Samson Blinded: A Machiavellian Perspective on the Middle East Conflict
[ Back ] [ Next ]

I am halfway through Samson blinded and cannot believe a lot of what I am reading. Is this for real?
The author denies that the Jewish historic right to Israel is a real claim of ours to the Land, and says that terrorism is excusable and not particulalrly reprehensible because Israelis vote for the government and serve in the army
He also outlines 'secret' Israeli strategies Israel should adopt. If they are emant to be secret, then why are they poublished here
I'm starting to wonder if the book is not really written by anti-Zionists to discredit Israel


One thing I can assure you of, Shoher is right-wing Zionist.
Open discussion of secret arrangements is a didactic device of Machiavelli. For example, you can find many books on secret wars, secret societies, and the like. We can discuss secret policies openly, and then implement the particular policies in secret.
Shoher is rationalist, and he doesn't believe in myths and rights. His argument is twofold: if Jews have the right to return after two millennia, then Arabs surely have the same right after fifty years. Just like Arabs in 1948, Jews left in 135 because of hostile regime, not were evicted. The parallel is very strong.
And, backwards, if Arabs claim the right of return of refugees when they had no state, then Jews surely have the same right because they had a state on this land for centuries before being evicted.
From another perspective, Red Indians have a perfect historical right to the American land. Who cares?
This is Shoher's point, who cares about the rights of others? Jewish rights are no argument for Palestinians, Palestinian rights are irrelevant to Jews, and Red Indians rights are laughable to Americans. Only power matters in the cold world.
Again, as a rationalist, Shoher despises moral categories. For him, terrorism can be effective or not, but morality is irrelevant. Remember Reagan's words, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." Jews produced a fair amount of terrorists: Siccarii, Lehi, taking Syrian civilian plane hostage for exchange for Israeli MIAs. Shoher argues that terrorism is not a means of exterminating Jews, like Nazis did, not the end, but a violent means to political end of Palestinians. Compared to regular war, such means are very economical on human life and resources, and very efficient - terrorists forced Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon, and not from the territories. Shoher calls attention that every war involves civilian casualties, and warring parties often intentionally bombard civilian centers to crash the enemy's will to fight (e.g., Dresden, Hiroshima). Attacking enemy civilians for political-military ends is an accepted tactics. One may like it or not, but it is normal - in the sense of being a norm of war.
That said, Shoher argues that Israelis must adopt terrorist tactics against Muslim enemies; a bus for a bus.