From Beirut to Jerusalem

Rating:
Summary: The way the Middle East was
Review: Although Thomas Friedman's From Beirut to Jerusalem is currently enjoying a new wave of popularity, the potential reader should know that this is very distinctly a story about the Middle East in the 1980s, and offers but the merest foreshadowing of current developments in the Arab-Israeli conflict. That being said, Friedman's work still offers a relatively good account of the roots of the conflict (explaining, for instance, how Palestinians who actually seemed on their way to assimilating into Israeli society instead dramatically rejected it with the 1987 intifada). The author's sensitive rendition of the Lebanese civil war in the first half of this work is possibly the highlight of the book.

Friedman's kinetic (and sometimes glib) writing style is an advantage insofar as it leads him to cover all the bases -- giving "equal time" to describing both increasing secularization and countervailing religious movements in modern Israel. Even though Friedman is definitely in the "peace" camp, he is relatively fair to those who aren't. The book's disadvantage is that a sophisticated analysis of Israeli motives is not matched by a similarly insightful analysis of Palestinian desires -- and this leads the author to overstate the prospects for peace. The main stumbling blocks of the "peace process" today -- the fanatical devotion of the suicide bombers on the one hand and Arafat's unwillingness to crush the radicals who enjoy broad support in the West Bank and Gaza on the other -- are mentioned as afterthoughts in Friedman's concluding chapter.

In the end, Friedman makes the strongest potential argument for undertaking a peace process, one that is seldom mentioned in the Western media -- that idea that "disgorging" the Arab territories would enable Israel to be more authentically Jewish, forestalling a Palestinian population boom that would eventually overwhelm Israel if continued under the status quo. Friedman identified self-interested motivations on both sides for a Palestinian state. Over ten years later, it is not clear that a West Bank/Gaza state is really what the Palestinians are after. If it is was, why all the bombs right after the peace process began? What would have possessed Arafat to reject full statehood at Camp David last year? The answer probably lies in the vain hope that Arabs can eventually overwhelm Israel from within -- creating a state instead of Israel, not a state beside Israel. The Middle East is indeed a far more dangerous place than Friedman even realized back then.

Rating:
Summary: Friedman's Journalistic Style Makes for Informative Read
Review: As a student of current events and a follower of the omnipresent conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, this book was on my summer reading list. I had already acquainted myself with Friedman after reading The Lexus and the Olive Tree. To me, this work was more a stellar and comprehensive compilation of observations from a keen eye and rather unbiased perspectives on both the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict and the Civil War in Lebanon. Friedman makes quick work of blending the two story lines and their inherent similarities. What this book does best is bring clarity to the reasons why the different fighting groups in the Middle East cannot live together in harmony. It is about basic human emotions and the desire to feel safe, secure, and at home on a piece of land. This keen comprehension and spin on the myriad roots of these conflicts is something that is integral to understanding of the problems that anyone would find on the road "From Beirut to Jerusalem."

Rating:
Summary: A Frightening Firsthand Of The Middle East Conflict
Review: Both a personal memoir and treatise on the Middle Eastern conflict, From Beirut To Jerusalem manages to excel in both areas.

Thomas L. Friedman writes of his years as a reporter in Beirut and Jerusalem (obviously), and the reader walks these streets along with him as he interviews and lives among both leaders and common people. In Beirut, the chaos and lawlessness of daily life is frightening, more scary than any horror novel. In Jerusalem, we see from Friedman's eyes the tension of the Palestinian situation and its effects on both Arabs and Jews.

What struck me the most, and impressed me, was Friedman's evenhandedness in his observations. He was never quick to place blame.

I found this book to be an informative treatise on the situation in the Middle East, the best on the subject I have read.

Rating:
Summary: Fascinating
Review: This is an extremely well written book about the Middle East conflict. The book is divided into two main sections, Beirut, and Jerusalem.

The Beirut section is about the Lebanese civil war -- Friedman discusses everything from the history of the war, to the different factions of Lebanese society, to why and how the U.S. became involved. His analyses are generally on-target, and his personal stories about living in Beirut as a correspondent during the war make the section especially engaging.

