Samson Blinded: A Machiavellian Perspective on the Middle East Conflict
Samson Blinded:
A Machiavellian Perspective on the Middle East Conflict
by Obadiah Shoher
This copy is free. Please email it to other people.
We depend on links to bring Shoher’s message – please link to or mention this book in blogs or forums.
You can buy the paper copy for $9.50 at
Leave a comment in our blog at
Copyright ©1998-2006 Obadiah Shoher
All rights reserved
Table of Contents
Foreword to the Second Edition
Foreword to the First Edition. On hate.
Theory
Cruel measures are sometimes the kindest
Machiavelli: goodness and cruelty
Realism, not superficial morality
No easy way out
Create a credible threat, act brutally
Arab mentality and discontent
Peaceful relations with Arabs are possible
The other Arabs do not care about the Palestinians
Arab countries have no reason to make peace
Territory is not worth lives, but sometimes there is no choice
Israel should restrict democracy
No inherent right to a state, no inviolable state
No historical right
The feasibility of conquering the Arab states
Abandon the pretense of humane war
Making Arabs Agree to Peace
Objectives of Peace
Israel does not need peace
Israel can sustain neither modern war nor a credible threat
An end of belligerence is imperative
The creation of a Palestinian state would not bring peace
No Palestinian state without a pan-Islamic peace agreement
The inadmissibility of vacillation
Israeli vacillation is provocative
Vacillation is costly and politically detrimental
Piecemeal compromises blur objectives
The fallacy of minor concessions
Abandon half-measures
Delaying the solution makes the problem chronic and harder to cure
Does Israel want economic and social progress in Arab countries?
Determine military strategy and adhere to it
Determine the Territorial Objectives
What area do the Israelis want?
Why does Israel need the territories?
The possibility of ceding the territories
Returning the territories might not lead to normalizing Arab-Israeli relations
Western perceptions of Arab nationalism are exaggerated
Annexation will not necessarily impede peace
A culturally attractive Israel could annex the territories more easily
Israel as regional empire
Conquer only militarily weak, economically viable states
Annexing foreign land
Winning tolerance of foreigners to annexation
Annexation tactics, expansion from a security belt
The threat of expansion would bring peace
Proper Military Strategy
Hiring foreign infantry
Harsh measures, not limited victory
The necessity of using chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons
Do not let potentially hostile regimes build Chemical Biological Nuclear arsenals
Humane war is costly and ineffective
Make retaliation personal
Deterrence does not work
Use large forces for conquest
Force Arab disarmament and turn Arab states into protectorates
Minimize the involvement of I.D.F. infantry
Non-military harassment of Arabs
Cruelty to prisoners
The Sinai treaty was misguided
Ideological warfare
Counteracting Guerrilla Warfare
Terrorism is a war like any other
Terrorists justifiably target civilians
Jews have historically engaged in terrorism
Terrorists should be respected as warriors
Attack terrorist bases
Attack governments and civilians who support terrorists
Attack Arab countries in response to terrorist acts
Retaliate against civilians for terrorist attacks
Destroy oil infrastructure in retaliation
Harsh actions are less painful
Strike the general population to quash terrorists
Define acceptable cruelty formally
Persecute the families of suicide bombers
Invaders lost Lebanon and Afghanistan because of restraint toward civilians
Destroy the terrorists’ support base
Abandon formalities; rely on suspicion and preemption
Collective liability
Act by stealth
Get the Arabs to fight for Israeli objectives
Acceding to terrorist demands does not lead to peace
Formal peace might not end terrorism
No tactical negotiations with terrorists
Political negotiations with terrorist groups are possible
Terrorism’s future is bright
Riot control
Avoid urban combat
Practical counter-terror measures
Influence of counterterrorism on freedom
Deal with WMD terrorism reasonably
Israeli-Arab Policy
The clash of European and Arab mentalities
A peaceful solutions must accommodate the Arab mentality
Jews should respect Arabs and demand respect from them
Divide the Arabs
Sabotage oil exports
Policy toward Palestine and Israeli Arabs
Only cruelty can instill fear in poor people
Israel has no interest in making Arabs rich
Israel doesn’t need to promote wealth in Palestine
A Palestinian state offers benefits
Necessary cruel steps to annexation
Downgrade Israeli Arabs’ citizen rights
The usefulness of sharia
Create the Palestinian state in Jordan
Judea
The case for Judea
Incompatible objectives
