Despite narratives about religion or ideology, the core of many international conflicts is economic control over critical resources like oil. A nation's reaction to attacks on its oil infrastructure versus its leaders reveals the true economic nature of the fight.

Despite ideological or religious motivations, sustained conflict is impossible without economic support. Even highly motivated groups cannot fight without money to buy weapons and maintain their infrastructure, revealing economics as the fundamental, inescapable driver of global power dynamics and war.

Rather than a peace deal, the Abraham Accords signaled to Palestinians that their cause was being permanently sidelined by the Arab world. This removal of hope for a future state, guest Dave Smith argues, created the desperation that set the stage for violent outbreaks like October 7.

The Roman emperor Hadrian renamed the province of Judea to 'Palestina' after the Philistines, an ancient enemy of the Israelites. This was a deliberate act to sever the connection between the Jewish people and their land following a failed rebellion, an ancient example of political rebranding with modern implications.

The popularity of extremist groups like Hamas is inversely correlated with the viability of a peace process. During periods when a two-state solution seemed possible, support for Hamas declined. When hope for a political resolution collapses, extremism surges as people turn to violence as their only perceived option.

For deep-seated issues like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, pursuing a grand final solution is often counterproductive. A better approach is to "shrink the conflict" through practical, tangible steps like building transportation corridors, which can reduce friction and build momentum for an eventual resolution.

The only historically effective method to resolve deep-rooted religious and ideological conflicts is to shift focus toward shared economic prosperity. Alliances like the Abraham Accords create tangible incentives for peace that ideology alone cannot, by making life demonstrably better for citizens.

Viewing the conflict as two rational sides in a misunderstanding is flawed. Both sides see the other as an existential threat and are willing to use extreme violence to achieve their goals. This reframes the narrative from a political dispute to a primal, violent tribal conflict where both sides see themselves as righteous.

Geopolitical solutions based on earthly incentives like economic development are bound to fail when dealing with an ideology focused on martyrdom. If people believe the ultimate goal is paradise after death, they won't compromise for a better life for their children now.