Customer Reviews

From Beirut to Jerusalem

5 star:		(124)
4 star:		(43)
3 star:		(12)
2 star:		(5)
1 star:		(10)

 

 

I had previously read Friedman's "The Lexus and the Olive Tree" and was basically disappointed with that book. "From Beirut to Jerusalem", his first and more widely acclaimed, is much better. I am on the opposite end of the spectrum as Friedman, politically, so I was not expecting to agree with him on every view and suggestion for solution that he describes in this book, but his writing was entertaining, his stories amazing, and his opinions very fair to both sides.

The book begins with Friedman's description of life in the middle of the Lebanese civil war. Friedman lived in the heart of Beirut when it was the worst place anyone could be at the time. His firsthand stories of bombings, murders, and simple terrorism, range from unimaginably scary to darkly humorous. Eventually Friedman and his wife move from Beirut to Jerusalem, where the second half of the book begins. This second part is much more applicable to today's news and debates since it is from an area in the middle of daily battles, whereas Lebanon's civil war has died down.

Friedman, although Jewish, has many misgivings about Israeli actions in their conflicts of the past several decades. But unlike most of his workmates and friends at the New York Times, Friedman is also not afraid to tell the whole truth when detailing Arab atrocities. Friedman's account of Hafez al-Asad's massacre of his own people in the town of Hama, Syria, is one that should be read by every Westerner -- especially those on the left who think the Jews, aided by America, simply "stole" a small plot of Arab land from an otherwise friendly group of people.

This book won many awards and is very unique in that it is a wide-ranging report from the world's greatest newspaper's leading foreign affairs writer. Many may dislike Friedman for his controversial views, (i.e. saying the famous Elian/machine gun picture brought joy to his heart), but in "From Beirut to Jerusalem", he is very honest and comes as close to playing the middle ground as is possible in a dispute that seems to have no middle, and will likely never end.

Those of you who follow and followed the events in the Middle East, Persian Gulf and the Gulf War, but seek a broader explanation of the sources of antagonism and conflict in the ARab world, would be enlightened and entertained by FRiedman's book. A Pulitzer prize winning correspondent for the New York Times, he spent ten years in Beirut and Jerusalem reporting first handthe violence, suspicion and hatred that is part of life in that region. The standing norm in the Middle East, according to Friedman is what he calls "Hama Rules" the pitiless and remorseless pursuit of political and economic ends through bloodshed. This attitude is rampant in all of its regimes, including Israel. Its source is the tribal politics and and deep rooted political tradition of authoritarianism, as well s the centuries of colonialism and subjugation that the region's peoples have endured. With a reporters eye for detail, Friedman analyzes many of the decisions that are familiar to us: the Reagan decision to send marines to Lebanon, The Palestenian uprising in Israel, the history of the PLO and the Arab-Israeli conflict are all analyzed in detail. Friedman is careful to point outthat the region's conflicts are not merely between Arab and Jew, but between Muslims and Christians, between Arabs, between different Muslim sects and different nation-states. In fact, Friedman finds the region's complexities beyond the comprehension of most American diplomats (no surprise!). This lack of understanding has resulted in numerous foreign policy blunders by the U.S. The first version of the book was written prior to the Gulf War, but its observations are still relevant, though you can now get a new edition. Hussein's regime is discussed at length and characterized as merely the latest version of "Hama Rules." Despite possible bias as a result of his Jewish heritage, Friedmans reporting is critical of both the Israeli's brutal treatment of the palestenians and of the PLO's disregard for the lives of its own people. My one criticism of the book is that Friedman has an idealized view of the nature of a Jewish state. This is to his credit, but as a result he often holds the Israeli's to a higher moral standard in their behavior than he does the other nations and groups, especially the PLO. But for those of us who believe in the power of reason to settle disputes and are infected with American optimism and values, the book is a grim reminder that there are places in the world that operate very differently from what we understand. He explains many of these differences in the book, often thru his deft personal touch and numerous firsthand experiences. Highly recommended!

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

While I consider this book well worth reading, a word must be said about the context in which it was written. During the early 90's and late 80's a consensus was growing that the only way to end the Israeli Palestinian conflict was for Israel to recognize Yasser Arafat as the dejure government of the Palestinians. Moving down such a path meant that Arafat would have to under go considerable rehabilitation. One of the subtexts of Friedman's book is that very effort. The result is that Friedman intentionally glosses over the murder, mayhem and destruction Arafat spread through Lebanon. Little attention is paid to the civilians they murdered, the politicians they extorted, or the destabilizing influence that the PLO's "State-within-a-state" created.