Judea might engage in annexation
Technical details of establishing Judea
Spiritual aspects of Judea
Religious jurisdiction
No concern with secular ethics
Judea would take the heat off Israel
Prospects for War and Guarantees of Peace: Doubtful
The Israeli Defense Force is not invincible
American support is not guaranteed
Modern anti-Semitism
The Need to Reconsider Values
Looming disillusionment
Define ethnic boundaries
Reliance on religion should be restrained
Changing the army
Political reform
Steps to be taken in the Diaspora communities
New goals
Dar al Islam is not the enemy of the West
Edward Said’s The End of the Peace Process
Building the state in the real world
The fate of the Palestinians is not Holocaust
Jews and Palestinians are not equal
The Palestinians claim special rights
No reason for preferential treatment of Arabs
Inequality is inherent in every conflict
Equality requires applying much harsher standards to Jews than to Palestinians
Misrepresenting and fact-twisting
Lie
Refugees: Double standards for Jewish and Palestinian refugees
Defeated aggressors cannot make demands
Settlements
The Palestinian Authority refuses Jews the right of return
Racism and incitement
Palestinian nationalism
Accusations against the United States
The requirement to sympathize with the Palestinians
Misjudgments of military matters
The democracy of Zionism
Historical errors
Terrorism
Cruelty and torture
Liberties
Refusing to accept reality
Land ownership
Jerusalem
Socialist values
Support for Arafat
Colonialism
The Palestinians are content with Israeli rule
Irresponsibility
Said rejects Israel’s right to exist
Conclusion
Foreword to the Second Edition
In the first edition of this book, I wrote about Palestinian claims, “Some chances lost cannot be regained.” That equally applies to the Jews.
Present Israel is doomed. A nation defined in religious terms cannot survive in a secular state. Religious Jews despise Western culture and alien religious practices in the Promised Land; secular Jews dislike outdated religious rites. Reformism gained strength in America and is poised to invade Israel, subverting the religion. The socialist state suffocates enterprising Jews, and welfare programs dilute their work ethics. Democratic centralism suppresses the strongly opinionated population. Military expenditures have reached an economic dead-end.
Why are the Jews, who waged such asymmetrical warfare against the British seventy years ago, now sheepishly obedient to the Israeli government? One reason is a much stronger security apparatus in Israel than in the Mandate Palestine. More importantly, people shrink from the uncomfortable realization that their government is their worst enemy, an apathy that dooms their country.
Egyptian society is boiling. Support for the Muslim Brotherhood visibly grows, and that radical group already controls the largest body of the parliament. Many adherents are moderates, but so it was before every revolution. Moderates clear the way to power for radicals who often begin their rule by butchering the moderates. Ageing Mubarak is losing his grip on his country and the people sense that. Democratizers further destabilize the situation by demanding the transparent election framework that will bring to power the Islamists, the only group untainted by corruption and perceived as able to combat it. Egypt barely controls its South, and a despised and corrupt police is both powerless and unreliable. Decades of propaganda etched, in the minds of two generations, Israel as the archenemy. Restitution of Sinai was not enough; they want revenge. Israel did not demilitarize Egypt when she could have, and now the enemy is coming back with a vengeance, armed with nuclear bombs.
Iran strives for Middle East dominance, a hard take for a non-Arab Shiite country. Nuclear technology is a must for the Iranian military, and Persian pride will not let them accept inferiority to Arab Egypt in this important aspect.
Pakistan exports nuclear technology and scientists, and no one outside that country knows the whereabouts of all its bombs. The secular Pakistani elite is unstable, and Islamic politicians ascend the election ladder.
Islamic Algeria has firmly embarked on the nuclear path. The terrorist state of Libya conducts its nuclear program in the utmost secrecy, and Israel’s age-old enemy, Syria, takes fundamental steps in the same direction. North Korea will sell its A-bomb to cash bidders, even if they’re terrorists. Muslim countries have obtained nuclear weapons, which will inevitably detonate in Israel.
Ancient Judea lingered in existence after Israel fell. Creating a small, ethnically and religiously homogeneous state of Judea can prolong Jewish presence in the Promised Land. A small state, however, will not survive among the surrounding sea of hostility.
