Daniel Pipes, a renowned analyst of the Middle East, just published a list compiled, in part, by Gunnar Heinsohn, showing how many people were killed, since 1950, in all the various conflicts around the world. His point was that the Arab-Israeli conflict gets undo attention because it ranks only 49^th   among the 67 bloodiest conflicts, with "only" 51,000 fatalities, as compared to some of the others.

 

Please take the time to look at some of the numbers.

 

1	40,000,000	Red China, 1949-76 (outright killing, manmade famine, Gulag)
2	10,000,000	Soviet Bloc: late Stalinism, 1950-53; post-Stalinism, to 1987 (mostly Gulag)
3	4,000,000	Ethiopia, 1962-92: Communists, artificial hunger, genocides
4	3,800,000	Zaire (Congo-Kinshasa): 1967-68; 1977-78; 1992-95; 1998-present
5	2,800,000	Korean war, 1950-53
6	1,900,000	Sudan, 1955-72; 1983-2006 (civil wars, genocides)
7	1,870,000	Cambodia: Khmer Rouge 1975-79; civil war 1978-91
8	1,800,000	Vietnam War, 1954-75
9	1,800,000	Afghanistan: Soviet and internecine killings, Taliban 1980-2001
10	1,250,000	West Pakistan massacres in East Pakistan (Bangladesh 1971)
11	1,100,000	Nigeria, 1966-79 (Biafra); 1993-present
12	1,100,000	Mozambique, 1964-70 (30,000) + after retreat of Portugal 1976-92
13	1,000,000	Iran-Iraq-War, 1980-88
14	900,000	Rwanda genocide, 1994
15	875,000	Algeria: against France 1954-62 (675,000); between Islamists and the government 1991-2006 (200,000)
16	850,000	Uganda, 1971-79; 1981-85; 1994-present
17	650,000	Indonesia: Marxists 1965-66 (450,000); East Timor, Papua, Aceh etc, 1969-present (200,000)
18	580,000	Angola: war against Portugal 1961-72 (80,000); after Portugal's retreat (1972-2002)
19	500,000	Brazil against its Indians, up to 1999
20	430,000	Vietnam, after the war ended in 1975 (own people; boat refugees)
21	400,000	Indochina: against France, 1945-54
22	400,000	Burundi, 1959-present (Tutsi/Hutu)
23	400,000	Somalia, 1991-present
24	400,000	North Korea up to 2006 (own people)
25	300,000	Kurds in Iraq, Iran, Turkey, 1980s-1990s
26	300,000	Iraq, 1970-2003 (Saddam against minorities)
27	240,000	Columbia, 1946-58; 1964-present
28	200,000	Yugoslavia, Tito regime, 1944-80
29	200,000	Guatemala, 1960-96
30	190,000	Laos, 1975-90
31	175,000	Serbia against Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo, 1991-1999
32	150,000	Romania, 1949-99 (own people)
33	150,000	Liberia, 1989-97
34	140,000	Russia against Chechnya, 1994-present
35	150,000	Lebanon civil war, 1975-90
36	140,000	Kuwait War, 1990-91
37	130,000	Philippines: 1946-54 (10,000); 1972-present (120,000)
38	130,000	Burma/Myanmar, 1948-present
39	100,000	North Yemen, 1962-70
40	100,000	Sierra Leone, 1991-present
41	100,000	Albania, 1945-91 (own people)
42	80,000	Iran, 1978-79 (revolution)
43	75,000	Iraq, 2003-present (domestic)
44	75,000	El Salvador, 1975-92
45	70,000	Eritrea against Ethiopia, 1998-2000
46	68,000	Sri Lanka, 1997-present
47	60,000	Zimbabwe, 1966-79; 1980-present
48	60,000	Nicaragua, 1972-91 (Marxists/natives etc,)
49	51,000	Arab-Israeli conflict 1950-present
50	50,000	North Vietnam, 1954-75 (own people)
51	50,000	Tajikistan, 1992-96 (secularists against Islamists)
52	50,000	Equatorial Guinea, 1969-79
53	50,000	Peru, 1980-2000
54	50,000	Guinea, 1958-84
55	40,000	Chad, 1982-90
56	30,000	Bulgaria, 1948-89 (own people)
57	30,000	Rhodesia, 1972-79
58	30,000	Argentina, 1976-83 (own people)
59	27,000	Hungary, 1948-89 (own people)
60	26,000	Kashmir independence, 1989-present
61	25,000	Jordan government vs. Palestinians, 1970-71 (Black September)
62	22,000	Poland, 1948-89 (own people)
63	20,000	Syria, 1982 (against Islamists in Hama)
64	20,000	Chinese-Vietnamese war, 1979
65	19,000	Morocco: war against France, 1953-56 (3,000) and in Western Sahara, 1975-present (16,000)
66	18,000	Congo Republic, 1997-99
67	10,000	South Yemen, 1986 (civil war)