Occasionally Friedman is unfair in his assesment of Israel's actions. In particular failing to discuss the PLO's cross boarder raids into Northern Israel that left scores of civilian causalities and how it motivated Israeli public opinion is left insufficiently discussed. Probably that is due to Friedaman's desire to indict Israel's Likud government which he saw as hostile to his belief in the need to create a PLO-Israel dialogue.

What makes the book interesting is in the story of how a state sandwiched between two regional powers was unable to survive. Interestingly, that is partially because Beirut tried to play both sides. That puts it in contrast to Jordan, a similarly situated state that, after the '67 War, through its lot entirely with Israel and has prospered under its protection.

A little should be added about Friedman's idea of a direct PLO-Israel dialogue. Within a few years of this book Israel had in fact followed the course he recommended, recognizing the PLO and the rights of the Palestinians to have a state of there own. Friedman always thought that painful compromise by Israel would engender a Palestinian willingness to make similar compromises, like letting Israel annex the 4% of the West Bank which were majority Israeli, share Jerusalem, and accept demilitarization as well as a shared Jerusalem as long as the deal came with buckets of foreign aid. 10 years after this book was written, Israel's Prime Minister Barak offered exactly that deal as Friedman envisioned it and he like the rest of the world was shocked when Arafat rejected it, deciding instead on a course of violence.

Despite the fact that this book is quite dated, it is still a good read. Those interested in the topic might also want to look at the work of Bernard Lewis, Chaim Herzog's "The Arab Israeli Wars" and Itimar Rabinovitch's work on the Lebanese conflict.

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.

Experience over seas is what Most people lack to really understand the way peoples world wide live and think. It is very difficult to even understand unless you live there for a year in the midst of that culture. This book brings this culture to us in the pages. The writer does inject his opinions but they are as close as I've read. I have lived in the area of Lebanon and Israel for several years. I would say this is the closest account I have seen with the exception of the prophecy. I strongly recommend reading a book that covers this area very well and has predicted the events accurately, in addition more predictions, the terrorism esp. SB 1 or God By Karl Mark Maddox.

To find some sort of explanation for the recent terrorist attacks on the US, I started with this book hoping for some sort of history of the middle east and an understanding of what makes north american society so different from that in the middle east. The book has been a great introduction. It is perfect for a broad understanding of the type of conflict that has existed in the region. Most interesting, and at times horrific, are the clear explanations of the lengths to which the people of the region, or specifically its leaders, are willing to go to to shelter their beliefs and their way of life. It is eye openning and most importantly, extremely easy to read. Anyone starting this book who hasn't had any previous interest in middle eastern history will find a surprise when they see how difficult it is to put down.

The term "must read" gets bandied about too easily, but for the student of the Middle East or of international relations in general, this book probably qualifies. I began reading "From Beirut to Jerusalem" as a high school senior, just after returning from overseas as an exchange student during the Persian Gulf crisis. Seeing that I was eager to broaden my understanding of Middle Eastern affairs, a friend recommended this book to me. Thanks to the pains Friedman took in writing the introduction, there is no need to be intimidated by the subject matter. With utmost patience, clarity, and simplicity, he lays out the history of Zionism, the formation of the Jewish state, the Arab-Israeli wars, the roots of the Lebanese civil war, and even the differences between Shi'ite and Sunni Muslims, Marionite Christians, and the Druse. If a student reads no other part of the book, he or she ought to at least read and re-read the introduction to gain some historical perspective on this ongoing conflict, and to be able to give context to current events in the region. Friedman reports from credentialed experience, having served as the New York Times Bureau chief in both Beirut and Jerusalem during some of the choppiest years of the 1980's. His anecdotes and travel notes are fascinating, and his dry wit and contemplative perspective are never far from his words. His writing style is lucid, thoughtful, and easy to read. While being informative and factual, this book never ceases being interesting. Even as a high school student prone to distraction, this book had me hooked. Years later I still refer back to it and am thankful to have read it.

