Longstanding intergroup conflict is one of the most perilous issues on the global stage, leading to violence, displacement, and loss of life. Finding strategies to bring parties to the negotiation table is therefore of utmost importance to address the human suffering that comes along with protracted conflict. Here, I examine a common problem that arises when parties in intergroup conflict wish to work towards peace – namely, the lack of a shared, native language through which to communicate – and test how different methods of overcoming this linguistic barrier influence receptiveness to peacebuilding initiatives. To address this question, I conducted a series of studies in Israel on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which stands as a prominent instance of violent, protracted conflict that is still ongoing today. In Chapter 1, I examined the consequences of offering Jewish-Israelis a peacebuilding initiative through different communication mediums – either in their native language (Hebrew) or a lingua franca (English) shared between parties. Here, the same peacebuilding proposal was judged as being worse for own’s own side when offered through a lingua franca both when it was from an ingroup (Israeli) or outgroup (Palestinian) delegation. In Chapter 2, I explored the underlying reason for this communication medium effect and tested whether communication medium influences receptiveness to other forms of conflict-relevant information. I found that peacebuilding measures offered through the native language of the recipient elicited a more positive affective response which in turn improved proposal evaluations. However, the positive effects of sharing information through the native language of the recipient did not make people more open to historical narratives from the conflict offered by the other side. Finally, in Chapter 4, I examine how the perceived accent of a speaker influences receptiveness to peacebuilding initiatives by testing how Jewish-Israelis responded to a peacebuilding proposal offered by a Palestinian delegate with varying degrees of Arabic-accented Hebrew. Jewish-Israelis evaluated the same peacebuilding proposal offered by a heavier Arabic-accented Hebrew delegate as being worse for their own side than when the same proposal was offered through more native-like Hebrew. Furthermore, when the delegate had a heavier Arabic-accented Hebrew accent he was judged more harshly in both perceived status and warmth, which in turn influenced proposal evaluations. Importantly though, this effect was only detected when the speaker was perceived as having heavier accent, as both the proposal and delegate himself were judged similarly to a more native-like speaker when he had a milder accent. Broadly, these findings indicate that the seemingly innocuous choice of how to communicate with the other side during conflict can have serious implications on peacebuilding efforts in conflict.