For example, I'm from Israel. Two hundred hundred moons ago, I was involved in a civil peace initiative. The point was for citizens to discuss this unofficial peace document so that it could form the basis of an official one at some point... Peace agreements are "war by other means" par excellence.
Anyway... this conflict is most definitely about land. What made this specific initiative ballsy was the fact that it included maps and took on land issues directly. This also meant that only extreme peaceniks from either side would go anywhere near the project.
What where our discussions about? Narratives. What were our disagreements about? Narratives. What compromises did we fail to make? Narratives. What happened. What it means. What proverbial schoolchildren should be taught. What symbolic steps must be taken to in recognition of the correct narrative.
BTW... active fighters were involved in this initiative. Israeli soldiers and palestinian militants. A lot of them. They even had their own groups. Disavowing violence was not a precondition to participating. Disavowing violence rarely came up as a demand or request by participants. People could, often, understand and live with past and future violence. Disavowing narratives and symbolism was constantly demanded as a precondition to everything.
Hostile, competing narratives and symbols are a deep essense of conflict. They aren't just caused by conflict. They don't just cause conflict. They are conflict.
I'm also irish, and the story of northern ireland is also proof of this idea.