In an old Genesis song called Blood on the Rooftops, Phil Collins sang out, "Let's skip the news boy, I'll make some tea. Arabs and the Jews boy, too much for me." This sentiment is widespread among many that watch the evening news and see the continued unrest in the Middle East. In his book From Beirut to Jerusalem, Thomas L. Friedman attempts to unravel the apathy that permeates the west regarding to this embattled region of the world. By sorting through the rhetoric that fills the airways night after night, Friedman shines light on a region of the world so misunderstood by those of us who live in the west. For so long our opinions of the Middle East have been obscured by our limited views and understanding of that land. We see it either as a place of brutal war or as the sacred land of Moses, Jesus and Mohammed.
Friedman spent almost ten years in the Middle East, first in Beirut, then in Jerusalem, working as a bureau chief for The New York Times. I feel the most interesting aspects of the book are the reports from Beirut where Friedman strives to get to the heart of the long Civil War that tore apart that country.
Friedman, a Jewish American, tells us how he became fascinated with Israel and Middle East politics in 1967. The June 1967 six-day war changed the mindset of Israel, and Jews everywhere, from a paranoid victim to a regional Super Power. In striving for impartiality, Friedman does a great job of separating his love for the Jewish State from the realities of Middle East politics. We also see his heart reluctantly change from a hopeful idealist to pessimistic realist. His impressions of Israel suffer a great blow after their occupation of Lebanon in the early 1980s. What was, in the beginning seen as a chance to bring a lasting and fair chance for peace to Lebanon was spoiled by ignorance and arrogance.
Many times Americans are criticized for not taking the time to understand people of other lands. We are culturally insensitive. But I am amazed as to how many of the problems of the Middle East are also caused by people living on the same plot of land not taking the time to understand why their neighbors do the things they do.
Hopes rise and fall faster in the Middle East faster than anywhere on earth. From Beirut to Jerusalem, is strongest when Friedman describes the major players in the conflicts. The people who make up the leadership of the nation states seem to be more interested in their own self-interests than the interests of peace. The attitude in negotiation seems to be `if we are in a strong position, why compromise' and `if we are in a weak position what do we have to loose if we fight?' We see Yasir Arafat constantly wavering between obscurity and notoriety. It is amazing how quickly his fortunes change. One day he is a marginal character in the region. Then a week (or even a day) later his leadership of the Palestinians is essential to the peace of the Middle East.
I felt the book slowed a bit in the middle after Friedman's move to Jerusalem. Here my interest waned when he got deeply into the internal politics of the Jewish State. But then it picked back up when he got back into what is best about the book - talking to the people who live every day in the middle of the conflicts and helping us understand the thoughts and feelings of these people.
Unfortunately, the book is also a bit dated. One week can change the landscape of the Middle East, i.e. the 1967 war. The book ends with Friedman back in the USA in 1994. At that time, the Israelis and the Palestinians were still striving to work things out. Even as late as the fall of 2000, the Clinton administration was working for a peace treaty for the region. Then the Intifahada started again and the hope for peace dwindled.
From Beirut to Jerusalem, does a wonderful job showing Israelis and Palestinians as co-inhabitants of the same land. `On any given day, one could find the Israeli army arresting all Palestinian males eighteen and over in one West Bank village, while in the next village an Israeli contractor would be hiring all Palestinian males eighteen and over to build a new Jewish town. As for the Palestinian,.. he could be [working at a] bus stop at a new Jewish settlement in the.. morning and in the evening leaving a parcel bomb under the seat of that same bus stop ... [It's] a war... between two peoples who shared the same sewers.'

I thought I knew a ton about Israel and Palestine prior to reading this--I realized there was so much more to learn.

Nobody knows that subject better than Thomas Friedman, and nobody writes about it more succinctly. His years in Lebanon allow him to describe the absolute insanity of that place, and why we would ultimately fail there as a peacekeeping force.

When he gets to Israel, though, Friedman plunges far beneath the usual Israel/Palestine rhetoric and grievances for both sides and shows what is really driving both peoples. It's not necessarily what you think. Point is, you'll know after reading this, and you'll look at Israel and Palestine differently from that point forward.

Friedman also details in very convincing fashion what has to happen--really--for there ever to be a peace between Israel/Palestine.

Hate to use the cliche, but if you read one book about the Middle East, I'd go with this one (of course there's plenty of others to recommend). Particularly if you're interested in Israel/Palestine.