What do you think?
Rate this book
Samson Blinded: A Machiavellian Perspective on the Middle East Conflict
Samson A Machiavellian Perspective on the Middle East Conflict, by Obadiah Shoher, abandons moralizing and ideological hubris to view Israeli-Muslim struggle in terms of raw realpolitik. Terrorism is historically normal mode of war. Israel must respect terrorists as efficient warriors – and kill them. Nuclear terrorism is unavoidable, and it will hit America before Israel. We must learn to tolerate and mitigate its damages. Shoher makes the case that only by shedding liberal idealism the West can win against Islamists. Espousing political rationalism, he deplores both Jewish and Muslim myths, and argues for efficiency and separating politics from moralism.
250 pages, Paperback
First published September 18, 2006
3 people are currently reading
18 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
August 30, 2019
Can a Machiavellian solution be naive?
Perhaps to start we should make clear what Machiavelli's (and Obadiah Shoher's) position is vis-a-vis human relationships. When conflicts cannot be resolved by negotiation then the use of force is necessary. When this occurs the stronger side must completely subjugate the weaker without reference to rules of war or so called humanitarian practices (except as propaganda devices).
Shoher believes that the virtue in this approach lies in the fact that it ends the conflict quickly and therefore in the long run reduces human suffering. Half-hearted measures, compromises, any sign of weakness on the part of the stronger just confuse the weaker side and prolong the conflict and the suffering.
It is interesting to take a lesson from biology in this regard. Conflicts between individuals over mates or territory are resolved by fighting. However, the fighting usually never occurs. There is a lot of posturing and strutting and snorting and huffing and puffing until the weaker side recognizes the likely loss and withdraws. This is nature's economical way. Why waste precious resources (the bodies of the combatants) when the outcome can be discerned?
However when the individuals involved are more or less equally matched and it is not clear which would prevail, then the fight does take place.
With this in mind it is easy to predict that Shoher's position is that Israel (obviously the stronger side) should drive the Palestinians out without hesitation, without regard for humanitarian concerns and to do it as quickly and efficiently as possible without qualm.
That way the Palestinians and the rest of the Arab/Muslim world would recognize what they respect most, that is superior power, and they would actually gain respect for Israel and accept the facts of life. As it is, with Israel being held back by so-called world humanitarian opinion, the Palestinians are just given false hope and therefore are encouraged to continue the conflict.
I might agree with this logic if we could isolate the Israelis and the Palestinians from the rest of the world. If they were the only ones involved. They are not.
The problem is twofold. One, whatever happens in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict will affect other people in the world. It will tremendously affect the other Arab nations nearby both in a psychological and practical sense, and indeed the conflict is affecting them today. Some of the madness that prevails in the Arab world is based on their perception of what is happening in the Holy Land and their frustration with their inability to effectively do anything about it.
Two, there is in the long run a principle more important than efficiently disposing of this or that conflict. It is what is known as the rule of law. At present such a rule does not obtain in international affairs. As Machiavelli noted and all modern nation states realize, the rule of the jungle is what prevails in international affairs. However it is easily seen that the world and its people would be better off if the rule of law prevailed. We can see this in places like the United States and in other countries of the world in which the rule of law does prevail. The red states do not attack the blue states. Today Europe is attempting to bring the rule of law to its diverse cultures. And it is succeeding. How much better off the people of Europe are today than during the wars that previously prevailed.
What is needed is for the rule of law to prevail throughout the entire world. Unfortunately we are still quite a ways from that utopia. Still anyone who has given the idea much thought at all knows that that is what we should be working toward.
With that in mind, the strength of the stronger (Israel) is compromised to the extent that the rest of the world wants to move ahead with its ideals of peaceful resolution of conflict. So instead of the singular conflict between Israel and Palestine we have a dual conflict: Israel versus the Palestinians on the one hand, and the war system versus the rule of law on the other.
This is why Shoher's solution will not work in the Middle East, or at least I should say, will not be employed.
Nonetheless this is an admirable book. Shoher presents Machiavelli's case with an abundance of clarity, reasoned argument and the kind of consistency admired by philosophers and mathematicians. In this regard I note on page 113 his argument that it is better to punish the innocent now and then rather than to let some guilty parties get away with murder. This is in opposition to the usual logic in which it is believed that it is better to let x number of guilty people go free than to wrongly punish one innocent person. Shoher is right in one respect: his system would have a more chilling effect on crime than the present system; however from the point of view of the abstract concept of justice, his system would be a failure.
