The author of this book (published in 2005) has clearly has it up to here with gross over-generalisations about politics, culture, and religion within the Middle East. As such, the tone of the book is determinedly pragmatic. To the point, indeed, of noting at one point that, 'It would be reasonable to assume that this is a conclusion with which no-one in the region, be they Jew, Arab, or Kurd, would concur.' This is in particular reference to a comment that Jerusalem has become, 'an overblown, chauvinistic fetish, and the object of arbitrarily intransigent nationalist demands on both sides'.
Probably the main message of the book is that the way religion is used by regimes, both in the Middle East, in Europe, and the US, reflects a careful assemblage of historic elements and traditions for political ends. There is definitely no inevitable clash of civilisations, rather a much more complicated and heterogeneous history of co-operation, trade, occupation, and conflict. This book doesn't attempt a huge depth of analysis, as the response to each of the 100 myths is kept to a few pages or less. It does, however, signpost the reader to further references. Since my knowledge of Middle Eastern history is patchy verging on non-existent, this book was helpful and informative.
I gave '100 Myths About the Middle East' three stars rather than four as the 100 myth structure does lead to a bit of incoherence. I would perhaps have preferred a narrative of longer chapters. On the other hand, the book reads as though written in response to a constant and tiresome barrage of misleading and oversimplified messages in politics and the media, so I can understand why it was structured in this way. It's also notable that it was written before the so-called Arab Spring; I'd be interested to read Halliday's thoughts on that.