*All figures rounded. Sources: Brzezinski, Z., Out of Control: Global Turmoil on the Eve of the Twenty-first Century, 1993; Courtois, S., Le Livre Noir du Communism, 1997; Heinsohn, G., Lexikon der Völkermorde, 1999, 2^nd ed.; Heinsohn, G., Söhne und Weltmacht, 2006, 8th ed.; Rummel. R., Death by Government, 1994; Small, M. and Singer, J.D., Resort to Arms: International and Civil Wars 1816-1980, 1982; White, M., "Death Tolls for the Major Wars and Atrocities of the Twentieth Century," 2003.

 

___________

 

 

Incredibly, since 1950, about 85,000,000 people have been killed in bloody conflicts around the world. And that doesn't even include World War I and World War II.

 

I have often said that more people have probably been killed, by the hand of man, in the last 200 years, than the previous 2,000,000 years of human existence. It turns out, as dramatized in the film The Rise of Man, on the Discovery Channel, that cavemen, who lived during the 2,000,000 years before the advent of "civilization," were actually quite nice to one another. As hunter gatherers, there was no real reason to kill. Would you kill your neighbor just to steal a couple of peanuts? Why bother? Common sense told them to be good, and to help one another out, and they did.

 

In most instances, we demonstrate a certain sense of arrogance when we kill one another, an excessive sense of pride, and an extreme confidence in the validity of our convictions. When we kill, it is as if we cry out, for the world to hear, "We are right, and you will pay with your lives for the inadequacies of your beliefs." It is sheer arrogance to kill one another so casually, even in the name of our deeply held beliefs. Look at it this way-if we were indeed created by God in His image, then when we kill one another, aren't we, in effect, spitting at God's face?

 

To my mind, for what it's worth, there are only two reasons to kill: either someone is coming at you with an ax, or he's coming at your buddy with an ax. That's it; self-defense and the defense of others. No other reason to kill: not for our religion, not for our deeply held beliefs, not for politics, not for geopolitical considerations, not for the accumulation of wealth, not because we resent how someone thinks, or how he looks, or what he feels about us. Not for nothing. No other reason to kill.

 

Weapon systems are so advanced nowadays, that we would soon be able to kill one another in such magnitude, that previous death tolls would pale by comparison. Some of the bombs we have today are hundreds of times more powerful than the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs. We could literally wipe ourselves off the face of the earth.

 

Countries that are beginning to compete for scarce resources, like oil or fresh drinking water, could find themselves embroiled in a whole host of new conflicts, in the years to come. A global economy is a competitive economy, in which poor nations could easily find themselves on the losing end of the stick. But unlike previous times in history, when mostly everyone was poor, now there will be some who enjoy the prosperity that comes with economic growth, while a great many will be left behind, only to bear witness to their sense of deprivation and loss, and to their desperate struggle to survive.

 

The global economy offers promise for the future, but some pitfalls as well, as is often the case with new developments. The trick will be to sustain economic growth for ourselves, while allowing everyone on earth a place at the table, a stake in his or her future. Yes we will compete with one another, but we will invest in one another, as well. Yes we will work to augment our prosperity, but we will work for the prosperity of others, as well. Yes we will compete for scarce resources, but we will challenge one another to protect the environment, as well. Yes we will hold on to our deeply held beliefs, but we will find ways to talk to one another with common sense and with a sense of personal dignity, as well.

 

The secret to world peace, in contrast to the bloody history of the past, is not a secret at all. We have to find a way to connect, and to connect so cohesively, that we come to depend on one another. As such, it will be in our mutual best interest to keep the peace. By helping others, we help ourselves. Granted, it is a tall order, but it is probably the only way. Connect ideologically. Connect economically. Inspire in each other a sense of hope. And let the hope sustain the peace throughout the generations.

My wife and I live on the outskirts of a great American city, Baltimore, Maryland. For many reasons, we are proud to call this city home.