The Jerusalem section begins with a couple of chapters about Jewish culture and the origins of Israel; then goes with great depth into the history and analysis of the Palestinian - Israeli conflict.

Reading this book sparked in me an interest in the affairs of the Middle East. It also gave me the background necessary to delve further into the topic and understand the history behind the current headlines on the region

Highly reccomended

Rating:
Summary: The Ultimate Guide to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
Review: Navigating through the complexities of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is hard enough; but doing so whilst remaining neutral and objective is almost impossible. Yet this is precisely what "From Beirut to Jerusalem" does: it takes a very thorough and candid look at the recent history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in a fair and balanced view.

Thomas Friedman, of the New York Times, narrates his almost decade-long adventure of reporting the Middle East, first in Beirut and then in Jerusalem. The product is an elegant and well-written book that combines his journalistic attention to precision, detail, and anecdotes with his historian's drive for proving context, perspective, and analysis.

"From Beirut to Jerusalem" contains a great deal of adventure (who says reporters can't live James Bond-like lives?). But in the end, what makes this a great book is its ability to tell the story of the Middle East in the 1980s, while dissecting the important political and historical forces that define the geopolitical environment of the conflict. Written for the layman and expert alike, this is surely one of the best books on the Middle East.

Rating:
Summary: Irresponsible history - Should be able to give it no stars
Review: I know this is a popular book. When I lecture on the Middle East, everyone seems to have read it. There are some good parts -- such as the author's description of his personal experience in Lebanon. It's his historical analysis that's the problem. He argues at one point that you can understand Hafez Assad's seige of Hama (February 1982) by understanding the Umayyid Dynasty (beginning in the 8th century). This is classic Western bias. No one would say you could understand (insert modern Western massacre here, say Mai Lai) by understanding (insert ancient Western history here, say the Crusades). And yet Friedman is basically saying that Arabs haven't changed in a millenia. While this is obviously not true, (and couldn't possibly be true of anyone) it reveals an underlying and subtle racism -- or just abject stupidity. There are plenty of better books, and this shows me that being an easy read will beat being responsible any day.

Rating:
Summary: Interesting
Review: An interesting chronology and analysis of a journalist's decade long stay in Lebanon and Jerusalem. I learned a lot about the two countries and the issues that divide them. Friedman explained many complex issues with interesting analogies and I was impressed with his analysis of the true problems. A negative aspect of the book was that I often felt he was reporting the positions of the male elite and didn't truly capture the opinions and lifestyle for the majority of Israeli and Lebanese residents.

Rating:
Summary: objective reporting only gets you so far
Review: There is a strain of thought among journalists, to which Friedman unfortuantely succumbs, which says that one must at all costs be objective. While that practice is instructive and helpful when reporting in a newspaper (this is why Daniel Pearl's murder was so heinous) it is of little use in a memoir.

One wishes that Friedman would take a stand, on any person and any issue about which he writes. Unfortunately, that is not this book, so we are treated to vague, noncommittal descriptions of such heinous individuals as Arafat and Saddam Hussein. These are descriptions devoid of context or judgment. Friedman's resolute refusal to engage in the moral subtleties of the Middle East's contentious territorial fights is at once alarming and banal.

The principle of objectivity to which Friedman hews so closely is of limited use, and in a book like this, one hopes for more depth than the mere attempt to treat Palestinians as if they were Israelis, or to treat Kurds as if they were members of the Ba'ath party. In short, Friedman espouses the morally relativistic multiculturalism that has become de rigeur among intlelectual liberals in the United States: judge no one, offend no one, and surely, don't morally indict the violent actions of those whose actions may be 'justified' under the rubric of 'oppression.'

His is a venal and insidious view of the Middle East conflict because he refuses to judge, analyze, or critique its state of affairs. Rather, he merely wants to report. What a shame.

Rating:
Summary: It was important to feel that Israel was right
Review: In the 1980's Friedman could not feel that the Israeli incursion into Lebanon was sound policy. He wrote the articles for THE NEW YORK TIMES detailing the massacres in Palestinian camps by the Phalangist forces. Likud blamed Sharon's unsuccessful war in Lebanon on the Labor Party.

