As demonstrated in Part I, the roots of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict run deep, and the challenges presented by the holy sites to a solution to that conflict are well recognized. To date, over seventy proposals have been offered by governmental leaders, international NGOs, and interested scholars. The question naturally arises as to what makes this effort different.

Clearly, given the long history and number of proposals made, absolute originality is impossible. Nonetheless, a number of features are different from most prior efforts. These include both structural and conceptual differences. First, we start with a modest objective: not of formulating a final settlement to all elements of the conflict, but rather to tackle what has been identified as one of the most emotional obstacles to peace – the status of the holy sites. In past efforts to address the conflict, the holy sites have frequently emerged as tools or weapons used to obstruct a settlement or as alternatives to direct negotiations, thereby magnifying the difficulty. For example, individual holy sites have been used as a means of asserting a political claim over territory. Separating out the holy sites narrows the range for negotiation and focuses it upon the most emotive and potentially subversive topic.

Second, the project seeks to localize the negotiation. A majority of prior proposals were offered by outsiders to the conflict, ranging from the British during the Mandate up through the United Nations. The Holy Sites Project rejects that approach.