David-Pryce Jones is an acknowledged authority on the Middle East, and was a war correspondent in the 1967 and 1973 wars with Israel, but his interpretation of the Arabs is rigorously partisan and uncompromisingly merciless in its pursuit of the truth. This pursuit, it turns out, is very difficult -- the norms of Arab politics are so far removed from what we in the West take for granted that virtually nothing uttered by any Arab politician can be interpreted at face value. In public, says Pryce-Jones, every word is carefully judged to maximize advantage to the speaker in what the author calls the 'power-challenge' dialectic that constitutes the single, unshakeable rule of Arab society. Words such as 'nationalism', 'democracy', 'compromise' and 'socialism', much uttered by successful Arab dictators past and present, are, in fact, meaningless, targeted more to pique European feelings of liberal post-colonial guilt (thus raising the status of the speaker in an ongoing calculus of 'shame' and 'honour') than to alleviate the suffering of the people at home. The result, in Europe, has to romanticize and fundamentally misunderstand the Middle East. The result in the Arab world is far worse -- despite immense oil wealth, most Arabs live in poverty and fear, subject to the whim and waste of an absolute ruler (whether his title is Sultan, King, Emir or just President, it makes no difference), with no recourse to representative government or even the law -- because government and law resides completely with the ruler, whose rule is invariably violent. In making such accusations of the Arabs, one could, of course, accuse David Pryce-Jones of falling into the very same 'Eurocentrism' with which he damns liberal western consciences -- there are times when his interpretation of every last scrap of Arab politicking as a manifestation of the power-challenge dialectic seems repetitive, even forced. On the other hand, the even-handed treatment of all concerned (he is as scathing of Russians and Israelis as he is of Arabs and Europeans) suggests that what he has to say is nothing but the truth -- inasmuch as any truth can be gleaned from the snakepit of intrigue that constitutes the Arab way of doing things. If so, then the picture is uniformly depressing: in sum, politics in the Arab world is like mafia gang warfare magnified to a hideous degree: the tales of double-dealing, nepotism, corruption, savagery, conspiracy and murder make the Corleone dynasty look positively timid. Although the book was published in the late 1980s, before the present Intifada in Palestine and, of course, the recent Iraq war, it could hardly seem more timely. It exposes the Arab position in all its conflicted ambiguities, and offers some extremely unwelcome lessons for anti-war protestors, who -- in the light of this book -- can only be seen as the dupes of yet another Arab stratagem. (Indeed, just before the Iraq war, David Pryce-Jones said as much in an editorial in the Sunday Telegraph). Essential reading for anyone interested in what is really happening behind the headlines.