Joi Ito's Web

Joi Ito's conversation with the living web.

Daniel Lubetzky @ One Voice
International Campaign Against Extremism

After a successful pilot in Chicago with talks at four universities, OneVoice decided to roll out this fall an International Education program. The program aims to counteract polarization on campuses and communities worldwide - sending Israeli and Palestinian OV representatives with nationalist credentials from each side to college campuses plagued with divisions. They will discuss OV's work and methodology and expose students and community leaders to the imperative alternative of working together pragmatically to support their leaders' quest towards conflict resolution.

The program was conceived after the realization that extremist groups pervade outside the region even though they are out of whack with mainstream Israelis and Palestinians. Over the past couple years, destructive campaigns aimed at de-legitimizing Israel through divestment campaigns or at dehumanizing all Palestinians as terrorists have been corrosive. Hopefully as audiences hear the visions and ambitious of the people living with the consequences, extremists will be exposed as false messiahs that are not helping the cause of their people.

We had a debate on IRC yesterday about whether moderate voices can win over extremists. The discussion started from my post referring to extremists in Japan and Korea, but the discussion lead to a discussion about extremists in the Israeli Palestinian conflict. There was a very convincing argument made that the extremists have won and the aggression is now supported by the majority, therefore fighting until surrender was the only alternative. The idea of trying to fight against extremism was written off as naive. I am not an expert in the Israeli Palestinian conflict, but whenever I hear about what Daniel Lubetzky and One Voice is doing, I have hope. I have hope that the voice of the reason can bring peace without fighting each other to the death. It also brings me hope that we can resolve conflicts in our regions by connecting people and fighting against extremism in all of our countries.

I agree that it is not just the extremists who harbor bad thoughts or engage in bad acts, but they are usually the source of the polarization and try to keep education and communication of the main stream from moving forward.


Weren't/aren't Martin Luther King Jr, Ghandi, Malcolm X, the Dalai Lama, and Nelson Mandela all extremists? They might be beneficial extremists but they're extremists nonetheless.

Heck, even in non-political circles there are lots of extremists we wouldn't want to lose. Take Larry Lessig. No moderate on the copyright issue in his right mind would volunteer his time and pedigree to take a copyright extension term to the supreme court.

Starting a cause against extremism is like mandating by law that all drugs be diluted by 50% to prevent overdosing and side effects. Mutual education and involvement of extremists on both sides is a better tact. It'll take time, money, and some really thick skin but I can't see how any other solution will last.

So maybe this should be qualified. I think extremists who urge violence and racism are very different from "extremists" (I would call them radicals) who use somewhat extreme (but non-violent) tactics to preach balance, fairness, equality and other values which are not generally polarizing.

You do need to involve the extremists in the dialog, but what you're fighting extremism on a tactical level in their method of influencing the middle majority and recruiting.

Partially due to the nature of mass media and partially due to the way political collective action works, I believe that extremists have louder voice than the size of their constituency and are able to use this voice to turn what was an extreme view into a common one. As you say, this tactic can also be used by non-violent groups, but recently for the most part, the extreme positions being held in most countries are focused on polarizing rather than equalizing or harmonizing.

We at OneVoice define "violent extremists" as people resorting to violence as they seek to attain absolutist visions that deny the humanity of the other side. These include Palestinian terrorists that would kill innocent Israeli civilians or militant Israeli settlers that seek to explode the Al Aqsa Mosque or to assassinate elected representatives in order to derail the hopes of millions.

Extremism of all kinds brings polarization and acute partisan divisions that are at odds with the vast majority of the population, and violent extremism is a particularly cancerous scourge that threatens civil society as we know it. As individuals magnify their power to impact society through technology and media coverage, it becomes more and more incumbent on ordinary citizens that are traditionally passive to stand up and become engaged in the political process, to build a base of support and a mantle of legitimacy for good leaders. Otherwise the violent few will always derail the hopes of the overwhelming but heretofore silent majority for a resolution of the conflict.

We definitely need to activate and vitalize the center, the core, and we can hope to create "radical" moderates -- active and passionate people from the mainstream. It is a red herring to start saying that anyone who has passion or determination for a cause is an "extremist." The problem is with people that will resort to violence to achieve absolutist aims.

