Power, Faith and Fantasy: A specious façade of scholarly inquiry

“Poverty, rapine, murder, tumult, blind bigotry, cruel persecution, pestilence!” recalls an American observer traveling in the Middle East. As he digs into history in search of such inimical quotes, while blatantly obscuring positive ac-counts, Michael Oren’s Power, Faith and Fantasy: America in the Middle East 1776 to the Present continues in the tradition of Zionists, such as Bernard Lewis, in ‘writing the history’ of the Middle East in the most skewed and perilous manner. Oren’s book is yet another reminder and highlight of two dilemmas, one faced by Arabs in particular, and the second by scholars in general. First, the book sheds light on the continuously lost battle in the realm of academia between our Zionist adversaries and us Arabs; they can sell our own history to the American public. We cannot. By combining thorough academic research with enchanting tales of piracy and warfare, Oren succeeds in attracting both, the scholar and the ‘aver-age Joe’ to his account of history. Second, this book sheds light on one of scholarship and academia’s gravest laws: with ample research, diligence, and determination, one can validly prove almost anything. By magnifying certain issues and neglecting, or downplaying others, one can ultimately ‘re-write history.’

Born in the US and immigrated to Israel at the age of 24, Michael Bernstein Oren, combined a military career in the Israel Defense Forces, with an impressive academic career that included Columbia, Princeton, Harvard and Yale. A staunch Zionist and a right wing Israeli, Oren is the author of Six Days of War (2002), criticized by Norman Finkelstein, a son of a Holocaust survivor, because it “basically reiterates the official Israeli version of the June war.” His writings include “Jimmy Carter Has a Religious Problem with Israel” and “Arafat without Tears: The Terrorist Statesman Took Peace No-where.” While such blatant biases might tempt many to shrug off this book, the prominence and acclaim it has received prevents us from doing so. We often forget that authors’ biases are frequently veiled behind a specious façade of scholarly inquiry and captivating narratives.

The book contends that US involvement in the Middle East did not start after World War II, the tapping of oil, or the Arab-Israeli conflict. Rather, the US was extensively involved in the Middle East since 1776, and that in fact, both regions (US and the Middle East) played pivotal roles in shaping each other’s history and policies. It also contends that there has been a void in the coverage of this history, and that this book attempts to ill it. The book argues that until World War II, the US’s involvement in the Middle East was torn between protecting domestic nationalist movements that fought colonial powers, protecting their own trade interests, and struggling over the creation of a Jewish state. During that period, the book describes the emissaries, explorers, and missionaries that visited the region. It claims that what drove these individuals, and the ones who came after them, was either power, faith, fantasy, or a combination of the above. With the tapping of oil, the presence of a Soviet threat, and the creation of the Jewish state, the struggle became less tumultuous and US policy became more delineated. While US presidents continued to grapple with the notion of an Israeli state, and how to align with it, they were to commit to its existence. In an ostensible attempt to make the book more academic, the author creates a loose “methodological framework” to build the US involvement in the Middle East on. He creates a blurry, somewhat triangular, relationship between power, faith, and fantasy. Accordingly, he at-tempts to ground US involvement on some balance in this triangular structure. The “framework” of three themes (power, faith, and fantasy) is vague, at best. The author seems bogged down in this framework, going to extremes to try to link these themes together. In fact, the ‘fantasy’ theme is secondary when com-pared to the ‘power’ and ‘faith,’ which seem to play a significantly more prominent role. This framework also neglects other major themes. For example, US policy-makers faced constant dilemmas over whether to follow principles or national interest. Throughout the book, ‘principles’ of a nation are more prominent than ‘faith’ and ‘fantasy.’ While this book has several shortcomings, to say the least, there are undeniable strengths. The book is thoroughly researched, with 150 pages of notes and bibliography. For those who enjoy history it contains capturing narratives –riveting tales of pirates, wars, diplomacy, religion, adventure, and politics. It also presents a fascinating insight into the historic struggles and dilemmas that faced American politics, such as colonialism vs. resistance; isolationism vs. involvement; and Zionism vs. anti-Zion-ism, among others. Finally, it is very well written with an intriguing and detailed coverage of those periods of history. On the other hand, the book is fraught with limitations. First, and as mentioned above, it highlights the deficiency in academia itself where one can shed light on specific events or quotes in history, while shrouding other, thus depicting accounts in a manner that best serves their interests. The author inundates the reader with countless damaging quotes,

which in many cases seem to prove no point other than providing a barrage of insults. On the other hand, positive ac-counts of the region are conspicuously obscured. However, what is more alarming than these quotes is the way the author integrates his own animosity into them. For example, he states that “most arrived in the region already biased against Is-lam and soon found their prejudices confirmed [emphasis added by author]. Islam for Stephens, was a ‘false religion’ followed by ‘bigoted Musselmans’ and ‘haughty and deluded fanatics and, for Cooley, a creed of ‘ignorance and superstition’ embraced by ‘lunatics, idiots, and imposters.’” The disturbing fact is not the endless adverse quotes Oren uses, rather, his own affirmation that American’s “prejudices [were] confirmed.” There are also some outrageous claims and conclusions in the book. Some are not necessary false, but gravely over exaggerated. Some examples include: the need to confront North Africa was a major reason behind the inception of the Constitution; Truman liberated Syria –Syria’s anti-American stances in the future showed a ‘lack of appreciation;’ the US introduced ‘Arab nationalism’ to the Arabs; and a conclusive assertion that the USS Liberty, was “mistakenly” hit by Israel in 1967. Frankly, Oren’s recount of the recent history involving Israel is tremendously skewed, inaccurate, and an abundant amount of literature exists to counter most of his arguments. The book also gets tedious in most places with unending accounts of conflicts and run-on quotes that are almost entirely disconnected. While disconnected quotes are academically accepted, one should view a book saturated with them with much skepticism. The book also addresses the war in Iraq, however, it does not address how this war will change the perception of the US towards the Middle East, especially that tens of thousand of Americans will return from Iraq bringing back their egregious experiences, and whether the themes of power, faith, and fantasy will still hold. In other words, the book provides no speculations or insight into the future of US involvement in the Middle East.

Conclusion

Again, such criticism cannot allow us to undermine this book or its influence. This is a truly dangerous book, with an even more perilous message. In a time where the West views Muslims and the Arab world as backward, evil, and terrorists, a ‘rich’ and ‘thorough’ book that claims these same perceptions were shared by this nation’s forefathers –who are of great importance in the US –is a precarious notion presented at a very sensitive time. While several Zionists have written such misleading accounts in the past; by wrapping the message in such enchanting stories of adventure, pirates and fairy tales, none, I believe, have made the message so intriguing, inviting, and capturing for the American public. I end with the words of the great Edward Said’s critique of Bernard Lewis (who the author, obviously, has great disdain towards the former): this is but “willful political assertions in the form of scholarly arguments” hiding “beneath the umbrella of academic respectability.”