Negative Positive
Title: A Detailed Chronology with Little Analysis
Review: Bill Quandt's volume on the American role in the Middle East peace process reads more as a chronology of events than a real analytical piece of history. The author devotes an extradinary amount of detail to minor events and actions without really explaining the motives of the players behind the actions. The strongest part of the book is the Presidential Crisis decision making model, in which he explains how he feels US policy on the issue is molded. There is little to judge against, however, since the author does not really do justice to the other theories of US decisionmaking on the middle east. Whether or not he agrees with them, he could at least tell us why he thinks they are incorrect. And finally, the amount of minutia the author goes into ends up leaving the reader wishing he would just decide to highlight a few important events and motives.
Is the review positive or negative? 