Joi, (as you probably already know) I am an expert on the MidEast and I don't think that the Arab-Israeli conflict should be used as an example for a general discussion of "extremists." This is because the word "extremism" itself falls into a semantic argument (which you already addressed in your response to the first anonymous reply to this post). Also as many people almost always fail to address, the Arab-Israeli conflict is also a cross-cultural conflict so the definitions of extremist differ greatly because of that context. I applaud anyone who attempts to bring peace to the region but for conceptual debates on IRC it is probably best to avoid the topic. Perhaps we should invent a corollary to Godwin's law that all debates will eventually lead to a comparison to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This is unfortunate because so many people love to argue about it but know so little about the topic.

Please don't take offense, but Ori, I went to your site and don't see what would make you an expert on the Arab/Israeli conflict. I understand you are a filmmaker but, in all honesty, anyone can say they are an expert. I ask because I think it's important that people do establish their expertise before calling themselves one.

However, I do agree so many people argue about things that they know nothing about.


You didn't look hard enough. All the tell-tale signs are there but only for those who actually want to read through the boring stuff (which understandably most do not).

Anyways, those who know me also know my expertise and trying to re-establish my background as to "prove" it is exactly why I don't think the MidEast conflicts should be discussed online.

I'll give you this thought experiment: judge my point as though I am NOT a MidEast expert. Is my point not just as valid? If it is, then isn't anyone else's opinion of my self-proclaimed expertise irrelevant?

Ori, wake up please. You're dreamin'

I believe any and every subject should be openly discussed freely by anyone whom cares to chime in, 'expert' or not.

As for that little-shit Jew squatter camp, Israel, I could give a hoot about it or the bagel eating squatters occupying it. Having said that, I will throw my two cents in on that non-issue as often as I like and encourage all others to adopt the very same posture.

If I take issue with something an 'expert' has said, I'll jump in with both feet and voice my opinion whether the 'expert' or anyone else likes it or not.

And with that Pectral has just activated the Godwin's law corollary. Thank you for proving my point. Case closed.


Actually, it was acts of extremism, like the bombing of the King David hotel in Tel Aviv, I think, that enabled the Jewish inhabitants of Palestine to make the British abandon ship from their colony in 1948.

The story goes that a phone call was made to the British, who had housed British soldiers and bureaucrats in the hotel.

Given the terrible situation that Jews were in as stateless people in Europe after the war, one has to understand their need to find a 'homeland' - even if they had to do what they did to get it. I'm beginning to realize this to some extent.. as I understand more about the nightmare of the Holocaust.

Still, we're on shaky moral ground, especially when you realize that Ashkenazi Jews did not come from Palestine.. genetically. But what can one do? They needed somewhere to go..they really did..

10- Chris

Problem. In doing so they disinherited 'Palestinians' of their rightful legacies. It was their land and livelihoods the Jews took by force of arms.

You wouldn't feel so magnanimous if it was your own family's properties that were systematically looted, occupied, and were left landless, homeless, and penniless by Jew squatters, I'm sure.

You would most likely seek to recover those family assets and restore its place of honor by any means available. This is why the fighting will never end. They'll have their redress for grievances heard when they pop a nuke in the heart of 'Israel'.

The Hollowhoax never happened the way the Jew monopoly media Hymiewood entertainment combine, public/private indoctrination camps (schools) have endlessly portrayed it. Most of that history is the fabricated product of outrageous war-time propaganda, made historical fact, to demonize the enemy and justify unwarranted acts of Allied brutalities against civilian populations - Dresden fire bombing, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Tokyo fire bombing, etc.

Six-million kikes were not exterminated. None were 'exterminated'. New figures indicate the total number of Jews who died by NATURAL CAUSES - injury, illness, exposure, malnutrition - in German camps is closer to the 200,000 mark.

That's a read you won't hear coming from any establishment 'experts'.


You are in denial about a lot of things. And you are wrong in your assumption of what my life experience has been. It has been much like that of the Palestinians, actually. (That is how I became interested in genocide.)

Yes, might should not equal right. But life is also more important than property. How can the world solve this dilemma? Or is your solution simply to let the strong survive? If that is your case, it is a challenge to the weak to become strong. Perhaps that is where we are headed, I think it is very much so.

But if so, expect to be surprised at the result. Nothing in this life is predictable. And what goes around comes around.

The Holocaust really did happen. And it will almost certainly happen again, and again, and again, unless we stop that kind of thinking...globally, by dealing with situations effectively...

BTW, I fully support Palestinians efforts to recover property that was looted from them. Just as I support the efforts of the families of Jews who were systematically uprooted from Europe to recover their assets..

But we all have a birthright, and that is human life and air to breathe.. education and freedom..

