Short but dense book providing a fairly high-level summary of the USA's involvement in the Middle East, specifically regarding Israel and Palestine. I do think the author does a good job showing how the USA has acted more like "Israel's lawyer" than as the supposed neutral brokers of peace they like to position themselves as. I wouldn't say this is a great starting point for those wanting to know more about the history of Israel/Palestine, as the focus is definitely on the USA's involvement in the various "peace talks" over the years. I do think this is worth the read for an additional perspective on a deceptively large factor it the conflict and player on the field.

While President George Washington has serious controversies concerning how he "dealt" with Native Americans or that he participated in slavery, Khalidi's usage of Washington's 1796 Farewell Address matched well for this books narrative. President Washington wrote, "a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification."
Every U.S. President since Truman has essentially given Israel a blank check in support for Israel. Israel's interests has been manipulated into becoming our own national interests. From international politics into our domestic politics and fears of insecurity for example. As Khalidi argues, the U.S. has never been an honest broker between Israel and the Palestinians, not even in the so call "peace process."

Overall Khalidi proved his point well throughout the book that the U.S. has been biased in its position as an "honest broker" between Israel and Palestine and has therefore been an impediment to peace instead of a help. I had some issues with points in his argument and limiting the scope of such a complex issue necessitates leaving a great deal out. However his thesis was clear and he argued it well. I particularly think his conclusion was well articulated and his thoughts on how peace could and should be reached had the ring of practicality and fairness to it.