This chapter suggests that there are two interrelated mechanisms that account for the continuation of conflicts. The first concerns securitization moves and meta-securitization moves which contribute to the perceived remaining of the threat and thus justifies the conflict itself. Second, once the conflict is (meta-)securitized, it becomes a constitutive element of the self, thus validating the actors’ ontological security. In such situations, peace processes both contest the parties’ ability to hold a coherent narrative of who they are, and their ability to affirm their selves through their interactions with the enemy. The point, however, is that while the attachment to the conflict is rigid, changes in reality on ground bring the actors to reconstruct the conflict in order to credibly maintain it. The chapter uses the Arab–Israeli conflict as an illustration of these dynamics. Although the narrative of the Arab–Israeli conflict is prominent, the threats that are part of it have been significantly modified over the years. On the one hand, the major threats from some countries in the region significantly decreased, but on the other hand, other threats were incorporated into the metanarrative of the conflict, including a number of non-state challenges (e.g. terrorism) and even a non-Arab country (Iran). Drawing on these findings, the chapter concludes by pointing out some implications concerning conflict resolution.