Key takeaways:

• Identities are constructed and fluid. Dialogue efforts demonstrate how oppositional identities can change when individuals acknowledge common humanity.
• Symbols form moral legitimacy. Translating war talk from sacralised conflict to humanitarian story deconstructs the moral basis for violence.
• Norms and reputation issues serve as constraints. Even dominant states are concerned with legitimacy.
• Bottom-up and middle-range symbolic acts count. Schools, monuments, and conversations are not secondary; they are the grounds of peace.

 Introduction

The Israel–Gaza conflict is often discussed in terms of military tactics, territorial dominance, and security. Realism and Neorealism theories bring to the forefront how Israel sustains deterrence, gains from American support, and reacts to Hamas’s asymmetrical approach. These theories lack an explanation of why violence persists even after ceasefires or how substantive change might be made. Constructivism, emphasizing the social construction of identity, norms, discourse, and symbols, offers a more nuanced and more useful framework. It not only describes the endurance of the conflict but also suggests change through narrative and symbolic transformation.

Identities, Narratives, and Symbolic Legitimacy

Constructivist theory posits that identities are formed through mutual narratives, cultural memory, rituals, and symbols. In Israel, collective Holocaust memory and battles of pioneering statehood have formed a national identity that revolves around existential fear and ethical responsibility. This common trauma promotes the public’s willingness to accept forceful defence actions even aggressive wars for self-survival.

In Gaza, Palestinian identity has been shaped in the same way by the Nakba. Resistance is not so much conceived as reactive, but rather as a continuation of an ancient struggle for recognition and self-determination. These constructions of identity give the conflict existential meaning: when rockets soar or airstrikes arrive, participants understand themselves as defending collective existence.

Elite rhetoric solidifies these identity lines. For Israelis, Gaza is a hotbed of terrorism endangering national existence. Hamas contextualises its activities through religious imagery, such as using the nomenclature “Operation Al‑Aqsa Flood”, portraying the conflict as a cosmic, holy obligation. This discursive construction makes violence seem natural by attributing to its moral purpose, locating it within group intention.

Israel’s conduct in Gaza though not flawless affirms its commitment to abiding by international norms that prohibit civilian harm and the disproportionate use of force. The military takes considerable, systematic steps, such as advance warnings, evacuation corridors, and precision targeting designed not only to support operational goals but also to maintain global legitimacy. Constructivism interprets these efforts not as mere moral posturing but as strategic constraints: civilian protection norms effectively shape state behaviour because reputational damage can weaken alliances, curtail diplomatic support, and invite legal scrutiny. Israel’s ongoing adherence, even amid fierce urban combat, demonstrates a calculated balance between military necessity and international expectations.

At the same time, public speech on both sides often imbues conflict with heightened moral urgency. Within Israel, some religious and historical rhetoric invoking biblical imagery or reference to ancient threats serves to affirm national unity and the existential stakes of the conflict. While these symbols can add moral weight, they risk elevating violence from strategic defence to moral absolutism. Constructivist theory suggests that reframing this symbolic discourse emphasising shared humanity, collective suffering, and the universal value of life can undercut the moral justification for violence and open avenues for de-escalation and reconciliation.

Creating New Social Meaning

Constructivist conflict resolution theory stresses the fact that durable peace needs identity change, rather than policy reform. This is shown by real-world programs under the leadership of the Parents Circle–Families Forum (PCFF). With more than 700 bereaved Israeli and Palestinian families, PCFF hosts a series of “Dialogue Encounters” in which an Israeli and a Palestinian briefly tell stories of loss and decide on reconciliation rather than revenge. These ninety-minute meetings—now exceeding 8,500 sessions and involving over 250,000 youth and adults—produce measurable shifts: 76% of participants report increased trust, 65% greater empathy, and growing belief in peace initiatives.

These interactions realign perception. Where once the other was seen as a threat or abstraction by participants, they come to understand them as human people with dignity and their own grief. This is verified in follow-up studies: even among conflicting groups, conversation promotes mutual knowledge and positive transformation, demonstrating that identities can change.

In addition to dialogue, PCFF enables joint commemoration ceremonies. The annual Israeli‑Palestinian Memorial Day ceremony grounded in sorrow was held in 2023 with more than 15,000 participants and 200,000 online attendees. Such rituals establish symbolic public spheres in which sorrow is shared, allowing participants to grieve in common instead of being apart. The contested reception of the ceremony acknowledges the contested nature of identity change, demonstrating both challenge and promise of shared meaning.

Institutional efforts like integrated bilingual schools (i.e., Hand in Hand) and youth dialogue initiatives further inculcate new forms of coexistence. Hand in Hand has a presence in several communities, teaching more than 2,000 Arab and Jewish students in a model that encourages intergroup understanding and has received national awards for its inclusive curriculum. Just so, youth-oriented programs like “The Dialoguers” bring Israeli and Palestinian youth together for guided conversations, establishing empathy and a sense of shared agency.

Norm entrepreneurs, religious leaders, teachers, NGO representatives serve as moral innovators. They subvert war-centric narratives and champion new values: protection of civilians, empathy, non-violence. Symbolic leadership redefines legitimate action, gradually shaping social norms and political options.

Confidence-building measures, humanitarian ceasefires, shared visits to holy places, joint cultural initiatives have symbolic significance. They may appear trivial relative to missile exchanges, but from a Constructivist perspective, they are significant: they communicate that the middle ground is reachable. They can transform public attitudes over time about what is possible.

Most importantly, all of this does not exclude Israeli security requirements. Deterrence against rocket attacks and safeguarding civilians are still necessary. Water, infrastructure, reconstruction, and ceasefire regimes are needed. Constructivism calls for a hybrid approach: material security along with symbolic and narrative change. Without both, peace is shallow—just islands of tranquillity, susceptible to the next outbreak.

Conclusion

The conflict between Israel and Gaza is not merely a fight for territory and security, it is a war of meaning. Realism describes how power operates. Neorealism explains structural limitations. Constructivism provides answers to why conflict endures and how it can be overcome: by changing collective identities, symbolic redefinition, and social norms.

Peace takes more than diplomatic talks or military deterrence. It takes reframing what Palestinians and Israelis believe they are and can become as one people. It takes empathetic stories to supplant threat stories. It takes shared sorrow to supplant demonisation. It takes civic and educational systems to maintain new meanings.

Constructivism is not pie-in-the-sky idealism; it is a realistic paradigm based on evidence from the real world, theoretical consistency, and moral clarity. It isn’t dismissive of security. It puts it in a more encompassing matrix of narrative transformation, symbolic politics, and normative change. If peace is a function of meaning, then building peace is an enterprise of remaking identity. That is the way to lasting coexistence and Constructivism provides both map and compass.