Claiming you will only 'turn down the temperature' after your opponents do is not a strategy for de-escalation; it is a justification for retaliation. This 'counter-punching' approach ensures conflict continues. A genuine desire to reduce societal tension requires leading by example, not waiting for the other side to act first.

Rather than taking a "holier than thou" stance and refusing to engage with governments that have committed atrocities, it is more effective to build bridges. Cooperation invites them into the 21st century and aligns them with your values, whereas isolationism is counterproductive.

A simple test for a political system's quality is whether it must use force to retain its citizens. The Berlin Wall and North Korea's borders were built to prevent people from leaving, not to stop others from entering. This need to contain a population is an implicit confession by the state that life is better elsewhere, contrasting with free societies that attract immigrants.

The only historically effective method to resolve deep-rooted religious and ideological conflicts is to shift focus toward shared economic prosperity. Alliances like the Abraham Accords create tangible incentives for peace that ideology alone cannot, by making life demonstrably better for citizens.

Holding out for morally perfect leaders is naive and paralyzing. The reality of geopolitics is a "knife fight" where leaders inevitably make decisions that result in death. Progress requires working with these flawed individuals rather than disengaging over past actions.

Evaluate political ideologies based on their historical potential for large-scale harm ("amplitude"), not just a leader's current negative actions. A socialist path, historically leading to mass death, may pose a greater long-term threat than a leader's immediate, but less catastrophic, authoritarian tendencies.

Viewing the conflict as two rational sides in a misunderstanding is flawed. Both sides see the other as an existential threat and are willing to use extreme violence to achieve their goals. This reframes the narrative from a political dispute to a primal, violent tribal conflict where both sides see themselves as righteous.

In the aftermath of political violence, the targeted group often mirrors the very dehumanizing tactics they condemn. While correctly identifying an attacker's ideology, they risk escalating the conflict by applying labels like 'evil' to the entire opposing side, thus perpetuating the cycle of radicalization that fuels violence.

In times of extreme polarization, the political middle is not a safe haven but a kill zone. Moderates are targeted by both sides because they have no tribe to defend them. The escalating cost of neutrality forces everyone to pick a side, eliminating compromise and accelerating conflict.