 

Having said that, however, we cannot help but recognize that Baltimore suffers from a whole host of big city problems-problems which are endemic to a great many cities across the US: more than 50% of babies born in Baltimore are born out of wedlock, we're close to the top in homicides averaging close to one murder a day, drug use and drug sales are exorbitantly high, HIV and other disease rates are high, gang violence abounds, educational achievement and graduation rates are abysmally low, unemployment is high, poverty is widespread, and the list goes on and on. In fact, whenever Baltimore makes national news, it's usually for some dubious distinction, like being number one in syphilis, etc.

 

As you well know by know, this website is all about Selling a Vision of Hope in the Middle East. But we need only look at the inner city to realize that hope is in short supply right here and right now. How can we possibly look to change the world, without also looking to change ourselves? People the world over need hope like air to breathe, and for many of our less fortunate citizens, the need for hope is crying out for our attention.

 

Many of the ingredients needed to Sell a Vision of Hope in the Middle East could prove quite handy to Sell a Vision of Hope right here at home. First, we would sell people on a Vision of Hope using Common Sense and Investment. Second, we would support and sustain the vision with programs that are designed to bolster the vision and to carry it forward. Third, and when absolutely necessary, we may have no choice but to fight to reclaim our neighborhoods, but to fight within a Vision of Hope.

 

Ideology plus Investment equals Hope. Use common sense to talk to the residents of the inner city, and to convince them, as Bill Cosby is beginning to do: that their lives could be made better, that they are in the best position to make that happen, that change has to happen from within even as help comes from without, that they may have to reassess what best works for them, that they may need to let go of some preconceived notions and beliefs, that they may want to consider some new ways of organizing their lives, and that it is time for the cynicism of the past to give way to the hope for tomorrow.

 

And, as with all issues of great import, we will have no choice but to invest. But we shouldn't just throw money at the problem, as we are doing in many of our schools, and in many of our social welfare programs. We should invest in ways which make sense, and in ways that inspire a sense of hope: teach kids the skills they need for good paying jobs, find ways to have those jobs waiting form them when they graduate, teach the values which are consistent with a more hopeful future, find ways to provide healthcare for the uninsured, encourage investments in better housing, and so forth.

 

As inner city residents begin to buy into a Vision of Hope, we should support and sustain that vision with a whole host of programs that are specifically designed to do just that: a Media Campaign could be used to help people make sense of their lives and could reinforce the promise of a better tomorrow, a program to Empower Women could encourage young women and help them to take control of their lives by getting good jobs and by having children within the framework of good and healthy marriages, a Cultural Exchange could include a mentoring program between schools in impoverished areas and schools in affluent areas, a Student Exchange could envision taking talented students from the inner city and affording them the opportunity to study at top ranked schools, an Expanded Peace Corps Program could train inner city kids to become Peace Corps volunteers around the world, and to broaden their horizons while affording them the opportunity to help others in need.

 

We are well advised to begin selling inner city residents on a Vision of Hope, and to support the vision with programs designed to carry the vision forward. And when the need arises, we will fight for a Vision of Hope by doing what we have to, to take back our communities-communities which have been allowed to languish and to drift gradually into a state of utter chaos. But our ability to reclaim our neighborhoods will depend on the good will we show to one another, by speaking with common sense and with a sense of personal dignity, and by investing in one another, in a way that is more likely than current efforts, to make real the promise of a better day.

 

Yes, we can remain focused on the Middle East, as we must, but we dare not lose sight of some similar realities to be found right here at home. The hope for mankind is to recognize the needs that we all share in common, and to address those needs with a Vision of Hope. Only in this way can we build the bridges which can make us whole.

The good thing about Selling a Vision of Hope is that it is versatile. It can be used to solve almost any problem we face. Ideology plus Investment equals Hope. Use An Ideology of Common Sense along with some well placed Investment Dollars to sell people on a Vision of Hope.

 

Global Warming is one hell of a problem. Let's put it in perspective using Common Sense. Most scientists agree that man-made greenhouse gases are causing global warming by trapping heat in the atmosphere. But even if you believe that global warming is a natural phenomenon, well guess what; we still have to fix it. Try finding another environment if we mess this one up. It's time to turn down the thermostat, unless we want to get a preview of hell, right here and right now.

 

The idea that we should grow our economy by burning massive amounts of fossil fuels is a relatively new concept in the overall scheme of things,  perhaps only 200 years old. We survived as a species for some 2,000,000 years before then. True, it was a short and brutish life that the cavemen had, but it was a life nonetheless, and we kept ourselves going, using our common sense, for some 2,000,000 years. That bears repeating, but I'll spare you.

