A new study reveals that even acts of help in conflict zones can lead to negative consequences. When members of a dominant group witness initiatives aimed at improving the lives of the disadvantaged side, without addressing underlying political issues, they may feel morally satisfied and, as a result, become less supportive of meaningful concessions for peace. The findings highlight the importance of coupling humanitarian aid with genuine political change to create lasting peace.

At first glance, helping those on the other side of a conflict seems like an act of compassion and progress. Yet new research from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem shows that even seemingly well-intentioned initiatives can produce the opposite result.

The study, published in Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, explored how members of an advantaged group respond to their ingroup initiative to help a disadvantaged group in a long-term conflict. Using a real Israeli initiative that sought to “shrink the conflict” by improving Palestinians’ daily lives without altering the political reality, the researchers examined how exposure to such actions affects public attitudes.

More than 350 Jewish Israelis took part in the experiment. About half of them were exposed to the initiative’s campaign materials before answering questions about their views on the conflict. The findings were striking: right-wing participants who were exposed to the campaign were less supportive of political concessions needed for peace, felt less moral responsibility for the conflict, and were less hopeful that peace could be achieved than those who didn’t watch the campaign.

“These results reveal an interesting pattern,” said Eli Adler, a joint PhD candidate at the Hebrew University and Aalto University. “Policies that aim to improve lives may appear as positive advances, but when they are not accompanied by meaningful political change, they make people feel that progress has been made while the real underlying issues remain unresolved.”

The researchers explain this through a psychological process called moral licensing, in which doing something good creates a sense of moral completion, lowering the drive to take more difficult or uncomfortable actions. “Helping the other side can be an important human gesture,” added Prof. Eran Halperin, from the Hebrew University’s Department of Psychology. “But when such efforts replace political solutions instead of complementing them, they can ease moral tension and make compromise feel less urgent. These findings suggest that, in the long term, conflict management initiatives will only prolong the conflict, and that we need to make real compromises to solve it.”

Although the study focused on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, the insights apply broadly. In any prolonged and unequal conflict, acts of goodwill from the stronger side, no matter how sincere, can sometimes reinforce the existing dynamic unless paired with structural and political change.

“Goodwill alone cannot bring peace,” said Adler. “It must be accompanied by courage, shared responsibility, and a willingness to address inequality directly. Otherwise, even the best intentions risk becoming part of the problem rather than the solution.”