The Israel-Palestine conflict is not just a local or specific conflict about allocating resources and political power in a divided country, but is an inflammatory political issue around the world. Recent research conducted by Jeremy Ginges, professor of psychology at the New School for Social Research and Eugene Lang College and Scott Atran, an anthropologist at the National Center for Scientific Research in Paris, John Jay College and the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, shows the importance of intangible concessions, like an apology or recognition of a right to exist, in an effort to resolve the conflict.

They conducted survey and interview research with 4,000 Palestinians and Israelis, as well as political leaders on both sides, which consisted of proposing various solutions and compromises to the Israel-Palestine conflict, and were surprised to find out that meaningful solutions involved symbolic sacrifices and apologies.

More important than money, land, or guaranteed statehood for Palestinians, would be an official Israeli apology for Palestinian suffering in the 1948 war. And Israelis are more interested in an official declaration by Hamas and other Palestinian leaders that they recognize Israel's right to exist, and change their school textbooks accordingly, than with maintaining current borders and forbidding Palestinians the right to return to their old land and homes.

An Op-Ed by Ginge and Atran that explains their findings appeared in the New York Times  on January 24.