In this sense, violence can somewhat be avoided through a fair trade of guarantees. Opposing Huntington's view is the theory of the clash of perceptions rather than that of civilizations. Dr. Mathieu Guidere and Dr. Newton Howard argue against the clash of civilization by pointing out that misperception and misconception are essential in determining conflict relations. They argue that it is important to actually understand not only the historical aspects of a civilization but also the perceptions surrounding it. In this sense, they consider that "the most difficulties today owe to the misperceptions and misconceptions that divide individuals, not only of different cultures, but also of the same culture" (Guidere and Howard, 2006). Thus, their theory takes into account, unlike Huntington's even the relations between people of the same culture that can be sometimes viewed as possible conflicts.

Finally, Tarik Ali views possible future conflicts in terms of a clash of fundamentalisms. He advances this idea because he considers the common explanation "they hate us, because they're jealous of our freedoms and our wealth" as unrewarding (Ali, 2007). He goes on to say that individuals, in their singular quality, are not practically responsible for inducing violence, and rather "violence, unfortunately, is systemic" (Ali, 2007). The extremes of national ideas, of religious beliefs, of mentalities, are the ones that foster conflict, and not necessarily differences in religion or nationalities or cultures.

There are interesting arguments from all parts and it is hard to advocate a single point-of-view. Huntington's perception is indeed appropriate but it lacks the precision of a scientific research; therefore his argument on the clash of civilization as the new causes for war is relatively vague. Telhami on the other hand makes an interesting point in the sense...

Nonetheless, the "supply and demand" technique cannot be implemented in the conditions in which the two sides have not established contact, a situation most common in conflict environments. Tarik Ali's argument on a clash of fundamentalisms, although underlines the role of the extreme dimension of ideas, religions, cultures, and national identities, he places too much accent on the actual role of fundamentalist values for the coming conflicts.
The clash of perceptions appears to be the most rewarding in terms of pointing out various causes for the upcoming wars. Indeed, the surrounding realities are a sum of perceptions and, from this perspective it is the individual that creates these perceptions. Should they be less violent, realities can change as well.