Customer Reviews

Lion of Jordan: The Life of King Hussein in War and Peace

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

A truly extrodinary account of every detail of King Hussien's lifelong quest for a place for his kingdom at the table of respected nations of the world - primarily by pushing for peace in his region at any cost (most often through secret contact with his Israeli nemeses). He was not without errors in this quest, and he benefitted personally ($$) probably more than he should have, but this is the story of an exceptional person on an extrodinary journey who regularly showed more character than either his Isreali or American counterparts. This is the striking aspect of the book -- the lack of good faith (or even honesty) on the part of the leaders of Isreal and USA. It makes an American with an open mind a little uncomfortable with the actions of our leaders - congressional, but also presidents. BUT, the book is as detailed as it could be and focuses on the quest, the policies, and the political experience of this fine man, this amazing king.

Hussein's life was principled on the premise that " King Hussein was fundamentally and structurally a client king ...for all practical purposes the Hashemite legacy inherited from his grandfather was one of continuing dependence on the West." P.154

His wide recognition, acclaim and complexity were due to " the principle of balancing applied at all levels: the inter -Arab, the regional, (domestic) and the global...this meant balancing between Arab and conservatives and Arab radicals, between the Arab world on the one hand and Israel on the other, and the global level between the West and the Soviet bloc...The survival of the Hashemite dynastic interests were paramount (and) the guiding principle behind his foreign policy, the key to constant shits and maneuvers , to all the alliances and realignments " P.212

With these two elements as the deciding factors in Hussein's life, Avi Shlaim delivers a superb biography that is well written, researched, revealing, passionate and to a great extent objective.

Regardless if one agrees or not with the King's inherited role, he was able to save his dynasty and country.
Although King Hussein's life revolved on the previous mentioned principles, not all of the King's actions can be aligned with those principles if one takes a simplistic view of those actions without serious reflection and reading between the lines. Avi Shlaim does an excellent job on analyzing the King and his actions from the day he reached the thrown until the last moments on his deathbed.
For example, when Iraq invaded Kuwait, the King sided with Iraq, which is contradictory to King's " balancing principle." However, after reading the author's analysis and the foreign/domestic challenges facing the King, the King through careful policies and outstanding foresight was able to save his country and dynasty from Iraq, Israel and from domestic upheavals.

Even though the King had a "special" relationship with Israel for many reasons, which are explored in the book, the King realized the only way to have the support of Washington was through Israel. This is revealed when King Hussein gave Bush I a memo that stated in part, in his (the king's) judgment the Arab-Israeli conflict was not a foreign policy for the US but rather a domestic US issue due to the domestic influences in the US on the issue. P 478 Although not comprehensible to the King, this an obstacle to peace in the region.
Another example is when President Clinton at the request of King Hussein was unable to sway congress to forgive Jordan's debt to the US. Clinton in turn asked for the help of Rabin. " Yes Mr. President," replied Rabin slowly we will do our best. To the Jordanians present at this brief exchange provided a remarkable demonstration of the political clout wielded by Israel and its friends on Capitol Hill" p 545

During the peace negotiations with Israel, King Hussein was very calculating with extreme foresight, Unlike Arafat who in my judgment was incompetent to lead his people's cause and prone to miscalculation and countless poor judgments before and after the peace treaty. To Israel's satisfaction, Arafat committed a huge blunder by going behind the King's back to negotiate with Israel a separate peace treaty with Israel.

King Hussein, in his correct judgment believed the agreement Arafat reached with Israel was vague, imprecise, and that substantive issues (Jerusalem, borders, refugees) were not addressed in the accord but left for future negotiations. " No one with any sense would sign a treaty first and discuss its technical clauses afterwards." P 533 King Hussein told Rabin when he asked the King to follow in the footsteps of the Peace treaty reached with the PLO.
These are some of the examples, perhaps not the most important, but nevertheless revealing on why I thought this an outstanding book on the life of King Hussein.