Systematically, intentionally deny any group that, and there will eventually be trouble..

Yes, if you put someone in a boxcar without air, or march them 100 miles in the freezing snow, they will die.. 'of exposure' - Would you call that a 'natural cause'.

Your logic is not.

You may want to look at the records from what you call a fabrication...

(Scroll down to the set of documents entitled "Nazi Conpiracy and Aggression")

Read them...

Daniel Lubetzky, would you exempt people who kill innocent people in the violent pursuit of what THEY would define as 'non-absolutist' visions?

If you do, then you are on a slippery slope.. as some US politicians are now discovering....


I actually agree with most of what you said, i was just pointing out a loophole that I suspect some would exploit gleefully...

I think non-violence is very powerful.. Its the only way to avoid the apolcalypse that I am sure awaits us if we allow nationalism free reign to divide all of us and set us all against each other. Its all about money. Studies have shown that the very rich profit immensely from wars and that the poor and middle class disproportionately die and are impoverished in them.

Its always that way.. wars are always started for economic reasons.. disguised as other things..

Wars are one of the elites many ways of looting countries..and stealing the futures of their people..



By Dr. Gregory H. Stanton
President, Genocide Watch

Presented at the Raphael Lemkin Centenary Conference

Sponsored by the Leo Kuper Foundation, London, England

18 October 2000

©2000 Gregory H. Stanton

We are gathered today to celebrate the life of Raphael Lemkin, a man whose devotion changed the world. He did not become rich or famous during his lifetime. Yale Law School had no permanent position for him on its faculty. Many diplomats disdained his single-minded crusade as “overzealous,” and a threat to the system of state sovereignty that had reigned since the Treaty of Westphalia, as indeed it was. But faced with the horrors of the Holocaust, the United Nations finally saw for a moment that he was right; that genocide – this crime that Churchill called “the crime without a name” – should be outlawed. Raphael Lemkin named it, and devoted his life to making it a crime under international law.

When the word “genocide” was first used officially in the Nuremberg indictments – an anniversary we commemorate today – a trial began that would shake the world’s faith in the upward progress of the human race from barbarism, and would prove that all people, all cultures, all civilizations are capable of committing this terrible crime. When the Genocide Convention was passed by the United Nations in 1948, the world said, “Never again.”

But the history of the twentieth century instead proved that “never again” became “again and again.” The promise the United Nations made was broken, as again and again, genocides and other forms of mass murder killed 170 million people, more than all the international wars of the twentieth century combined.

Why? Why are there still genocides? Why are there genocidal massacres going on right now in southern Sudan by the Sudanese government against Dinka, Nuer, and Nuba; in eastern Burma by the Burmese government against the Karen; in the Democratic Republic of the Congo by both government and rebel forces against Tutsis, Banyamulenge, Hutus, Hema, and Lendu? Why has ethnic and religious hatred again reached the boiling point in Israel and Palestine; the Maluku Islands, Sri Lanka and Kashmir?

In order to prevent genocide, we must first understand it. We must study and compare genocides and develop a working theory about the genocidal process. There are many Centers for the Study of Genocide that are doing that vital work – in Montreal, New Haven, Cambridge, Massachusetts, Jerusalem, and now in Nottingham by the Aegis Trust, represented on this panel by Stephen Smith.

Genocide Watch is the Coordinator of the International Campaign to End Genocide
1804 “S” Street N.W., Washington, D.C. 20009 USA

Phone:703-448-0222 Fax:703-448-6665 Web:

In 1998, in a paper I presented to the Yale Program on Genocide Studies, I proposed a structural theory of the genocidal process, describing the stages that all genocides I have studied have gone through. As a policy-maker with the U.S. State Department at the time, I was also naturally interested in what steps could be taken at each stage to stop the process. I made a number of practical suggestions about using the institutions the world had available at the end of the twentieth century. I will briefly summarize that paper here and attach a summary as an appendix to this paper. (See Appendix 1.)

Underlying the social theory of my paper is an image of “ethno-centric man.” It seems that because all people grow up and live in particular cultures, speaking particular languages, they identify some people as “us” and others as “them.” This fundamental first stage in the process does not necessarily lead to genocide. Genocide only becomes possible with another common human tendency – considering only “our group” as human, and “de-humanizing” the others. We thus not only develop cultural centers. We also create cultural boundaries that shut other groups out, and may become the boundaries where solidarity ends and hatred begins.

