Shoher correctly wrote about Chomsky, "Regardless of how misguided and idealistic are Chomsky's views, I deeply respect him as a voice of conscience, reminding us of morality where we prefer efficiency and of compassion where we pursue self-interest."
Overall, this is an interesting and unique view on the problem in the Middle East. Though I donít agree with everything he says, he does make a few good points, and itís worth reading for that aloneÖeven the points I donít agree with are interesting to contemplate.
Objectivity and lack of passions being unavailable in this field of study, I recommend an honest advocate of another side, such as Obadiah Shoher's Samson Blinded: A Machiavellian Perspective on the Middle East Conflict. Shoher, at least, doesn't idealize America and Israel.
It's not pretty. It flies in the face of all the pronouncements of human rights commissions of all flavors, but it recognizes what is real and what is taking place in the world, and tells it like it is. Sometimes "what is" isn't nice, and isn't humane, but like it or not, it IS.
In Samson Blinded, Obadiah Shoher provides a philosophic approach to understanding the Middle East conflict, with a strong Machiavellian bent that would surely make the University of Chicago Straussians proud.
There are actually some things in that book that I would agree with that would be great insights in a different context, and some other things that can be thought, but not said.