In a remarkable marketing campaign, a book classed as a "Politically incorrect book on antiterrorism" was suggested to me in an email.
May I point your attention to Obadiah Shoher's book and blog, Samson Blinded: A Machiavellian Perspective on the Middle East Conflict.
Shoher is a pen name for a veteran Israeli politician. He dealt with antiterrorism issues for most of his career. The Samson Blinded dissects honestly the problems accumulated since the Jews returned to Palestine. Advocating political rationalism, it deplores both Jewish and Muslim myths, and argues for efficiency and separating politics from moralism.
You are welcome to download a copy from SamsonBlinded. I would appreciate your review.
Grumpy Old Bookman commented on the unusual campaign back in Feb., 2006 so I won't go there. The email says that Yahoo and Google banned the website, promoting the book, in their ad programs (though not searches) for unacceptable content.
The part about Amazon is true. You are able to buy the book through Amazon for $18.95, $8.95 higher than available on the www.samsonblinded.org website. I checked in at Barnes & Noble and Powell's and they do not find the book.
So why is it considered "politically incorrect"?
First, it reminds us of "our" world history, the part we don't want to acknowledge.
The readiness of militant Jews to conquer a tiny plot of land to practice their religion in is not uncommon. On the contrary, the restraint the whole world urges upon them is without precedent in history. (page 10)
Second, past conduct of war is now considered inhumane.
Cruel measures are sometimes the kindest
The cruelty of the stronger increases suffering in the short run but decreases it over the long term by stopping wars sooner and crushing the will to fight. Low intensity perpetuates conflicts. Tolerating enemies is provocative. (page 11)
We dropped two atomic bombs on Japan and ended the fighting and saved 1,000,000 American boys' lives. And Shohar argues
When Truman shrunk from employing nuclear weapons in Korea, he opened the door to murderous regimes in China and North Korea which annihilated hundreds of times more people than would have died in nuclear attacks. (page 11)
Third, we get a philosophy lesson about Niccolò Machiavelli, considered one of the greatest tactitions who "affirmed that two ways lead most directly to peace: destroy a people’s will to fight by either utter goodness or by utter cruelty, usually expressed as extermination." He further states, "No regime that comes to power by force can sustain itself by grace without first exterminating its enemies." (page 12)
That eliminates the goodness alternative! Besides Shoher agrues Bedouins have a "respect for the strong and disdain for the weak." When Israel constantly calls for negotiations or gives away "land for peace" it loses respect. It develops a feeling in the Palastinians and Arabs that Israel can be taken, given enough time.
Respect! What would Tony do? Tony makes an example out of someone, whacks someone, and has no more trouble from rivals. Maybe, we like mob pictures because they reflect the reality of life, and they have a strict code unlike the culture we read about in the MSM about diplomacy that goes on and on and on while people keep dying. We may shrink before the reason of the Shoher's lessons from history, but successful countries have "Crushed the will to fight, drove the enemy away, and lived peacefully."
Regarding the history lessons of the book, they apply to the U.S. in our struggles to find a solution to the 11 million aliens here.
Few governments in history have accepted large alien minorities as citizens without trying to assimilate, disperse, or subdue them.
There's more. Everyday, we read about the "War on Terror" and the same paper complains that the Bush Administration has gone too far making us less free. Shoher reminds us of something that harkens back to the Winston Churchill era.
Democracy, inherently weak and unfit for wartime, is for peacetime.
Read Orianna Falacci or Londonistan or Prayers for the Assassin and see what life in the U.S. would be like if we lose.
With Iran and North Korea in mind, it is prudent to recall Shoher's history lesson that pre-emption, "attacking an unprepared enemy upon the first reasonable provocation is better than waiting for escalation and imminent war."
These are reasonable comments, all of them. The average guy in the street believes in the philosophy "shoot first, and ask questions later." He's seen the cowboy movies showing rattlesnakes shot before they strike. What was your reaction on 9/11 when the World Trade Towers fell? You know what it was and it wasn't "Turn the other cheek" as much as we admire that philosophy.
In a very un-PC like way, Shoher tells us that Israel’s mistakes in defending itself have provoked an arms race and created an Arab coalition united in opposition to the common enemy. Instead Israel should decide upon an aggressive course. Attack the designated targets immediately. Do not let the Arabs prepare and the U.S. intercede. Most importantly do not threaten. Governments rarely give way to threats, especially autocratic governments, especially in religious matters. To delay aggression would greatly increase the cost of victory.
There are lessons here that we would rather not face. Lessons that are not politically correct, but based on history true none the less.
Mr. Bush what's on your reading list?