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


On hate

After the first edition, several reviewers classified this book as hate literature. That cannot be true: hate is irrational while I argue for pure rationality; hate veils itself in morality while my policies are stripped from any notion of moralizing; hate is wasteful while my aim is efficiency. Hate is like any ideology: silly, costly, and going nowhere. Hate is a political label: it is politically correct to hate communists, but not, say, Muslims.

I am indifferent to Muslims as to any Gentiles who observe Noahide laws, find Arabs mildly amusing as any indigenous culture, and deeply respect the terrorists as determined soldiers.

I suggest many policies which aim at these groups. But any political book advocates against someone; discrimination is central for politics. Even alliances are formed generally against someone. Republicans want more votes at the expense of Democrats, and attack them to that purpose. My recommendations involve threat of violence, but international politics is always built around such threat; balance of power is the only proven strategy for maintaining peace. My editors and I carefully re-worded possibly ambiguous propositions, and made sure the book never advocates violence per se, but only threatens reprisal for others' violence. The aim is to mitigate violence, not launch it.

Nazi hated Jews; Hutu and Tutsi hated each other; Catholics at some point hated Protestants. The hatred, no doubt, run along the lines of economic competition, but the final concept was distorted beyond any semblance of rationality. To follow the first example, a reasonable idea to prosecute swindler Jews evolved into expulsion of Jews, only remotely useful for Germans, and into entirely unreasonable mass murder. Vengeance, perhaps, is never entirely unreasonable: retribution might prevent future atrocities against Jews. Vengeance, however, tends to cross the line and become hatred. It is an interesting subject, but beyond the scope of book about rational ends and means. We cannot afford to hate enemies; we must act efficiently.

I do not hate Neo-Nazis. They are just enemies, and must be dealt with rationally. I dislike anti-Semites, but cannot object to their opinions as long as they remain passive. Xenophobia is all too human. How many Jews tacitly dislike Gypsies? I do not blame Gentiles for not helping the Jews; how many Jews helped the Rwandese? I do, however, believe in the biblical choosiness of the Jews, and, accordingly, their inherent difference from other peoples. That does not make me a racist, but makes me to hate many Jewish violations of Or Hara'ayon. Jews who offend non-hostile Gentiles are guilty. I would rather see hysterical reviews of my book by anti-Semites than glowing reviews of some Jews who see only imperial ambitions in the book. I equally despise condemnations from Jews who reject even questioning the historical right to the land. Unwarranted self-righteousness, lack of compassion to underdog, despise of Gentiles while at the same time requiring them to support Jews - these traits of many Jews I really hate.

Totalitarian leftist regimes learned that language determines thought, and employ sophistic Newspeak to the fullest. They redefined hate from irrational desire to inflict harm to any offensive policy. Any overly broad definition is applied arbitrarily.

It is hate when I suggest military measures? How come it is not hate when governments call for war on terror?

It is hate when I call for expunging Islam? How come it was not hate when America called for expunging communism?

It is hate when I agree to attacking the population of Muslim states that sponsor terrorist war against Israel? How come it was not hate when American newspapers called for bombing Nazi German cities?

I am liberal - in the traditional sense of the word before it was usurped by leftists. I dislike irresponsible idealists who in the worst totalitarian manner shut voices of realism, and keep their heads in sand. These totalitarian moralists are bad for us, but catastrophic for the next generation which will suffer the crisis the idealists created - the crisis we still can defuse.