Daniel Pipes claims that pan-Syrianism has not received the scholarly attention it deserves because most Middle East scholars focus on pan-Arabism. Pan-Syrianism is defined as the goal of uniting lesser Syria (current borders), Lebanon, Israel, Palestine, Jordan (and sometimes Iraq) into what is called Greater Syria. Approximately half of the book is quotations from politicians, writers, clerics, from Syria, other Arab countries, and Europe. The citations have one goal - to show that pan-Syrianism has been a significant ideology in influencing players in Syria and neighboring countries before and after colonialism. The rest of the book consists of a narrative of the British/French/Arab/Maronite/Alawite participation in creating the borders of Syria, the Baath party and other political groups, relations between the minorities in Syria and the Sunni Muslim majority, relations between Syria and its neighboring countries (especially Lebanon), and the coups in Syria. The sheer number of quotes can get in the way after awhile, but the side benefit is extensive endnotes of primary and secondary sources on the history of modern Syria.
By the way, it did not contain too much about Israel, except the claim that minority status of the ruling 'Alawi minority would probably have been indifferent to Israel except for their desire to avoid the charge from the Sunni Muslim majority of been pro-Zionist; and a few quotes from Israelis about pan-Syrianism. I saw nothing that could be construed as anti-Arab or pro-Israel.
Whether one agrees or not with his thesis about pan-Syrianism's importance in shaping the political history of the region, the book was a good introduction to modern Syria's political history.