We are seeing this phenomenon right now in Jerusalem. Jerusalem is a symbolic center for Jews, Muslims, and Christians. It is heavily loaded with religious significance and its control has, through the centuries, become a definitional indicator of cultural identity and domination. It has been the scene of many genocides and ethnic cleansings, including the Biblical deportation of the Jews to Babylon, and later their Diaspora by the Romans, the mass murder of its Islamic inhabitants by Christian Crusaders, and the exclusion of Jews from the Old City and Temple Mount by Muslims. When Israel was created, this volatile combination of religious-centrism and boundary-maintaining exclusion resulted in a U.N. Resolution to “internationalize” the city. If the U.N. had had the strength to enforce the resolution, perhaps it would have been a good idea. But neither the Israelis nor the Arabs ever accepted it. So we have the current situation, which has moved up the scale of stages of the genocidal process to at least stage five – polarization – and possibly to stage six, identification of Arab militant leaders who are being gunned down by snipers with silencers, while Israeli soldiers are captured and lynched by Arab mobs. It is not genocide yet (stage seven), but it is very, very close. If Saddam Hussein and the Hezbollah had their way, genocide – a new Holocaust – would begin.

Note that I said, “if the U.N had had the strength to enforce the resolution, perhaps it would have been a good idea.” But what if the U.N. Security Council had passed a resolution to implement a peace agreement, and sent in peace-keepers, but then a genocide began? That is what happened in Rwanda. There was plenty of early warning. The UNAMIR commander, General Romeo Dallaire learned of the plans for the genocide three months before it began, had conclusive evidence of massive shipments of half a million machetes to arm the killers, and knew of the training camps for the Interahamwe genocidists. Yet when he cabled the U.N. Department of Peacekeeping Operations requesting authorization to confiscate the machete caches, Kofi Annan’s deputy Iqbal Riza refused, claiming it exceeded UNAMIR’s mandate. Then when the genocide actually began in April, General Dallaire desperately asked for a Chapter Seven mandate and reinforcements to protect the thousands of Tutsis who had taken refuge in churches and stadiums. Led by the U.S., the Security Council instead voted to pull out all 2800 UNAMIR troops. General Dallaire has since said that even those troops could have saved hundreds of thousands of lives.

There are two reasons why genocide is still committed in the world:

1. The world has not developed the international institutions needed to prevent it.

2. The world’s leaders do not have the political will to stop it.

Studying genocide is not enough. Our next task should be to create the international institutions and political will to end it. There are three key institutions that must be created, and two others that must be reformed.

1. The U.N. Security Council needs a strong, independent Early Warning system to predict where and when ethnic conflict, genocide, and war are going to occur, and to present policy options to the Security Council on how to prevent or stop the conflicts. The recent report made by the special commission on U.N. Peace-keeping makes just such a recommendation, and it should be implemented and given as much independence as the U.N. system permits. Meanwhile, we NGO’s should establish our own, fully independent Early Warning network that can provide daily reports and regular policy options papers. I spent four months this year working on such an open source, unclassified reporting capacity, providing daily reports to the State Department, U.N., and interested governments. Genocide Watch hopes to raise the money to make this an ongoing service. It will become a clearing house for reports from many human rights groups as well as open sources from around the world. The open secret of the new information age is that policy-makers would get better intelligence if they read the New York Times or London Times daily, the Economist weekly, and used the Internet, than if they counted on their embassies’ classified cables.

2. The United Nations needs a standing, volunteer, professional rapid response force that does not depend on member governments’ contributions of brigades from their own armies. Articles 43 through 48 of the U.N. Charter already provide for a permanent command structure, which has never been created, and a liberal interpretation of those articles would also permit creation of a standing army. The Standing High Readiness Brigade organized by the Danes, Canadians, Dutch and others is a step in the right direction, though it still depends on national contingents. A standing U.N. force will have to have the support of at least some of the major military powers, must be large enough to effectively intervene in situations like Rwanda, and should be composed of volunteers from around the world, the best of the best, who train together specifically for U.N. peace-keeping. Jesse Helms and the Know-Nothing Right would undoubtedly oppose such a force, and he has made it a condition for U.S. payment of its U.N. assessments that such a force not be created. But Jesse won’t live forever. In fact, as far as I can tell, he still lives in the Nineteenth Century, a monument to modern taxidermy. He doesn’t represent the majority of Americans. When polled, two-thirds of the American people favor creation of such a U.N. force. And over eighty percent favor American involvement in a force to stop genocide. This year, I helped draft a Congressional resolution calling for such a U.N. Security and Police Force, which is now co-sponsored by dozens of Congressmen. It is an idea whose time will come.

