When Peace Looks Likely, Israelis Back Concessions

Why Expectations Matter for Peace?

Public willingness to compromise is often described as a necessary precursor to conflict resolution. Alon Yakter and Liran Harsgor take on a central debate: do changing expectations about the prospects for peace cause people to become more willing to make concessions, or do prior ideological commitments shape biased forecasts about the future? Resolving this question matters for how policymakers and mediators should try to build public support for peace deals.

What the Study Analyzes

The authors study opinion dynamics in the Israeli context, using rich survey evidence spanning two decades. The core concept is prospective expectations—citizens' beliefs about the future chances of reaching peace—and how those expectations relate to policy preferences, specifically support for compromise and concessions in a violent, long-standing conflict.

How Causality Is Tested

Instead of relying solely on correlations, the paper leverages two distinct exogenous shocks to public expectations about peace and a monthly time series of aggregate survey measures over twenty years. By examining how support for compromise moves after abrupt, plausibly exogenous changes in expectations, the design isolates the direction of influence from expectations to preferences.

Key Findings

• Changes in prospective expectations predict subsequent shifts in public support for compromise: when expectations for peace improve, willingness to make concessions rises.
• The analysis finds no evidence that preexisting policy preferences systematically drive future expectations, nor that the relationship is null, reversed, or strongly heterogeneous across groups.

What This Means for Conflict Resolution

The results suggest that efforts to improve public outlooks about the prospects for peace—through credible signaling, confidence-building measures, or truthful information—can translate into greater public support for concessions. That linkage matters for negotiators and scholars interested in the political feasibility of settlements in entrenched violent disputes.

Who Did the Work

This evidence-based contribution comes from Alon Yakter and Liran Harsgor and advances debates at the intersection of public opinion, expectations, and peace processes.