Man does not live by bread alone. Ideals and morality, the just life and the moral life, the examined life, the life of human beings lived fully is for most people what is essential, not just the animal existence. And so we compromise the "best," most efficient ways of living for the most graceful, the most aesthetically pleasing, the most moral.
Ironically I would say that Shoher's solution is ultimately naive. Machiavelli naive? Strange to say but yes. Brutal logic runs our computers, but our minds are not computers. Human beings are not machines. And so the people in the Middle East will continue to suffer, just as humans have suffered since before the dawn of history. The only way out is the rule of law universally applied or a change in human nature. Both of these possibilities, because of globalization on the one hand, and genetic engineering on the other, may not be as far off as they once were.
--Dennis Littrell, author of “The World Is Not as We Think It Is”
Perhaps to start we should make clear what Machiavelli's (and Obadiah Shoher's) position is vis-a-vis human relationships. When conflicts cannot be resolved by negotiation then the use of force is necessary. When this occurs the stronger side must completely subjugate the weaker without reference to rules of war or so called humanitarian practices (except as propaganda devices).
Shoher believes that the virtue in this approach lies in the fact that it ends the conflict quickly and therefore in the long run reduces human suffering. Half-hearted measures, compromises, any sign of weakness on the part of the stronger just confuse the weaker side and prolong the conflict and the suffering.
It is interesting to take a lesson from biology in this regard. Conflicts between individuals over mates or territory are resolved by fighting. However, the fighting usually never occurs. There is a lot of posturing and strutting and snorting and huffing and puffing until the weaker side recognizes the likely loss and withdraws. This is nature's economical way. Why waste precious resources (the bodies of the combatants) when the outcome can be discerned?
However when the individuals involved are more or less equally matched and it is not clear which would prevail, then the fight does take place.
With this in mind it is easy to predict that Shoher's position is that Israel (obviously the stronger side) should drive the Palestinians out without hesitation, without regard for humanitarian concerns and to do it as quickly and efficiently as possible without qualm.
That way the Palestinians and the rest of the Arab/Muslim world would recognize what they respect most, that is superior power, and they would actually gain respect for Israel and accept the facts of life. As it is, with Israel being held back by so-called world humanitarian opinion, the Palestinians are just given false hope and therefore are encouraged to continue the conflict.
I might agree with this logic if we could isolate the Israelis and the Palestinians from the rest of the world. If they were the only ones involved. They are not.
The problem is twofold. One, whatever happens in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict will affect other people in the world. It will tremendously affect the other Arab nations nearby both in a psychological and practical sense, and indeed the conflict is affecting them today. Some of the madness that prevails in the Arab world is based on their perception of what is happening in the Holy Land and their frustration with their inability to effectively do anything about it.
Two, there is in the long run a principle more important than efficiently disposing of this or that conflict. It is what is known as the rule of law. At present such a rule does not obtain in international affairs. As Machiavelli noted and all modern nation states realize, the rule of the jungle is what prevails in international affairs. However it is easily seen that the world and its people would be better off if the rule of law prevailed. We can see this in places like the United States and in other countries of the world in which the rule of law does prevail. The red states do not attack the blue states. Today Europe is attempting to bring the rule of law to its diverse cultures. And it is succeeding. How much better off the people of Europe are today than during the wars that previously prevailed.
What is needed is for the rule of law to prevail throughout the entire world. Unfortunately we are still quite a ways from that utopia. Still anyone who has given the idea much thought at all knows that that is what we should be working toward.
With that in mind, the strength of the stronger (Israel) is compromised to the extent that the rest of the world wants to move ahead with its ideals of peaceful resolution of conflict. So instead of the singular conflict between Israel and Palestine we have a dual conflict: Israel versus the Palestinians on the one hand, and the war system versus the rule of law on the other.
This is why Shoher's solution will not work in the Middle East, or at least I should say, will not be employed.
Nonetheless this is an admirable book. Shoher presents Machiavelli's case with an abundance of clarity, reasoned argument and the kind of consistency admired by philosophers and mathematicians. In this regard I note on page 113 his argument that it is better to punish the innocent now and then rather than to let some guilty parties get away with murder. This is in opposition to the usual logic in which it is believed that it is better to let x number of guilty people go free than to wrongly punish one innocent person. Shoher is right in one respect: his system would have a more chilling effect on crime than the present system; however from the point of view of the abstract concept of justice, his system would be a failure.
