Amina has lived through multiple ceasefire announcements since fleeing her home. Each announcement is accompanied by expectations that violence may subside, humanitarian access may improve, or displacement may become temporary rather than permanent. These expectations are common among civilian populations affected by protracted conflict.
In practice, ceasefires frequently break down or remain limited in scope. When violence resumes, the gap between political commitments and lived reality becomes more pronounced. Research on conflict settings shows that repeated, short lived peace measures can erode public confidence rather than build it, particularly when they fail to deliver tangible improvements in security or access to basic services.
Amina’s experience reflects a broader pattern observed across contemporary conflicts. In many war affected contexts, peace is communicated through formal language such as agreements, negotiations, and official statements, while daily life continues to be shaped by insecurity, displacement, and loss. As a result, peace processes often remain abstract to the populations most affected by conflict.
Drawing on recent conflict briefs developed at AmityPoint Institute and supported by broader peacebuilding research, the cases of Israel–Palestine, Sudan, Ethiopia and Ukraine reveal recurring challenges in how peace efforts are designed and implemented (AmityPoint Institute, 2026).
The gap between peace processes and lived reality
Peacebuilding is often discussed through negotiations, frameworks and diplomatic milestones. For people living in conflict these processes are experienced very differently.
In Sudan civilian movements played a decisive role in challenging authoritarian rule yet peace initiatives increasingly centered on negotiations between armed elites. Research shows that peace processes which exclude civilian actors are far more likely to fail because they lack legitimacy and public ownership (Bell & Pospisil, 2017). This dynamic was reflected in repeated breakdowns of agreements and renewed violence (AmityPoint Institute, 2026).
In Israel–Palestine decades of negotiations have continued alongside deepening inequality and territorial fragmentation. Scholars argue that negotiations conducted under conditions of occupation risk managing conflict rather than resolving it (Pappe, 2015). For many Palestinians the peace process feels detached from daily realities such as restricted movement’ insecurity and displacement (AmityPoint Institute, 2026).
Peace efforts that do not translate into tangible improvements in people’s lives deepen mistrust and disengagement.
Measures are taken but power remains untouched
Across the briefs peace efforts rely heavily on ceasefires, confidence building measures and formal agreements. These tools matter but they often leave underlying power relations unchanged.
In Ethiopia the signing of a peace agreement reduced large-scale fighting, yet political exclusion, humanitarian constraints and accountability gaps remain. Peacebuilding literature describes this as negative peace where violence decreases but structural injustice persists (Galtung, 1969). As a result communities experience stability without resolution (AmityPoint Institute, 2026).
In Ukraine diplomatic efforts are constrained by occupation security concerns and the involvement of external actors. Negotiations during active interstate conflict face severe limitations particularly where territorial sovereignty is contested (Autesserre, 2021). For civilians displacement, loss and uncertainty continue while political solutions remain distant (AmityPoint Institute, 2026).
When peace measures do not address power asymmetries, they struggle to produce lasting outcomes.
The cost of failed peace is carried by civilians
The consequences of failed peace processes extend far beyond political negotiations.
Repeated ceasefire violations in Sudan reinforced perceptions that armed actors face little accountability. In Israel–Palestine prolonged negotiations alongside worsening conditions have weakened trust in diplomacy. In Ethiopia uncertainty following the agreement has left communities suspended between war and peace (AmityPoint Institute, 2026).
Research shows that repeated failure of peace initiatives increases public cynicism and reduces support for future negotiations (McEvoy & McGregor, 2008). Failed peace efforts do not simply reset. They accumulate social, psychological and political harm.
Peace treated as an event rather than a process
A recurring issue across the conflicts is the tendency to treat peace as a single moment rather than a long term political process.
Once agreements are signed international attention often shifts elsewhere. Funding declines and engagement weakens. Yet sustainable peace requires long term commitment, institutional reform and social repair (Lederach, 1997).
When peace is treated as an endpoint rather than a process its foundations remain fragile and vulnerable to collapse.
What these conflicts ask of peacebuilding
These conflicts differ in history, scale and political context. Yet they raise shared questions.
Who defines peace?
Who benefits from it?
And whose lives actually change?
At AmityPoint Institute these questions guide ongoing research and dialogue. The conflict briefs are working documents intended to center lived experience alongside political analysis. Peace cannot succeed if it remains distant from the people it claims to serve.
Until peace efforts are designed with these realities at their core the gap between promise and practice will continue to shape conflict outcomes.
References
AmityPoint Institute. (2026). Conflict briefs on Israel–Palestine Sudan Ethiopia and Ukraine. Unpublished internal working papers. Authors Amal Mansoor Niall Francesca Smaragda Togo. Amsterdam.
Autesserre, S. (2021). The frontlines of peace. Oxford University Press.
Bell, C., & Pospisil, J. (2017). Navigating inclusion in transitions from conflict. Journal of International Development, 29(5), 576–593.
Galtung, J. (1969). Violence peace and peace research. Journal of Peace Research, 6(3), 167–191.
Lederach, J. P. (1997). Building peace sustainable reconciliation in divided societies. United States Institute of Peace Press.
McEvoy, K., & McGregor, L. (2008). Transitional justice from below. Hart Publishing.
Pappe, I. (2015). The biggest prison on earth. Oneworld Publications.
