|  |
| Customer Reviews: | | Average Customer Review:
Write an online review and share your thoughts with other customers.
10 of 11 found the following review helpful:
A book worth reading Aug 19, 2007
Regardless of whether or not one agrees with the mandate of a Jewish Israel with borders that expand into Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria, this book is well worth reading. Of particular interest are the many possible solutions the author proposes for establishing Israel as a respected country in the region, and for bringing an end to the terrorist attacks. I found the suggestions regarding the need for a strong economy particularly insightful. Although some of the author's military ideas may seem a bit inhumane--for example, opinions will most certainly differ regarding the idea that civilians are fair game because they vote for the government and pay taxes that help support the war effort--as the author states, "war is not a competition in moral values" but should be pragmatic and swift in order to maintain popular support and prevent even greater future civilian casualties. The author's proposals are bold; however, it is questionable whether the consistent use of military force without regard for diplomacy and civilian lives can have a lasting positive effect. The author provides further interesting insights through the statement that Israelis provoked the war by trying to impose European ideas on an indigenous culture. In light of the Holocaust, however, it is unfortunate that some of the ideas presented in this book seem a bit Nazi-like. For example, the statement that women should not be drafted into combat because "girls should learn to be mothers," is almost verbatim Hitler's idea and does not befit a society that advocates democratic ideals. Another example is the Jews' desire to maintain a separate identity, "to live in an ethnically homogenous state without anyone else." This clannish behavior, for lack of a better word, might be at the heart of the suffering that Jews have had to endure for much of their history. On the other hand, the author does recognize that democracy and liberalism are difficult to come by in societies that do not share similar cultural values. A minor weakness of the book is the references to the Torah and what it dictates. Since virtually all religious people believe that their religion alone has value, religious references intended to justify a behavior tend to lead to dead ends and normally cannot be used successfully in logic argumentation. These references are also the cause of some confusion, since the author paradoxically states that it is "better to admit honestly that the historical parts of the Torah are not factual." The author deserves credit, however, for the analytical rather than emotional approach to the difficulties that Israel faces in the Middle East. The author sheds light on the complexity of many points, such as what constitutes Jewishness: Ethnic traits or religious standards? To whom should the state of Israel belong? The answers to these questions are not immediately apparent and need to undergo a great deal of analytical scrutiny. I would recommend this provocative study to anyone with an interest in conflict resolution and political world issues.
8 of 27 found the following review helpful:
 There are these things called editors ... Jun 08, 2007
Utterly unreadable. This so-called book didn't come within 10 miles of an editor. Picking words at random out of a dictionary would be a much more enjoyable reading experience.
6 of 18 found the following review helpful:
 An indispensable companion to the Middle East conflicts Apr 14, 2007
This book is an intellectual monster and that is exactly why everyone should read it, particularly Arabs. It reveals, if needs be, the fundamentalist approach some Israelis are developing in their decades-long fight against international principles and the local populations they are manhandling and rejecting away from their own homes. We have met with this political approach in many areas in the world or even in our societies where some leaders advocate the same kind of policy to solve current social problems. It is bound to fail but we must know why, and this book is the perfect demonstration of this perspective: why will such a policy fail? The reference to Machiavelli is in many ways indecent: Indecent because it would politically plunge the world back into the Italian Renaissance which was characterized by all kinds of crimes, murders, assassinations, etc. Killing your enemy was the acme of this political approach. Welcome back Dr Hannibal Lecter. Indecent too because Machiavelli never pretended his approach of politics was worth anything for other people but his own: that was for him the only way to control the political class of his little Italian principality, Florence originally. Welcome back Dr Hannibal Lecter again. Indecent too because of several principles that I would like to point at. It is so deeply anti-Arab that it verges onto absurdity. You may consider them as mentally retarded, but it is absurd to write it down and write down how you could fool them: sooner or later one person will eventually tell them what is in this book. Maybe they don't read but they pay some of their advisers to do it and report. To look down upon your "enemies" or just "contenders" is suicide. Second it is totally unrealistic. To base the future of Israel, or as for that of any state, on the exclusive use of violence and war, conquest and force is the best way to alienate the whole world and to force yourself in a dead end. To envisage, even if only in theory, the possibility for some Israeli fundamentalists or extremists to blow up the mosque on top of Temple Mount is the most outrageous and uncivilized and unjustifiable insult at human consciousness in the world. The idea is that the world will always make do with what they cannot repair any more. Speaking of this mosque the author dares write: "Pagan temples in the holiest place in the Promised Land". How can he dare use this medieval word, pagan! This looks like, sounds like and definitely is a crime against human sanity. We are plunged in a mental world that refers us to the worst possible periods of the Christian era: the killing of James, the first Bishop of Jerusalem, or the creation of the Inquisition, or the very practice of Crusading in Europe, against for instance the Cathars, or finally the mental aberration of declaring any dissenter a heretic. No religion is pagan because pagan is the word used by some religions who consider themselves as superior. How can the Jews consider themselves as superior to the Moslems when we know the Moslem religion is directly derived from the Old Testament and affiliated to the New Testament, even if the New Testament is the victory of the Paulian disciples over the Jamesian zealots who will eventually evolve into the Moslem religion. This runs all along the book. Another example that shows how wrong this approach can be is: "One motivation [for Israel to keep the {occupied} territories] is esteem: a powerful nation is respected." This is pure absurdity and you just have to look at the USA to know it is absurd. The USA are powerful but they are not respected, they are in fact feared and despised all around the world. In other words, this position has nothing to do with esteem from other people but only self-esteem from oneself and oneself only. The political project that is behind this book is as simple as that: to conquer Arab states and make them subservient. "Israel must occupy the capitals of enemy states. To avoid loss of Israeli personnel that should be carried out in two stages. The first is the aerial destruction of economically significant objects and the devastation of the capital itself. [...] Second, a local collaborative government should be installed, supported by a few Israeli mechanized ground troops and the threat of further air assault. [...] After some years of humiliation, Israel might agree to local elections based on a constitution prohibiting major military development." This is not machiavellian at all. It is pure hooliganism, unlawfulness. It does not deal with political inventiveness but only with the good old recipes that have failed over and over again. Why did the Crusades fail? Why did the kingdom of Jerusalem fail? Why did Napoleon fail? Why did Bismarck fail? Why did Hitler fail? Why did Breshnev fail? And the list is long of all those failed tyrants or less tyrannical tyrants or conquerors who failed anyway. There is no hope in such an approach. Look at Iraq. The world has changed and it is because it has changed that Al Qaeda is possible: it needs satellite communication, globalized finance, a globalized weapon black market, etc. So far, will I say, Israel has eaten its best and white bread, if not its brioche, because it has not yet been confronted to Al Qaeda and their type of action. Why are the Talibans resuscitating in Afghanistan? Just because of one single reason: they have an invading enemy that is not minding its own business but is trying to impose onto the Afghanis its solutions. In such a clear-cut situation the Talibans appear as saviors.
Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris Dauphine & University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne
16 of 22 found the following review helpful:
Politically incorrect; A necessary discussion. May 23, 2006
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."
|
| | |
|
|