In Lebanon Amin Gemayel tried to exclude the Shiites and Druse leaders. Gemayel did not foster national reconciliation. The democracy Lebanon had in the past was a sectarian balance of power. Lebanon still has more books published than other countries in the Arab world and still has a freer press.

Both the Labor and Likud parties in Israel fell in love with the ancient biblical lands acquired in 1967. After Labor was ousted the settlements grew. After Begin came to power in 1977 and after the Camp David Accords in 1978 it was obvious that he could not annex the West Bank. A pragmatic policy was pursued.

David Ben Gurion had realized his first consituency was the facts, the second one his people. In contrast, Peres, Rabin, and Shamir were weak leaders. They were technocrats. By the late 1980's the author believes that Israel and its leaders were afflicted with symbiotic paralysis. The Zionist revolution was meant to liberate.

Because of the holocaust, Israelis have the sense of living on borrowed time. In the 1950's the holocaust was a secret shame. The heroic people were the Zionists. This changed after the Eichmann trial in 1961. Survivors and victims were no longer seen as sheep led to the slaughter. Awareness was heightened in 1967. The 1973 war brought an even heavier burden. Israelis live in a very dynamic state. An observer believes that what really holds Israel together is a kind of tribal security. About half of the Israelis are unobservant.

The question of Palestine went into remission in the years between 1948 and 1967. Palestinian identity was born after 1967. Previously many inhabitants of Gaza took on Egyptian attributes and West Bank residents even had the possibility of becoming Jordanian citizens. Palestinians suffered an identity bind after 1967.

Some Israelis do not want to be colonizers. Jewish settlers find their sense of home in history, in the Bible. Others rarely visit the occupied territories. In 1985 Israel revived the British Mandate policy of administrative detention. Defense lawyers were not allowed to see the evidence. Defense was a mockery. There was a mask of law--military courts. The Shin Bet, the security forces, used interrogation and confession to avoid burdening the court system. Interrogators chose to hide the use of physical pressure and lie to the Court. Events between Palestinians and Israelis are often seen as acts of war. The author believes the Israelis engage in moral double book keeping.

The Intifada, starting in 1987, was triggered by the death of a Palestinaian boy. The use of stones consituted massive nonlethal civil disobedience. Israel has a high profile in the Western news media. News from Israel is intuitively familiar and relevant to the Western ear. Modern Israel is both unsettling and exciting to the Christian world. Israel is expected to be a yardstick of morality and a receptacle of hope. The Palestinians have recieved more attention than any other refugee community.

Rating:
Summary: Thomas Friedman, Exacting Taskmaster
Review: This is an informative, very well written book that imparts factual historical information and editorial opinion in an entertaining and engaging way.

I am told that Thomas Friedman is one of the most respected authorities on the Middle East, and that he is truthful, fair, and unbiased. However, I did notice one thing. Thomas Friedman is Jewish (as am I). His attitude toward the State of Israel is uncompromising, harsh, and judgmental. Women jurors are said to have this perspective toward women defendants. Some parents have that style toward their children: they expect their children to be perfect, and are harshly critical when they are not; they may not exact the same high standards of other people's children--they may see other people's children from the perspective that they are part of the human race, and therefore inclined to be flawed, and to err.

His criticisms of Israel's leadership post-Ben Gurion may be well founded, as may be his criticisms of Israel's actions and poor judgment calls as regards the Palestinians in some instances, but he does not seem to be able to temper these observances.

Perhaps, under Mr. Friedman's strict pedagogy, Israel can become a better country--maybe, unlike, say, Sweden, Israel can evolve into the very model of a modern major state, without having to go through the equivalent of that awkward, adolescent Viking period that the Swedes did? Maybe, as Mr. Friedman seems to demand, Israel will shortly be born, full blown, like Athena, into a country that always makes decisions that live up to the most exacting moral and ethical standards, while executing brilliant pragmatic political judgments. Who knows?