The first interesting result was that offering money or material goods in exchange for sacred ones did not make the sacred goods less valuable but more. Expressions of anger and disgust and of the willingness to use violence actually rose among moral absolutists when a deal involving giving up some sacred value was sweetened with material incitements,
the second, more optimistic, result was that the absolutists who rejected with contumely the offer of profane money (or peace) for sacred landwould accept deals that involved their enemies giving up things that they considered sacred . The paper cites both Israeli and Hamas leaders saying that they could make peace if only the other side would apologise for 1948, or recognise formally Israel's right to exist. Demanding this kind of wholly intangible mutual surrender of pride makes no sense on a utilitarian calculus, and yet it may be the only thing to unlock the situation.

This all makes perfect sense but I never thought about it in this context.