A reply by David Tal

It seems Professor Petersen was not particularly fond of the book I authored, and while he is entitled to his opinion, I find myself perplexed by his review. Although he references my name as the author and the title of the book he purports to critique matches my own, the content of his review bears no resemblance to the work I penned. I am inclined to believe that Professor Petersen did not misinterpret my book, but rather, his conspicuous omission of any reference to the central theme – exploring the genesis and evolution of the unique bond between Israel and the United States – leads me to surmise that he may have inadvertently reviewed an entirely different book. my book delves into the intricate elements and concepts that have shaped the special relationship between Israel and the United States, with a historical lens that traces its roots to the era preceding President Woodrow Wilson. By adopting a longue durée approach, the book enables readers to discern the various undercurrents and connective threads that have guided the trajectory of this alliance over the years. Regrettably, Professor Petersen seemed to overlook this perspective and failed to recognize the unifying thread woven throughout the book. For instance, the Anglo-American relationship is of marginal relevance in my work, and the extent of coverage it receives is commensurate with its significance to the Israeli-American alliance. Yet, the book that Professor Peterson reviewed led him to lament that the author displayed ‘scant concern for the Anglo-American relationship [...] opting for an incredibly detailed depiction of American policy and the prevailing circumstances in Israel’. Professor Petersen’s discontent stemmed from the fact that the book he read delved extensively into ‘American policy and realities on the ground in Israel’, while allocating minimal attention to the Anglo-American relationship. It was at this juncture that I began to suspect Professor Petersen had reviewed a book other than my own, as my work is devoted exclusively to the Israeli-US relationship, making it entirely logical to provide ‘an incredibly detailed description of American policy and realities on the ground in Israel’. As I continued reading his review, my conviction that Professor Petersen had indeed read a different book grew stronger, with the increasing mentions of subjects that were tangential or irrelevant to my book’s central theme. And these led me to realize one more thing. Professor Petersen falls into the category of reviewers who don’t critique a book per se, but rather propose what they would have preferred to see within its pages. In addition to mentioning components that bear little relevance to the book’s primary theme, he raises issues that he believes should have been incorporated, instead of the subjects the author deliberately chose to include. Consequently, Professor Petersen’s disappointment stems from the scarcity of references to Anglo-American relations, as well as his distress over the omission of the ‘plight of the Palestinians’. Simultaneously, Professor Petersen expressed displeasure with the mention of the ‘sixty-six-year-old Florida cab driver’, seemingly overlooking the fact that the cab driver’s insights reveal just as much, if not more, about the unique bond between Israel and the United States as any official statements on the matter. I am confident that Professor Petersen’s political views did not cloud his reading of the book, and the sole reason his review appears