Modern Israel is not unique. Jews tried to reestablish their country several times in the past two millennia. A third of the Jews died in the Holocaust; wiping out another third in Israel would be apocalyptic. Glorious nuclear suicide or evacuation to relative safety of the Diaspora?
Modern Jews were given a chance to return, but flouted the wise biblical instructions on the scope of their state. Jews did not drive away the hostile aliens and the Arabs fought back. Jews had no heart to destroy the enemies and the enemies developed nuclear weapons. Most of all, Jews created a society bereft of Judaism — a Western democracy with no claim to the Promised Land, and no place in the land.
Foreword to the First Edition. On hate.
Several reviewers classified this book as hate literature. This cannot be true, as hate is irrational and 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 threats of violence, but international politics is always built around such threats; 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.
Nazis 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 all Jews, only remotely useful for Germans, and into entirely unreasonable mass murder. 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 Rwandese? I do, however, believe in the biblical ”chosen-ness” 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 the underdog, the despising of Gentiles while at the same time requiring them to support Jews—these traits of many Jews I really hate.
I am liberal—in the traditional sense of the word before leftists usurped it. I dislike irresponsible idealists who in the worst totalitarian manner shut out voices of realism, and keep their heads in the sand of theoretical ideology. 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.
Theory
Most of us want to believe that peace is the natural state of humanity. At the very least, we prefer to see it as a lasting solution, interrupted sometimes by readjustments in the balance of power by means of armed conflicts. But in the real world, we have to make choices. It is not uncommon to prefer ideological or religious values to one’s own life. Preference is a matter of value judgment; there is no objectively best option. Indeed, in the Ten Commandments, fundamental to modern Jewish, Christian, and Muslim cultures, the religious prescriptions precede the prohibition of murder. Killing enemies in war is not prohibited.
Once people are ready to die for their values, their religion may condone killing for them, since the commandment of negative reciprocity—Do not do unto another what is hateful to you—is satisfied. It is not hateful to die, and therefore not prohibited to kill.[1] That approach attached moral legitimacy to scores of wars, notably the Crusades, but also recent ideologically inspired wars, down to the Falklands. Rational—or honest—minds might argue that the causes for wars are usually silly or superficial, that enmity is forced on people on both sides otherwise content with each other. But that is a different issue, namely, do soldiers really need to die for the goals they fight for? Why does the traditional interpretation of You shall not murder exclude from the prohibition executing criminals and killing in war? Because people are normally ready to die to save their neighbors or their country. Reciprocity allows them to kill.
The prohibition of murder’s place following the religious rules in the Ten Commandments suggests the subordination of life to ideology. Both the case law of the Hebrew scriptures and the prescribed punishments for religious transgressions support that conjecture.
The parties to the Arab-Israeli conflict have shown in numerous wars that they are ready to die for the cause, an attitude not limited to the military. Israeli civilians stand ready to suffer daily losses from suicide attacks, and Muslim civilians likewise have no trouble sacrificing themselves. The maiming of thousands of locals in Osama's attacks on the American embassies in Africa raised no domestic outcry. Israeli rhetorical condemnations of the terrorists and Arab denouncements of Baruch Goldstein[2] aside, only the facts matter: Israelis and Muslims are ready to die for religious or nationalist causes. War is lamentably acceptable to both.
Consider the application of You shall do nothing to your neighbor you do not want him doing to you. No one wants to give way in any conflict, whether bargaining in the marketplace or fighting on the battlefield. Should the buyer pay the asking price without question? Would the seller like someone imposing a price on him? Should he not refrain from imposing prices on others? The two parties would have to bargain since neither should impose a price. The dilemma is superficial. The commandment is fulfilled so long as both parties agree on how to resolve the conflict. A gambler’s winnings at cards or on the stock market fits the definition of stealing, because someone loses without being fairly compensated, but such wins are not criminal, since both parties played the game willingly. Arabs condone war as a means of resolving conflicts, so the Israelis are justified in fighting them, since both accept the use of force to resolve conflicts. Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela turned the tables by renouncing violence and turning world opinion against violence done to them. Muslims see their best hope in asymmetric warfare, which justifies Israel’s military ventures.