 

Well, is it just possible that when we decided to modernize in this way, with our excessive reliance on fossil fuels, we may have made a wrong turn in the course of our development as a species?  Could our foray into modernity, in this particular way, have been a slight mistake? If our species approaches extinction as a result, will we finally come around to the conclusion that we may have made a boo-boo, at a time when there may not be anyone around to do much of anything about it?

 

OK. So what do we do now? We invest. And by investing, we fix the problem, and create jobs as well. What a concept! We know roughly the parameters of a solution: cars that use less offensive fuels, hydrogen cells, bio fuels, geothermal energy, wind power, solar power, nuclear power, conservation, bicycles, etc. I love my bike, by the way. I'm not a technical person, but there are some very smart people out there who know how to fix this thing. They have to be backed up by political will. Time to bite the bullet.

 

So we will use common sense to understand global warming. And we will invest big time to make it right. And we will inspire people with a Sense of Hope: the hope that people will have the courage to push aside all the nonsense and to see things as they really are, the hope that people will make their will known to the moneyed interests for the sake of future generations, the hope that a problem we all have in common will give us the opportunity to come together in common purpose, and the hope that we can defy the odds, and transform a dire threat to our existence into our ultimate salvation.

 

Global Warming, like our problems in the Middle East, is staring us in the face. We dare not flinch. It will not go away, unless we decide to make it so. We have used our brainpower to get into this mess. It is time now to use our common sense, and the resources we still have left, to make it right. In so doing, we will realize the potential that is within us to be more than we are. On this score at least, we played God and lost. It is time to own up to our failures, to learn from our mistakes, and to find it within ourselves, to do what we have to do, to leave behind a legacy that takes into full account the welfare of our children, and of the countless generations still to come. In the final analysis, isn't that all we may ever have left, when it is all said and done?

You can't talk about peace in the Middle East, without talking about Israel and the Palestinians. While it is true that an accommodation between Israel and the Palestinians will have to be reached for there to be peace in the Middle East, it is also true that such an accommodation, in and of itself, will not bring peace to the entire region. In other words, the issues to be resolved in the Middle East go beyond the issues that divide Israel and a future Palestine.

 

In fact, it could well be argued that the ideological divide between the Western world and parts of the Muslim world would still be there even if Israel never came into existence. However, there is no question that resolving the issues between Israel and the Palestinians would go a long way to bridge the far wider ideological divide between the West and the Muslim world. In a way, the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is a microcosm of the wider conflict in the Middle East. Solving one will help to solve the other, and vice versa.

 

What is all the fighting about between Israel and the Palestinians? Experts point to all sorts of causes rooted in history. In the final analysis, there are equities on both sides of the conflict, as is usually the case. Jews trace their historical roots in the land of Israel for over 3000 years. Jews came to the conclusion, after some 2000 years of homelessness and persecution, culminating in the diabolical travesty of the Holocaust, that without a state of their own, they would have no future as a people.

 

Palestinians, on the other hand, believe that at least some of their people were unjustly displaced from their land when the state of Israel came into being. After Israel became a state in 1948, a great many Palestinians stayed in Israel, became citizens, and currently enjoy the highest standard of living in the Arab world. Arabs comprise about 20% of Israel's population.

 

Some Palestinians, however, were displaced from their homes either due to their own fears about the new state, or for security reasons during the War of Independence, or because the surrounding Arab nations told them to leave so that Israel could be destroyed, and they could then return to their homes.

 

But such was not the case. Israel repelled the invading Arab armies, and was not destroyed, and some 700,000 Palestinians became refugees in Arab lands, and have not been integrated into their host countries as ordinary citizens. It is also true, by the way, that as a result of the founding of the state of Israel; some 850,000 Jews were also expatriated and exiled from Arab countries in which they had lived for generations.

 

The question remains: Why, after so many attempts at brokering the peace, have all the attempts failed?

 

In the year 2000 President Clinton and Prime Minister Barak, as part of the final status talks of the Oslo Agreements, offered President Arafat most of what Palestinians had been asking for: between 94 and 96 percent of the West Bank, 1 to 3 percent of Israeli land to offset the 4 to 6 percent that Israel would keep for security purposes, all of Gaza, a Palestinian state with Arab Jerusalem as its capital, complete control of East Jerusalem and the Arab Quarter of the Old city, as well as the entire Temple Mount, along with 30 billion dollars to compensate refugees who would relocate to the new Palestine, and a dismantlement of most of the settlements in the West Bank. Arafat rejected the offer, made no counter offer, and a four year second Intifada ensued. Why did the peace effort fail?

