When helping hurts: Study finds humanitarian aid without political change can undermine peace efforts

New research from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has found that humanitarian efforts aimed at improving daily life in conflict zones can backfire when they are not matched with meaningful political reform, raising fresh questions about a long-held belief in peace-building.

The study, published in Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, found that members of dominant groups in protracted conflicts can experience a form of moral licensing when exposed to aid initiatives. This creates a sense that they have done enough good, easing pressure to support deeper political compromise.

“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,” said Eli Adler, a joint PhD candidate at Hebrew University and Aalto University who led the study.

The research focused on an Israeli project designed to shrink the conflict by improving Palestinians’ quality of life without confronting core political disputes. More than 350 Jewish Israeli participants were divided into two groups, with half shown campaign material promoting the initiative before answering questions about their views on the conflict.

The findings showed a clear shift among right-wing participants. Those who viewed the material expressed less support for political concessions needed for peace, felt reduced moral responsibility for the conflict, and reported less hope for achieving a lasting agreement compared with participants who did not see the material.

The psychologists link this pattern to moral licensing, a process where doing something good creates a sense of moral completion that reduces motivation for harder or more uncomfortable actions.

“Helping the other side can be an important human gesture,” said Professor Eran Halperin from 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.”

The researchers say the findings apply well beyond the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, noting similar risks in any long-running and unequal struggle where a more powerful group offers assistance without confronting structural causes of division.

“Goodwill alone cannot bring peace,” Adler said. “It must be matched with 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.”

The study argues that humanitarian programmes in conflict zones should be designed to support, and not substitute for, political negotiations and systemic reforms that deal with the roots of conflict.

The full paper, One step forward, two steps back: The dark side of helping initiatives in protracted conflicts, appears in Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology.