To be sure, the decades-long struggle between Israel, Palestine, and the rest of the world is far from simple, and atrocities have doubtless been committed by both sides.  War is ugly, and we are rightly repulsed by it.  We make an enormous tactical mistake, however, when we allow this to separate us form our long-time ally–because that is exactly what our mutual enemy hopes for.  The U.S. government is doing no one any favors by distancing itself from Israel’s recent actions—no one, that is, except the flotilla organizers.  They depended on just this sort of reaction to solidify Israel’s place as Most Hated Nation. By making their own enemy the enemy of the civilized world, the Islamists behind the flotilla have gained an entirely new set of friends and potential allies.

Anti-Zionism is often merely a half step away from anti-Semitism. Though the two ideologies are not precisely identical-anti-Semitism was around long before the state of Israel existed-they are very closely related-so closely related, in fact, that in stoking the flames of anti-Zionism across the globe, the organizers of the flotilla have, at least temporarily, made anti-Semitism a Western virtue.  And almost no one has noticed.

Israel’s account of the events leading up to this week’s international outrage is fairly straightforward.  In fact, it’s the only unambiguous part of this whole PR nightmare.  Every other nation’s reaction has been so heavily contextualized with emotions and memories of past events that it’s a wonder we know what happened at all.

This is intentional.  Cold, hard facts are easy to confirm or deny; symbols are not. The flotilla, its cargo, and its passengers were selected to confuse the issues by serving as a symbol of Israeli aggression or of Palestinian hardship or of . . . whatever else it might take to turn the world against Israel.  Mostly, it was intended to spark anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic sentiments all over the globe.  It worked.

The international media’s emotional outrage is clearly about a lot more than just the deaths of the protestors on the flotilla.  It’s about the much longer struggle, stretched out over decades, between Israel and Palestine.  It’s about the resentments on both sides, and about how hard it is to wait patiently for a resolution between two competing worldviews.  And it’s about the belief, implicit in all these frustrations, that the world would be a better place without both Israel and the Jewish people.

In other words, it’s about the Islamist narrative.

Why is the leadership of our government buying into this narrative? It’s not a narrative that will ever be good for the U.S.  Neglecting our longstanding relationship with Israel will merely lead to the deterioration with our other Middle Eastern alliances.  With Iran so close to developing a nuclear weapons arsenal, we cannot afford to cause unnecessary shifts in the balance of power.  Not only can we not afford to alienate our ally, but we also can’t afford to endorse anti-Semitism in any form-because where anti-Semitism thrives, anti-Americanism often follows.

Yet we are endorsing it, as is the rest of the world, when we refuse to give Israel a fair trial.  This is not to say that Israel is incapable of error or that we should support our ally without reservation or precondition. Like all nations, Israel is a flawed state composed of imperfect people.  But in being so quick to assume that the international media narrative is correct, we are opening ourselves to exactly the sort of feelings and opinions that our enemies have been hoping for.

Islamists have ennobled their own position in the world by making Israel a global outcast.  They’ve encouraged us to turn against one of our best allies, endangering our own security in the process. They’ve also enflamed the anti-Semitic suspicion and hatred that is frequently associated with anti-American convictions.

The media frenzy surrounding the flotilla will quickly subside and most of us will forget about it within weeks. But next time Israel acts in a way that the world doesn’t approve of,  it will be easier for us to uncritically condemn them, and easier for us to learn to hate them.  If we don’t stop ourselves we will become so much like our enemies that they will defeat us without our even noticing.

I could hardly have been more relieved; for a moment I’d thought I’d walked in on every modern mother’s nightmare - a preschooler who longs to be thin.  It’s not healthy for a four year old to fret about her weight, but it is normal for today’s youngest females to love mermaids.

Believe me, I know.  I’m terrifically popular with the local 7-and-under crowd, probably because of my daughter’s absurdly well stocked play room.  I’ve watched the girls spend countless hours in mermaid-centered play-mermaid coloring pages, mermaid dolls, mermaid bath toys, mermaid movies, mermaid costumes-you name it, they love it.  The advertising industry has more than adequately cashed in on this nearly universal girlish desire for great hair paired with amphibious appendages, and it’s easy to see why girls respond so eagerly. From Disney’s Ariel to Barbie’s Merliah, today’s mermaids are young, glamorous alpha females whose beauty and courage are admired by all.  Every girl wants to be like them.

But isn’t that a little strange?  Mermaids are an odd sort of symbol.  Attach fish parts to a woman, and suddenly you have an unfailingly captivating new creature whose place in the imaginations of the next generation of wives and mothers is nearly unchallenged.  Fish parts? Really?

Mermaids have always fascinated us, though they have not always been as positively portrayed as they are in today’s children’s programs.  Tales of the unlikely creatures have captivated men and women alike since at least 1000 B.C., with myths springing from such disparate places as ancient Assyria and 14^th century Warsaw.

As usual, J.K. Rowling got her mythology right when she described the merfolk who live in the water near Hogwarts:

“The merpeople had greyish skins and long, wild, dark green hair. Their eyes were yellow, as were their broken teeth, and they wore thick ropes of pebbles around their necks. They leered at Harry as he swam past; one or two of them emerged from their caves to watch him better, their powerful, silver fishtails beating the water, spears clutched in their hands.” (Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, p. 432)

Mermaids have usually been depicted as dangerous, unlucky creatures whose appearance bodes ill.  They are, traditionally, a far cry from Ariel or Mermaid Dora.  How on earth did we make the jump from sirens to sweethearts?  And what is it about the image that has captivated the imaginations of so many men and women for so many centuries?

The most important source of modern western conceptions of merfolk is Hans Christian Anderson’s The Little Mermaid. This 19^th century tale describes a young mermaid’s desperate attempts to gain an immortal soul and true love in one fell swoop.  Though her beloved Prince marries someone else and the mermaid commits suicide, she is ultimately granted a sort of soul because of the good deeds she did while on land.

Ensoulment, it seems, is good for one’s image.  Especially when Disney gets involved.  Disney’s 1989 animated interpretation of Anderson’s sympathetic tale sealed the western mermaid’s fate: no longer an undead harbinger of death and destruction, today’s mermaid is a kinder, gentler being with great hair and nothing more threatening than a desire to be “part of your world.”

On the surface, it appears to be a sign of progress that the old monstrous image has been baptized into the sort of harmless plaything that delights millions.  But this is actually a sign of our regression-and it says a thing or two about the flaws in our preferred feminine archetypes.

Mermaids myths are found all over the globe, and they vary wildly.  All the stories agree, however, that the creatures have fins instead of legs, and are able to attract human men.  This attraction is necessarily unproductive, however, as men can’t live under water and sex is physically impossible for mer-women.  A mermaid has all the power that comes with being desired by men, without the need or ability to ever submit herself to that desire.  This is especially true of modern mermaids, whom I have already compared to socially dominant women.  They are beautiful, but unattainable.  A man may love a mermaid, but he can never have her.  She may enjoy being desired for as long as she likes while never having to submit to the demands that love and sexual desire require.

In a way, then, today’s mermaids are even more insidious than the fierce old sirens.  C.S. Lewis described the danger in That Hideous Strength:

The beauty of the female is the root of joy to the female as well as to the male, and it is no accident that the goddess of Love is older and stronger than the god. To desire the desiring of her own beauty is the vanity of Lilith, but to desire the enjoying of her own beauty is the obedience of Eve, and to both it is in the lover that the beloved tastes her own delightfulness.

Ancient merfolk were thought to lure men to watery graves through their songs and spells.  Though modern merwomen are, by contrast, known for being playful and affectionate, they can do just as much harm as their fiercer ancestors-and more.  Women naturally long to be admired, and it’s normal for girls to gravitate towards feminine images which inspire such admiration.  This desire for admiration must be tempered, however, by the kind of humility that Lewis describes above.

While Mermaid Dora isn’t likely to lead many young girls down the path of destruction anytime soon, the temptations contemporary mermaids embody may ultimately rob young women of the joys that come with humility and of the virtues one cultivates only through submission to something outside of oneself.  Nothing can compare to the freedom and peace this submission brings-not even fins.

What would you do if Odin decided to haunt you because he was angry you’d left him for Jesus?

When a pagan society is Christianized, it must determine how to either leave behind or incorporate its old talismans and traditions into its new Christian faith.  This is seldom an easy task, as any missionary who has dealt with the dangers of syncretism can attest.  Old habits die hard.  A worldview cannot be wiped out in a day simply because those who hold to it no longer want to believe in it; some ideas are so deeply ingrained that it may take several generations to be rid of them.

But what if a society had trouble leaving behind their old gods because they were real? What if Christianity wasn’t the only true myth?

Lars Walker explores these and other questions in his newest novel, West Oversea. In this historically-based fantasy tale, a priest named Father Aillil struggles with how to live out and share his Christian faith in a place and time when the pagans and their gods were still overwhelmingly influential.  The year is 1001, and Father Aillil, an Irishman living in Norway, struggles to reconcile his beliefs with the paganism he’s trying to leave behind.  Though he is a devout Christian, he is reluctant to part with the mythic eye of Odin, which was passed on to him by a man who wished to have him destroy it.  The eye gives Father Aillil the ability to see into the spiritual realm, where his interactions with both the dead and the living have a profound effect on him, much as he tries to deny this.

Father Aillil’s struggle mirrors that of the people who live in the lands he travels through.  His quest to find and rescue his long-lost sister takes the Irishman from Norway, into Iceland and Greenland, with a brief stop at a mysterious and dangerous land you may recognize; Columbus was, after all, not the first to discover the “new world”.  The people Father Aillil meets struggle just as he does to obey Christ while discerning how this new religion will revamp old social structures.  It’s not easy to know which societal foundations will survive and which won’t, and Father Aillil’s ability to see through Odin’s eye doesn’t simplify matters for anyone.

Because Father Aillil is known to be a priest, characters reveal things about their spiritual lives to him - and to the reader - that are not normally discussed in most fantasy novels.  There is some danger here of the book becoming too “preachy”, but this is largely avoided thanks to Father Aillil’s unfailingly sardonic sense of humor; West Oversea is a fun book that says serious things without taking itself too seriously.  Humorous stories and comments are interspersed with thoughtful character-driven commentary on power, authority, duty, and freedom that provides food for thought as well as fun.

The historical and geographical bases for Father Aillil’s story make this a useful book for those who want a very basic introduction to the world of Vikings, Norsemen, and Leif Eriksson.  History at its best is, after all, a story, and this story includes a number of notable names and places that will help students identify the narrative threads that weave together what we know about 11^th Century Norway, it’s people, customs, and surroundings.

A lot of well-meaning adults make the same mistake in their approach to social justice, and for some of the same reasons.  My preschool-aged  friend thinks it’s unfair that not everyone enjoys the status conveyed by her favorite letter; she has no way of knowing yet that not everyone would benefit from the imposition of that coveted consonant.

Similarly, not all adults are the same.  When social justice involves trying to provide universal human necessities like food, clothing, and shelter to those who have none, this can be good.  Unfortunately, the more popular this catch-phrase becomes, the further it tends to drift from these goals and the more often it serves to disguise an imposed cultural or political agenda.  The world is more complicated than most of us realize.

Take, for example, Bill Clinton’s recent comments on immigration reform:

In a panel discussion with moderator Bob Schieffer of CBS News, Clinton said that the United States has become an “older society” and needs newcomers to provide the labor force and pay the taxes necessary to finance the retiring generation…

“You’ve got to have more immigrants. You’ve got to reverse the age ratio,” Clinton told an audience heavy on Washington policy wonks and media types.

Calling the United States an “aging civilization,” Clinton cited nations throughout history in which “older societies become obsessed with security.” Now, in the U.S., he said, that’s driving interest in national defense, Social Security and Medicare.

“America has got to get back in the future business. We’ve got to be a tomorrow country,” Clinton said. “We need more immigrants.”

Clinton’s observations, which will no doubt be applauded by social justice proponents as they protest Arizona’s new immigration policies, are correct: America does need new citizens.  Those who protest the new laws on the grounds that they are socially unjust are also correct.

However, they fail to note the fact that abortions performed in the name of social justice are the reason America needs an influx of new people.  Social justice work is a mixed bag; it doesn’t always lead to real justice.

Even if you leave the pro-life/pro-abortion debate behind - a daunting task, and usually a bad idea - it’s hard to deny that, in this case, correcting one perceived social injustice only leads to another.  It’s not often easy to give people the help they really need, and in an integrated society the help you offer one group may easily bring unintended harm to another group.

That’s why the recent resurgence in the popularity of social justice efforts, while admirable, is also dangerous.  Social justice work is risky because there’s no easy way to know how changing the social and economic status of one group may change it and its surroundings in the long term.  Short term gains may easily lead to long-term harm; a single mother on welfare, for example, will benefit in the short term from the rent assistance she receives.  She will be badly harmed in the long-term, however, if she comes to rely on this assistance instead of on her own abilities and resources.

Social justice work is also dangerous because in their efforts to live out Jesus’ commands, too many people may unintentionally replace them.  Jill Stanek observed before the 2008 election,

Liberals have garnered success with some Christians by diverting their eyes from abortion/homosexuality to “social justice.” This is a relief to Christians who don’t like feeling conflicted about abortion. They can appease their consciences and put abortion on the back burner by becoming righteously indignant about other causes in Jesus’ name. Some of these causes are even valid. Satan is expert at blending truth with lies.

This applies to immigration reform as well as abortion.  There’s no question that many of our Mexican neighbors would benefit from a new life in the United States, and we should do what we can to help them.  Doing what we can, however, should not include giving them a free pass into our country–this approach harms more people than it helps.  The other extreme is also wrong, as Arizona will no doubt discover.  As our own Lindsay has already explained, aggressive enforcement of immigration laws will also harm far more people than it will help.

Popular conceptions of social justice are typically in favor of these and other similar extremes.  Social justice is easily taken too far, despite the good intentions of those who work towards it.  It may also too easily replace other work the church should be doing.  Be wary, then, of supporting a cause because it fits the current stereotype of “social justice” - the issues at stake may be more complicated than you can know.

When other little girls dreamed of living in Cinderella’s castle, a younger me wanted access to the library Belle enjoyed in the Beast’s fortress.  FLOOR to CEILING shelves, people.  This is a big deal.

I was less than entranced when I first heard of the Kindle.  No paper?  No binding?  No thanks.  Turns out, though, that 600 page hardbacks are a lot more difficult to carry when you’re not in college.  You can only wear a backpack for so long… pair that with the unfathomable number of toys, snacks, and other necessaries that inevitably accumulate in every mother’s  purse, and I needed a change.

Or a bookmobile.  That might have worked, too.

Given the price of gas, it’s probably good that my friends and family didn’t go for the bookmobile idea.  They got me a Kindle instead.  And I love it.

The newest version of Amazon’s portable sales platform is slim, sleek, and satisfying to even an accomplished book snob aficionado like myself.  It will never replace the book’s traditional form, but it sure beats driving a bookmobile.

The Kindle is as easy to read as Amazon claims, and yes, you can read it in bright sunlight.  It’s easy to underline passages and to take notes, though unfortunately you can’t draw cartoon commentary in the margins.  (Admit it - I know I’m not the only person who does that.)

The Kindle’s massive storage capabilities are an obvious advantage, and as I said it’s easy to read.  It’s probably not very useful for serious study of a complicated text, however.  Difficult books often require that you flip forward and backward in the text multiple times, and it’s much easier to do this in a book than on a Kindle.  Perhaps this will be remedied in future versions.

I used to think that the Kindle would change the way we read books in the way that changing the medium so often changes a message.  I’m not so concerned about that anymore, as I think the Kindle is basically a book with buttons instead of binding, pixels instead of pages.  (Alliteration!  I haz it!)

There’s still something about the solid feel of a good book that just can’t be replaced - though the Kindle comes close.  Closer, at least, than most bookmobiles.

We talked about The Evangelical Outpost, the piece I wrote for CNN last year, the fading influence of Conservatism’s intellectual tradition, and Proud to Be Right, the book I’ve been working on with Jonah Goldberg and Adam Bellow.  Please take a few moments to listen and tell us what you think–thank you!

Rasmussen announced yesterday

This is hardly surprising in the wake of the healthcare bill’s unpopularity, and it reminds one that there is something of a divide within the Democratic Party as well as the GOP.  Though most Conservative commentators will say otherwise, this leftist divide isn’t necessarily good for Republicans.

If the president is smart, he’ll take advantage of these Tea Party Democrats and Independents and give dissenters like them a voice in his administration.  Rather than enjoying a cabinet full of liberal ideologues who echo his own views, he should use moderate and disgruntled Democrats to his advantage by allowing them a place at his table.

As counter-intuitive as this sounds, it worked for Ronald Reagan, who was criticized for grouping moderate Republicans with movement conservatives in his own senior staff.    He explained the arrangement this way during a 1981 press conference:

QUESTION: There have been specific reports that your Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense are not getting along and that they argue in front of you.  Can you comment on these reports?

PRESIDENT REAGAN:  The whole Cabinet argues in front of me.  That was the system I wanted installed.

Presidencies have historically benefitted from internal dissensions-provided the divisions extend to those in leadership.  Reagan biographer Steven Hayward writes,

In a manner that eludes many historians, political scientists, and reporters, the most successful presidencies tend to be those that have factional disagreement within their inner councils, whereas sycophantic administrations tend to get in the most trouble.  Fractiousness in an administration is a sign of health: the Jefferson-Hamilton feud in Washington’s administration, the rivalry within Lincoln’s cabinet, and the odd combination of fervent New Dealers and conventional Democrats in FDR’s White House provided a dynamic tension that contributed to successful governance. (The Age of Reagan, p. 9)

Of course, the Democratic members of a single grassroots movement can hardly be expected to change the course of an entire political party-at least not at first.  These Tea Party converts, however, combined with the President’s plummeting popularity, do present him with an interesting opportunity.  If Hayward’s historical analysis is correct, President Obama might very well benefit from the Tea Parties by offering them his ear.

I doubt he will do so, and that may be just as well; as a conservative, I am eager to see him leave office.  If he even appears to shift to the Right, his approval ratings will probably increase.  I don’t want that to happen - and, for now, neither does much of the rest of America.

What’s in the Bible is Veggie Tales creator Phil Vischer’s newest offering.  While Veggie Tales began by retelling familiar Bible stories in order to teach general lessons about virtue and morality, What’s in the Bible teaches just what the title indicates-what’s in the Bible, why it’s there, and why you should care.  Vischer and a cast of hand puppets (including the aforementioned Sunday School Lady) are out to teach the Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible, using popsicle sticks, a flannel graph, timelines, and pirates.  Far from distracting from the message, these verbal and visual antics hold the viewer’s attention while Vischer and his brightly colored costars lecture on complex historical and theological topics not normally offered to the very young.

Veggie Tales has enjoyed a large and varied audience-so large and varied, in fact, that its own success has sometimes eclipsed its intended purpose.  Vischer himself states in the introduction to the first episode of What’s in the Bible that his original passion for teaching children about the Bible soon waned under the pressures of running a very successful business.  What’s in the Bible is his attempt to reboot the conversation that began with Veggie Tales.  It’s a conversation that has benefitted from Vischer’s time away from the Veggie Tales empire; while What’s in the Bible is targeted at a slightly younger audience, its factual content will challenge the most seasoned Bible quiz guru.

Parents who look forward to Veggie Tales style humor may be disappointed by this series-but their children won’t.  What’s in the Bible isn’t likely to attract the college-aged crowd in the way that Veggie Tales did-this is completely and intentionally a show for kids.  The first time I watched the show (thank you to Tyndale for providing me with a free review copy), I was disappointed.  The jokes, I thought, were flat, the antics predictable, and the information far above most young viewers’ heads.  Next I watched it with a group of kids, ages 2-6.  I was wrong-they loved it-and it has since grown on me.   The puns and running jokes that I found groan-worthy delighted my young companions, who were hours later still referencing what they’d seen and heard.

This is not to say that the series is only funny to preschoolers; parents who grew up in the evangelical Sunday School subculture will find plenty to appreciate and reminisce over even if the frequent quips make them groan.  In one regular segment, a puppet newsroom features clocks showing the current time in London, New York, Tokyo, and… Wheaton.  In “A Pirate’s Guide to Church History”, a pirate puppet details such things as the church councils that led to the Biblical canon we have today, and the reasons why Protestant, Orthodox and Catholic Bibles are not all uniform.  The timeline he references stretches from Jesus Christ to Billy Graham.   The inclusion of a flannel graph, Sunday School Lady’s indispensible companion, will amuse those who grew up with this Sunday School staple.

Biblical illiteracy among all ages is an increasing problem in a culture dominated by screens rather than books.  Vischer states that 65% of young church goers will leave the faith by the time they start college, and he hopes his attempt to teach through television will help young minds access the information they need to interact intelligently with the “most widely known, least widely read” text in history.  Let’s hope he succeeds-and if he doesn’t, let’s hope that at least Sunday School Lady will find a way to empower the saintly women whose Sunday School ministries are so important.

Those of you who wish to view the newly-released inaugural episodes of this thirteen-DVD series are in luck-on Monday, April 5^th, The Evangelical Outpost will give away two free copies to randomly-chosen members of their Facebook fan page.  Your children-and their Sunday School teachers-will thank you for entering.

At least, that’s what one might assume after hearing their competing audio interpretations of C.S. Lewis’ classic book, The Screwtape Letters.

John Cleese’s masterful interpretation of Screwtape is full of all the eloquence and humor we’ve come to expect from the Python master.  His off-the-wall demeanor is well suited to the unusual subject matter, and his ability to transition swiftly between the light-hearted and the dour makes for a reading that is both laugh-out-loud funny and truly terrifying at almost the same time.

Focus on the Family’s latest Lewisian drama departs somewhat from the original text, providing not merely an audiobook but rather a full-cast dramatization of the work.  Andy Serkis of Lord of the Rings fame presents a chilling performance of Screwtape, while Bertie Carvel portrays a properly subservient Wormwood.

It’s a beautifully performed drama, with relatively minimal departures from the book.  Rather than corresponding, for example, Screwtape and Wormwood plot and pander in person-an adaptation that makes for some impressive sound effects when Screwtape inadvertently transforms himself into a large centipede.  These, combined with an original score composed for the production, make for a experience that small children may find too frightening for comfort.  Given the subject matter, this is probably just as well.

It’s also a beautifully packaged drama; Cleese may give Serkis a run for his money rhetorically, but it would be difficult to match Focus on the Family’s choice of artists and typographers.  The set of five discs includes a DVD presentation of behind-the-scenes footage of making  The Screwtape Letters, and a playlist of original songs composed for the drama and inspired by the text.

It’s such a beautiful production, in fact, that one wonders what the point is.  Why should one dramatize a perfectly readable book?  Much as I enjoyed this audio presentation, I can’t help being bothered by the fact that this new interpretation puts a barrier between reader and text that simply isn’t necessary.  There are definite advantages to audio books, but books read aloud are generally best when presented simply and eloquently, as John Cleese does so well in his Screwtape.

Then again, this is a story about hell in all its fury.  Perhaps a little distance is wise after all.

Thank you to Tyndale for providing me with a free copy of this work in exchange for my candid review.

On 9/11, however, many Americans were surprised.  In the days just after the attack laymen and newscasters alike tried to explain the disaster with theories ranging from the absurd to the offensive.  Former President Bill Clinton, for example, was quick to point to the assumed cruelty of Western Crusaders when searching for an explanation-this despite the fact that, as Rodney Stark points out, Muslim ire regarding the Crusades is a relatively recent phenomenon which did not become intense until after the state of Israel was founded.

The average American pre-9/11 knew hardly anything about the Middle East, let alone the region’s Gordian relationship with our own nation.  He knows a little more now-though usually not enough to help him really understand the many difficulties we have faced in the region.  This puts him at a severe disadvantage because, troop withdrawal deadlines notwithstanding, the age-old conflicts between West and East aren’t going to become simpler anytime soon.

Ambassador Michael Oren’s Power, Faith, and Fantasy: America in the Middle East, 1776 to the Present offers the first comprehensive historical treatment of the United States’ involvement in the Middle East.  Ambassador Oren unpacks and explains the complexity of our relations with the region in a book that is fascinating, easy to read, and vigorously well researched.  He is well qualified to do so; a graduate of Columbia and Princeton and a visiting lecturer at Harvard and Yale, the American-born Ambassador is also Israel’s highest-ranking official in the United States.

Though he lives in Jerusalem, Ambassador Oren is well acquainted with Western perceptions of the Middle East-a good thing, since his book addresses not only the factual chronology of political conflicts and alliances, but also the evolution of the West’s perceptions of the mythically exotic setting for 1001 Arabian Nights. It also addresses the 19^th century exodus of protestant missionaries, zealous to convert the infidels in the holy land, be they Muslims or long-standing members of the Orthodox Church.

America’s fascination with the Middle East, argues Oren, began not with 9/11, not with the discovery of oil in the region, not with 19^th century protestant missionary endeavors, and not even with the Barbary Wars:

“Come, let us declare in zion the word of God,” proclaimed William Bradford, the future governor of the Plymouth Colony, as he stepped off the Mayflower in 1620.  Bradford was quoting Jeremiah, but “Zion,” for him, was not the old Promised Land of Canaan but its new incarnation, America.  Its inhabitants were not the ancient Israelites but the 101 passengers who had arrived with Bradford, his fellow Puritans.” (p. 83)

The Puritans, explains Oren, fiercely identified with and embraced the Israelites’ mythic escape from Egyptian oppression and search for a Promised Land.  These colonists, familiar as they were with Old Testament descriptions of the Holy Land, “superimposed the map of the old Canaan over the new one they now settled.” (p. 84)

America and Israel, in other words, were joined together mythically, spiritually, and, in a sense, even geographically, in innumerable ways long before they had any political dealings with each other.  As much as the public might like to ignore the problems in the Middle East post-9/11, we are inescapably married to them-and we always have been.  We can withdraw our troops from the region, but we can’t erase the results of centuries of complex American victories and defeats in the Middle East-nor should we.  Fortunately, Ambassador Oren and his writings will continue to avail those who wish to understand the background to the  innumerable challenges that always have and probably always will challenge our relationship with the Middle East.