 

People who rush to the peace table are often doomed to fail. This is particularly true of Israelis and Palestinians, where the levels of resentment and distrust know no bounds. People have to be conditioned for peace, in order to tip the balance in favor of peace. When it came to the peace offer made to President Arafat, the offer itself could not tip the balance in favor of peace, because people on both sides of the conflict remained too heavily invested in the mindset of war.

 

Leaders on both sides of the conflict, if they are to cut a deal, must come to believe that the advantages of peace will outweigh whatever advantages there are in maintaining a state of war. And we shouldn't fool ourselves. For some leaders in the Middle East, the threat of war is an effective propaganda tool for consolidating political power, for maintaining political control, and for diverting attention from internal political, economic, and social problems.

 

So how do you bring peace to Israel and to a future Palestine? Strangely enough, as you may have guessed, you sell each side on a Vision of Hope. Just as Selling a Vision of Hope could help bridge the ideological divide between the Western world and the Muslim world, so too can it help bring peace to Israel and Palestine. Israelis and Palestinians should begin to speak to one another with common sense and with a sense of personal dignity. Israelis should invest in a new Palestine, and begin to revitalize the economy of that forsaken region.

 

With investment will come jobs, and with jobs will come hope, and with hope will come the inclination to embrace the possibility of peace. Even your enemy will cut you a break if you speak to him with words that respect his dignity, and you show him that his welfare is your concern by investing in his future. In this way, you can inspire in him a sense of hope, and with hope all things are possible, even the impossible dream of peace. After conditioning each side in this manner, the peace table becomes a much more viable option.

 

The key to peace between Israel and Palestine is justice. Yes, there have been injustices in the past, on both sides of the fence. So the question remains: How do you bring justice?

 

As Israelis, do you continue to occupy a foreign land, and restrict your policy alternatives based on perceived, and perhaps real, existential threats? Or do you reach out for new possibilities by forging alliances with moderate Palestinians, and thereby marginalizing the extremists in the eyes of their own people?

 

As Palestinians, do you narrow your focus, and invest your energies in destroying Israel? Will that bring justice? Or do you instead partner with Israel, with all her technological and economic strengths, to help revitalize the economy of a new, and vibrant, and prosperous Palestine? Which option will really bring justice? Which option is really in the best interest of all concerned? Which option makes more sense?

Let me ask you this: What is the one thing that can turn a pipe dream into reality?

 

The answer: Money.

 

Let's face it, Selling a Vision of Hope is only a pipe dream at this point. If you ask me, it's as close to impossible as you can get. Lots of people look at it and wonder if we're smoking something. But all that will change once a wealthy financier decides to fund a project on the ground which resonates with hope, and which says to the world that a Vision of Hope could be made real if people choose to make it so. He could fund an industrial zone, or a vocational school, or a hotel on the Gaza coast, etc. Any project of this sort could be used as part of a PR campaign to spread the message that a new era is about to dawn in the Middle East.

 

Now let's think. Who in the Middle East have lots of money, and who have the greatest vested interest in the future of the Middle East? The answer: The leaders of the Arab world, including: business leaders, political leaders, religious leaders, and royalty. Could these leaders somehow become inspired to Sell a Vision of Hope? In the past, unfortunately, a great deal of money has been used to finance ideological extremism. Perhaps in a bid to keep the peace, and to hold on to power, the decision was made to fund mosques and madrasas in which hate and intolerance were preached and taught. And this is still going on as we speak.

 

The problem, as perceived by many in the Arab elite, is that when you teach hate, the hate can easily come back to haunt you. In Saudi Arabia, for example, the Royal Family is threatened by Osama Bin Laden's hate, as much, if not more, than the West is. So is it just possible that the Royal Family in Saudi Arabia, and others like them in the Arab world, could be inspired to invest in Selling a Vision of Hope, as a way of leading their people with a vision that keeps the peace by inspiring a sense of hope? Is it just possible that a vision of Common Sense, Economic Investment, and Hope is a better way of bringing a semblance of order to the Middle East? And could such a vision be sold to the leaders who are in a position to decide, and to the people on the street who may be willing to listen? And could all this be done, as transformative as it is, while maintaining social order?

 

Like Bob Dylan used to say: "The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind. The answer is blowing in the wind."