The Much Too Promised Land: America's Elusive Search for Arab-Israeli Peace

I feel that this title is quite appropriate for this work. I found Aaron Miller's book to be a forthright and honest attempt at a historical analysis. What I found so refreshing though was the author's level of honesty. It is hard enough to find books that attempt a balanced view of these issues without adding to it the fact that the writer was very much an active participant in the very history they are attempting to analyze. I felt as if there were no attempt to whitewash or to put a better face on his or the US's role in this history, and so that makes this a very important book. While I may not always agree with his analysis, this disagreement is due to my interpreting the facts differently rather than over how the author has laid out the facts. The book has a colloquial and anecdotal style that I normally cannot stand, but I think Miller did an excellent job mixing the anecdotal with the scholarly. I didn't find that the style detracted from the substance at all which is the usual problem I have with such works. Instead the style gives the reader a greater feel for how diplomacy works. The interviews and anecdotes bring US diplomacy down from the ethereal plains back down to the human level. Readers get the opportunity to see just how difficult these negotiations really are. It isn't this abstract chess board were large pieces are moved, but rather it is on the personal level where participants thrash out differences face to face. One gets to see just how much personalities play in diplomacy, and we get to see that this diplomacy is the work of hundreds of people and it evolves over time. Today's failure may be the ground work for tomorrow's breakthrough. I really liked his look into the role of pro-Israel lobbying groups in the US. I think his analysis is very important. These lobbyists are neither all-powerful hands guiding US policy but neither are they completely benign. They are nothing nefarious though. These groups are doing nothing but using the US system to advocate for their policies. This is perfectly legal, and it is essentially the American way of doing politics. My only problem is that I feel these groups have a certain negative impact on US policy in that they have the affect of making the Israeli perspective the default position of US governments. This does affect our balance, and our ability to be honest arbiters in this conflict. This doesn't mean that the US policy can't be affective or that it is forever tilted to the Israelis, but it does mean that more often than not the US is looking at any problems that arise from the Israeli viewpoint rather than from a balanced perspective. The author explains this very well, and also shows how this tilt towards Israel can have benefits as well. My one fundamental disagreement with this author's analysis is on the Camp David summit under Clinton. The author asserts that the US's unpreparedness was not a critical error that ensured the failure of these nego

Aaron Miller brings a truly unique insight into one of the world's most intractable yet fascinating conflicts: the search for Arab-Israeli peace. Not only does he provide a first-hand account of U.S. involvement in the region going back 20 years, he does so in an engaging, objective and often entertaining way. The book is part history lesson, part autobiography and part novel, written in such a way as to make it both accessible to newcomers and essential reading for scholars, diplomats and the myriad people engaged in the search for peace.

There is no end of reasons for anyone interested in Israel and Palestine to read this book. Miller worked for the State Department for a quarter century, under six different Secretaries of State and five presidents. The two Camp David summits essentially bookend his career. The book is a veritable fountain of insight into American Middle East diplomacy. Miller never loses sight of both the political complications of attempts to bring peace to Israel and its neighbors, nor of the human elements that are such a vital part of diplomacy. Unusual for a book of its kind, The Much Too Promised Land is exceptionally well-written and fully engages the reader throughout. It's that rarest of creations, a book of politics and history that's also a real page-turner. Miller gives us priceless material on a quarter-century of American engagement in the Middle East; is unsparing in his criticism, including of himself; but is also quite clear in his praise. One gets a really good picture of what worked and what didn't and why. We also get a picture of the circumstances, which is crucial to understanding why a given course of action might work in 1978 but not in 2007, or might fail at one time but succeed at another. Perhaps the most important point Miller brings out in his book, though this is not his focus, is the role of the "Israel Lobby" in American policy-making. Miller makes clear what I, among others, have been saying for years-that the "Lobby" is certainly powerful and effective and has an impact, but decisions are not based on what it wants. Miller illustrates well the importance of citizens organizing lobbying forces promoting reasonable policies but also makes clear where the power of lobbying ends and the leadership of a president begins. Click here and here for more of my own work on this issue. We'll get back to the issue of lobbying below. Miller's book is simply indispensible for anyone wanting to truly understand America's policy toward the Arab-Israeli conflict from Carter to George W.

This is a great read for anyone that is looking to have an insider's view of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Personal anecdotes add to an interesting and informative analysis regarding the history of the conflict. The author offers intimate knowledge of the missed opportunities and the prospects for peace in the future. Very informative and great read for anyone interested in a relevant and significant topic.

Aaron Miller has guts. This book tells the truth about Middle East diplomacy under the last three Presidents and concedes that the most adept was under George HW Bush. Why? The Bush/Baker team was fair and not simply a rubber stamp for the Israelis. Read this Miller quote on Dennis Ross. Honest and true. So is this brilliant funny and fascinating memoir. "Dennis, like myself, had a inherent tendency to see the world of Arab-Israeli politics first from Israel's vantage point rather than from that of the Palestinians. Not that he didn't understand Arab or Palestinian sensitivities. But his own strong Jewish identity, and his commitment to Israel's security combined with something else: a deep conviction that if you couldn't gain Israel's confidence, you have zero chance of erecting any kind of peace process. And to Dennis, achieving this goal required a degree of coordination with the Israeli's, sensitivity toward their substantive concerns, and public defense of their positions. Baker's good judgment and toughness balanced and controlled this inclination, which was not the case under Clinton."