3. The world needs and will soon have an International Criminal Court. Impunity for genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity must end. The ICC must be backed by the will of nations to arrest those it indicts. The ICC may not deter every genocidist, but it will put on warning every future tyrant who believes he can get away with mass murder. In 1999 and 2000 I served as the Coordinator of the Washington Working Group on the International Criminal Court. Despite the irresponsible position of my own U.S. government, which is still advocating impunity for official acts of government officials (a position that would have immunized every tyrant of the last century), the ICC will have the required sixty ratifications by the end of 2002, and the world will enter a new era of international justice, an era already envisioned by Raphael Lemkin in 1948 in the Genocide Convention’s reference to such an international tribunal.

In addition to these three institutions, there must be fundamental reforms in two existing ones.

1. The U.N. Security Council has too often been unable to act in the face of genocide or crimes against humanity because of the veto or threat of a veto by one of its Permanent Five members. There are two possible ways around this problem, short of amending the U.N. Charter. (Amending the Charter would require the consent of all of the Perm Five, and is therefore unlikely.) The Perm Five could agree in advance, possibly even by formal written treaty, that if a case of genocide is brought before the Security Council, and a majority of the Council determines that genocide has, in fact, occurred or is likely to occur, none of the Perm Five will exercise their right to veto actions by the Council, including dispatch of a peace-keeping force. A second way around the veto is the Uniting for Peace Resolution of 1950, which states that when the Security Council is unable to act because of a veto, a majority of the Council may refer the matter to the U.N. General Assembly, which can then take full action by two-thirds vote. The Uniting for Peace Resolution was used in the Suez crisis in 1956, the Congo in 1960, and most recently regarding the Palestinian situation. Though the U.S. originated it, it has now backed away from it, but historical practice has made the Uniting for Peace Resolution settled international law.

2. Every U.N. member must pay its assessments, both for regular U.N. operations and for peace-keeping operations. The U.S., of course, is the worst scoff-law, I am ashamed to say. The U.N. may have to get tough and take away the U.S. vote in the General Assembly. But eventually a better system than voluntary contributions by national governments needs to be found to finance the United Nations.

These institutional changes will not be enough to end genocide in the twenty-first century. Eventually we must return to the problem of political will. It was not for want of U.N. peace-keepers in Rwanda that 800,000 people died. They died because of the complete lack of political will by the world’s leaders to save them. Indeed, it was their political will to actually withdraw the U.N. peace-keepers and leave them to their murderers. Neither the U.S. nor any other member of the U.N. Security Council had the political will to risk one of their citizens to rescue 800,000 Tutsis from genocide.

There is something profoundly wrong about that. What is wrong is the very same problem of ethno-centrism that I spoke about earlier. We drew a national boundary, a circle that shut them out of our common humanity. Last week, the second debate of the candidates for President of the United States demonstrated that neither candidate has learned the lessons of Rwanda. The Washington Post excoriated them both the next day. (Full text of editorial in Appendix 2.) Governor Bush said we needed early warning, but were right not to send in U.S. troops because Africa is not in the sphere of America’s national interests. Vice President Gore tried to excuse the Clinton administration’s policy failure by saying we had no allies to go in with, as we did in Bosnia; ignoring the fact that 2800 U.N. peace-keepers were already on the ground. Evidently, he dismissed the use of the U.N. as a multi-lateral peace-keeper.

The time has come to reassert our common humanity. Any time someone says it’s not in the “national interest” to stop a genocide, ask about the billions we’ll spend for relief of refugees, the hundreds of thousands who will flee to our shores, and more importantly the shame we should feel as human beings to see mass murder before our eyes, but walk by on the other side. When you get a form at immigration or at a job application that asks you your race, what do you write? I simply write, “Human.” Because that’s the truth. We are all of the same race.

How can we create a consciousness of our common humanity? We must create a world-wide movement to end genocide like the movement to abolish slavery in the nineteenth century. The International Campaign to End Genocide, organized at the Hague Appeal for Peace in May 1999, intends to mobilize the international political will to end genocide. (For a more complete description of the Campaign, see Appendix 3.)

The first job in preventing and stopping genocide is getting the facts in clear, indisputable form to policy makers. Most of that job is done by CNN and the news media. But conveying the information is not enough. It must be interpreted so that policy makers understand that genocidal massacres are systematic; that the portents of genocide are as compelling as warnings of a hurricane. Then options for action must be suggested to those who make policy, and they must be lobbied to take action.

