Land—al-Ard al-Muqaddasa—by both Judaism and Islam.

In Jewish thought, this is the land promised by God to the people of Israel, a land imbued with inherent sanctity that remains relevant today through the observance of commandments tied to the land. Furthermore, it was granted to the Jewish people as an eternal inheritance through an irrevocable divine covenant. Consequently, the Jewish people residing in the land at any given time lack both the authority and the right to relinquish any part of it to others.

From an Islamic perspective, the Land of Israel is considered waqf land—endowed as sacred and therefore indivisible and inalienable, particularly to non-Muslims. Adding to this complexity is the historical reality that it was once under Dar al-Islam (the realm of Islam) but is now outside of it. Thus, political negotiations leading to concessions over any part of it are fundamentally unacceptable.

Given This Reality, Is the Land Doomed to Eternal Conflict? Must the Sword Devour Forever?

Not necessarily. To address this challenge, we must think creatively—outside the conventional Western framework of defining peace. Below are several conceptual approaches that interrelate and could provide alternative pathways:

A Time-Limited Peace Agreement. Given the current nature of the conflict, signing an agreement that permanently and irrevocably ends hostilities—while also granting final recognition of the opposing party’s sovereignty over a portion of the sacred land—could prove untenable for both sides. However, if the agreement includes an expiration date, after which the parties can either renew it or reopen negotiations, this could make it more feasible to sign such an accord.

An Agreement That Does Not Preclude Future Claims. Similar to the previous point, any agreement in which one side commits to an absolute and final renunciation of its legal, moral, religious, or historical right to a certain area of the Holy Land is bound to fail. If the agreement frames any concessions as temporary rather than absolute, it will be easier for both sides to accept it. Additionally, an agreement could explicitly state that willingness to forgo a current claim does not preclude future claims over the same territory.

The Holy Land—Ard al-Muqaddasa. Since the Land of Israel is sacred to both Judaism and Islam, emphasizing this religious dimension within an agreement could facilitate acceptance of territorial concessions. Such concessions would not be perceived as part of a mundane territorial dispute but rather as a temporary relinquishment of sacred land—undertaken with deep deliberation and reverence.

“The Earth Is the Lord’s, and Everything in It.” Both sides recognize that the land ultimately belongs to God. Thus, claims over specific areas should not be viewed as absolute ownership disputes but rather as assertions of custodianship over particular regions. Though this might seem like mere semantics, it could have profound psychological and diplomatic implications.

Intentionally Negotiating a Non-Final Peace Agreement. To facilitate progress, it must be made clear from the outset that the negotiation is not structured as a series of incremental steps toward a final settlement. Instead, there should be a mutual understanding that the agreement will never constitute a definitive and absolute peace accord. Without such an understanding, real progress in negotiations is unlikely, as both sides will find various pretexts to avoid advancing toward an unachievable final agreement.

By shifting the paradigm and rethinking the rigid constraints of classical Western peace agreements, new avenues for conflict resolution can emerge—ones that respect the religious, historical, and psychological complexities inherent in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.

Footnotes

[1] Ofer Zalzberg and Roie Ravitzky, “Negotiations in Heterogeneous Societies: Ratifying a Peace Agreement in Israel,” Negotiation Journal 38, no. 3 (2022).

[2] ibid.