Man does not live by bread alone. Ideals and morality, the just life and the moral life, the examined life, the life of human beings lived fully is for most people what is essential, not just the animal existence. And so we compromise the "best," most efficient ways of living for the most graceful, the most aesthetically pleasing, the most moral.
Ironically I would say that Shoher's solution is ultimately naive. Machiavelli naive? Strange to say but yes. Brutal logic runs our computers, but our minds are not computers. Human beings are not machines. And so the people in the Middle East will continue to suffer, just as humans have suffered since before the dawn of history. The only way out is the rule of law universally applied or a change in human nature. Both of these possibilities, because of globalization on the one hand, and genetic engineering on the other, may not be as far off as they once were.
--Dennis Littrell, author of “The World Is Not as We Think It Is”
December 30, 2016
Shoher presents a compelling argument for strengthening Israel's position in the world through firm and decisive action. While I am sure that there are relatively few people who will agree with everything he suggests, he does do an excellent job of reasoning out his arguments and provides citations and references for all of his claims. Many parts of this book come off as extreme or racist, but I think that it is good to get these ideas out in the open and actually consider them as possibilities for action that could be taken by Israel. Five stars for this one because I'm glad that someone has the will to take these "extreme" ideas and put them to paper as well thought out propositions. This debate has been going on for a long time, and one way or another, action needs to be taken.. and this book will surely help people reason out what that action should be. Among the main premises of the book is that Jews should start viewing and treating Islamic states as their enemies. This means that otherwise drastic seeming actions could be carried out and that Israel shouldn't feel bad about hurting or disabling Arabs. Shoher proposes taking land by force and then expelling its inhabitants as well as responding to terrorist attacks by blanket reprisals against cities and governments. Many very interesting ideas are presented here, including the selling of Israeli mercenaries to foreign powers and bribing imams to teach more liberal ideals in order to compete with Saudi Arabia's promotion of jihad. Also, ideas to promote conflicts between Muslim states are discussed as well as other ways to trick and fool the Muslim world into forgetting their common enemy and focusing on others.
One thing that turned me off about this book personally, was Shoher's rather European-like cynical view of America and its reasons for doing things. Claiming that the West basically ignores the accumulation of WMDs by Muslim states doesn't really hold up under recent world events. America chose Iraq arbitrarily? I think not. And it really isn't fair to compare the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to proposed takeovers of Lebanon, Palestine and Syria, whereas America has no interest in claiming lands of the Middle East as their own and will not displace civilians with their own settlers. But this book isn't about America, and I can understand Shoher's misunderstanding of the goals and values of that great nation. Shoher argues compellingly that the political game in Israel has resulted in a country that cannot act forcefully one way or another. When one political party acts, another is quick to follow and reverse that action. Shoher believes that Israel must have a debate and decide on what their course will be, isolationism or aggressiveness towards their neighbors. When it is decided, commit to that decision. Basically, stick with a plan and don't vacillate. Fight for a clear objective and don't loose sight of that goal. Weigh the costs and the benefits of actions, and when a path is chosen, don't waver.
"Conflicts between states cannot be solved by palliatives but require the credible threat of force."
One thing that turned me off about this book personally, was Shoher's rather European-like cynical view of America and its reasons for doing things. Claiming that the West basically ignores the accumulation of WMDs by Muslim states doesn't really hold up under recent world events. America chose Iraq arbitrarily? I think not. And it really isn't fair to compare the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to proposed takeovers of Lebanon, Palestine and Syria, whereas America has no interest in claiming lands of the Middle East as their own and will not displace civilians with their own settlers. But this book isn't about America, and I can understand Shoher's misunderstanding of the goals and values of that great nation. Shoher argues compellingly that the political game in Israel has resulted in a country that cannot act forcefully one way or another. When one political party acts, another is quick to follow and reverse that action. Shoher believes that Israel must have a debate and decide on what their course will be, isolationism or aggressiveness towards their neighbors. When it is decided, commit to that decision. Basically, stick with a plan and don't vacillate. Fight for a clear objective and don't loose sight of that goal. Weigh the costs and the benefits of actions, and when a path is chosen, don't waver.
"Conflicts between states cannot be solved by palliatives but require the credible threat of force."
Read
June 8, 2009I joined Obadiah
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews