Most books written on the subject of Middle Eastern politics that deal with the Arab-Israeli conflict either vilify Israel to no end or accuse all Arabs of being heartless for bullying a completely innocent people. Personally, I find these arguments tired and largely unhelpful. It is difficult for me to read to the end of some of those overly biased texts because I grow frustrated with the author’s blatant attempts to skew the facts about events to fit whatever agenda they are pushing. When I picked up “King’s Council: A Memoir of War, Espionage, and Diplomacy in the Middle East” by Jack O’Connell over the summer, I expected it to be more of the same old story. The only reason I splurged for this hardback, new release was because I am very interested in Jordanian politics, and it is not exactly a well documented topic, so I have to take whatever I can get.
I was pleasantly surprised with how information was presented throughout the book. I am not insinuating that Jack O’Connell was completely objective while documenting his personal dealings with the government of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan under the rule of King Hussein during his time at the CIA and as legal counsel for Jordan in the US, but he tried to be. The book is very blunt and O’Connell seems to have no reservations about showing both the US and Israel is a less-than-flattering light. He did not seem to set out to “bash” either country, but O’Connell chronicled events as he witnessed them and criticized, quite fairly, those he felt deserved it.
Jack O’Connell worked closely with the Jordanian government for many years and became a a personal friend and confidant of King Hussein. Due to this unique position, O’Connell witnessed many decisions being made and events unfolding from a largely unfamiliar angle. I found O’Connell’s insight into UN Resolution 242 and the intricacies of its wording, specifically about Israeli withdrawal from occupied territory, fascinating. This resolution has been greatly influential since its inception, but its exact meaning has been debated. O’Connell spends a portion of the book talking about the deals made leading up to the resolution, which shed interesting light on the intended meaning of the document.
Jack O’Connell also relays anecdotes about well known Middle Eastern and US politicians, like Nasser and Henry Kissinger, which help explain their character and motives. These small portions about other officials help show the larger impact of the Jordanian focused events he chronicles and makes the reader question each actor’s interests in the actions they took or supported.
All in all, I found the book extremely interesting because the Jordanian side of issues that transpired in the Middle East has not been well chronicled. This book, though written by an American, shows much of the internal workings of the Jordanian government. I would recommend reading this book as a supplement to traditional knowledge about pan-Middle Eastern issues, like the 1967 War. This book does not disprove traditional ideas about the conflicts, but it fills in some missing pieces, which allow for a more holistic understanding.
Jenny Sue,
ReplyDeletecan you talk a little bit more about what UN resolution 242 said? I thought it was very interesting that the author approached the article from a time previous to when the document was actually signed. Did the author's information relate at all or give new insight to the G&P info on decision making?
Jenny Sue - I am interested to know what Jack O'Connell's views were of Israel and the US and how this influenced his work with the Jordanian government.
ReplyDeleteCaroline, Resolution 242 had two major points: Israeli withdrawal from territories occupied in the 1967 War and recognition of all states in the Middle East and their right tot exist in peace. The first part, Israeli withdrawal form territories, has been a source of debate. Does it mean all territories gained in the war? It doesn't say that. If it only means some territories, which ones? O'Connell was present in the discussions about how to word this resolution, so he is able to shed some light on the intended meaning. O'Connell's book doesn't really provide new insight into decision making as a subject. He talks about specific decisions that were made. His work does however show the win-sets that were being dealt with in certain situations.
ReplyDeleteMollie, that is a very general topic. O'Connell never explicitly says "I think this or that about Israel/the US." He talks about certain officials and their decisions. From those passages you can discern how he felt about those specific aspects of the governments, but his opinion about the countries as a whole is complex. It wouldn't do him justice to generalize his opinions in a few sentences. Throughout the book he describes aspects of both countries as both good and bad. I think you'd have to read the book to get a holistic sense of his sentiments and how they influenced his interactions with the Jordanian government.