The International Campaign to End Genocide works to create political will through:

1. Consciousness raising -- maintaining close contact with key policy makers in governments of U.N. Security Council members, providing them with information about genocidal situations.

2. Coalition formation --working in international coalitions to respond to specific genocidal situations and involving members in campaigns to educate the public and political leaders about solutions.

3. Policy advocacy -- preparing options papers for action to prevent genocide in specific situations, and presenting them to policy makers.

The International Campaign to End Genocide concentrates on predicting, preventing, stopping, and punishing genocide and other forms of mass murder. It brings an analytical understanding of the genocidal process to specific situations. It aims to create the international institutions and the political will to end genocide forever.

Just as the nineteenth century was the century of the movement to abolish slavery, let us make the twenty-first the century when we end genocide. Genocide, like slavery, is caused by human will. Human will – including our will – can end it. The international campaign to end genocide was truly begun by the man we honor here today, Raphael Lemkin.

Also read "The Eight Stages of Genocide"


[quote]How can the world solve this dilemma? Or is your solution simply to let the strong survive? If that is your case, it is a challenge to the weak to become strong.[/quote]
My solution, if I were a disinherited 'Palestinian', by hook-or-crook I'd try and acquire a few tactical nukes, then I'd deliver an ultimatum to the kike squatters to pack their bags and hightail it off of mine and others land - or else.

Cut and dried. No BS.

In the above scenario might DOES make right.

Don't you see your 'solution' as creating *many* problems and solving none? I certainly do.

Is what you want is to make the Israelis see that they need to share, then there are better ways. Much better ways. Violence doesn't solve anything. On the other hand, knowledge often does. For example, once a few years ago, I saw a map of the Israel/Palestine area with color coded delineations of who's the land was (It was published by an Israeli peace organization, an organization that wants to get the government of Israel to work out a long term - workable solution to the situation there that enables both Palestinians and Israelis to have viable, *contiguous* homelands and to stop the 'nibbling away' at Palestinian land under one pretext or another that has been going on.. The report was entitled "Land Grab")

Anyway, that series of graphics told the story very eloquently in a way that nobody could misunderstand.

Violence is never the answer.. Unless its in direct and intimate self defense.

The palestinians are letting themselves be paralyzed by anger.. That is something I am not unfamiliar with, as I had had my share of 'palestinian-like' experiences. But I've tried to learn from them and I think I have. Ultimately, there is something to derive from that which can do a person good.. Not in marginalization, but in understanding what is good and what is bad in the world..

Killing innocent people, for ANY reason, is always bad.. The ends never justify the means in that respect...

You don't have to listen to me, but I have more knowledge of what I speak than you realize.. hate will eat you alive.. And it will also, almost invariably, make you lose the chance you might have had of getting your goal.

19- Chris

I understand your position completely. Peaceful resolution, cooperation, etc., towards a mutual, fair settlement benefiting all sides. In a idealistic world that would be great; it doesn't usually work that way in the real world, however. Good and righteousness doesn't always triumph over evil and injustice.

Take for example the China v India skirmishes and discord over borderline territories. Well, things are beginning to turn in a more cordial, mutually beneficial direction since India conducted a few underground hydrogen bomb tests, and as they improve their ballistic missile technology.

Conclusion: More nuclear weapons widely distributed among dozens of sovereign states will lead to better understanding, open communication, greater stability and peace throughout the world.

Warmongers are basically cowards at heart. Appealing directly to that innate cowardice - the warmongers very own mortality - gets the desired results. They don't wish to do the dying themselves, which is typically reserved for lesser humans (e.g., non-combatant men, women, children, infants). A nuclear warhead with the warmonger's name written on it assures he/she/they WILL do the dying, personally, if armed hostilities erupt.

It's real simple math: Put a warmonger's (cowards) own head on the chopping block and he/she/they will elect a non-military diplomatic route to solving issues arising between sovereign states.

Welcome to the real world.

2 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: International Campaign Against Extremism.

TrackBack URL for this entry:

Joi Ito comments on an international campaign against extremism. I completely support it, of course. Extremists are the scum of... Read More

See extended entry for the link to the International Campaign Against Extremism. This is a group dedicated to reduce polarization in the Israeli/Palestinian dialogue. Which is a worthy cause, but I really wish for a GLOBAL campaign against ALL forms of... Read More