The book is a master-piece and must be read by every Jordanian!!
It is a detailed description of not only the life of the late King Hussein, but also a description of the history and politics of Jordan since its early establishment in 1921. Although the book tends to advocate that the late king was a victim to Israeli, PLO and other states' intransigence ( and thus the book is accused of not being objective) but it nevertheless quotes some incidents which reflect the late king's mis-judgements and flaws during his reign. I was pleasantly surprised at how accurate and real the author describes the tense relationship between the Jordanians and the Palestinians either in the West Bank or in Jordan itself. The mere description of this made reading the book a real and vivid experience for me, as opposed to the numerous litrature that I have read on the subject which give the impression that the author is nothing but a mere observer or a reporter who does not have a real understanding of the true situation on the ground. The book is written as a tribute to the late king Hussein, who was truly a very well respected figure in and outside Jordan, and is expected to highlight his positive achievements. It is up to the reader to search other books on either Israel, the PLO, or other states to reach the desired balance.

Just finished reading this amazing narrative of Middle East Histroy throught the life of King Hussain. While I am not really much of a history guy, I found this to be a compelling read much more exciting than I had expected. Avi Shlaim style of vivid story-telling of events and colorful command of the language makes this an interesting journey; much of it I can relate to from my early childhood growing up in Jordan. Avi also resonates a tone unbiased ringing of fairness & seeking the truth, not political statements. He introduces a new element from the intellectual side that exposes hidden truths about a people's suffering in Palestine and Israeli state bent on controlling, occupying and doing whatever it takes to emerge a winner at whatever cost to its surroundings, the people they took the land from and its neighbors. Some of the pages read straight from the story pages of "Avatar'.
I highly recommend it if you can stand a 700 page history trip of middle east starting from the early 50's.
an excellent read.

While history is, on one level, facts, there are always different perspectives from which those facts are viewed. It is worthwhile reading many perspectives to gain a better understanding of events.

This book portrays the late King Hussein's quest for peace and his desire to preserve the Hashemite dynasty. It follows his life from a young boy who witnesses the horrific murder of his beloved grandfather, to his own death after a long reign on the throne of Jordan.

I was interested in reading of familiar events from a different perspective than the one I got from the media in South Africa when they were taking place. However, there were times when I found the writing style difficult to follow and there was a sense of ploughing my way through the book in parts. If I had not already been fascinated by the land and people of Jordan I may well not have finished the book; although it was well worth reading right to the end.

The problem with this book is the same problem every biography has which is the writer always has an interest in subject. For a writer to put the enormous amount of time and effort it takes to research a single subject they either have to love or hate that subject. No one writes a biography of a person they sort of find interesting. This fact colors every biography, but while it is important for the reader to understand this aspect, it does not mean the the reader cannot get a lot of really good information from a book such as this one, and this is a really good book.

The main problem is the author was writing about an autocrat that he respected and liked. King Hussien presided over a regime that imprisoned, tortured and murdered its own citizens as well as others who were critical of his regime. Autrocities occurred under this man's reign. All of this is glossed over in an effort to tell the other side of the story. The author plays lip service to some of the terrible things that happened under this man's leadership, but in reality a work the same length could be written about the terrible things that happened under his reign.

The other main problem is the lack of discussion about the Jordanian influence in the West Bank while they still controlled it. The tone of this book makes it seem that Jordan was at worst a benign influence if not a positive influence. The problem is in reality the Jordanians were heavy handed and oppressive themselves. They were much more interested in creating a dependent entity within the West Bank that wouldn't be capable of asserting an independent program. They actively sought to destroy any potential independent movement or leadership in these areas for their own benefit, but these facts are also glossed over.

With that said what this book does very well is give readers a different perspective. Here in the US we are inundated with the Western and Israeli perspective. There is a plethora of books, biographies and memoirs of American politicians and diplomats as well as Israelis as well, but rarely are we able to hear the other side of the story in such detail, and with so much resource straight from the Arab side. This is where this book's worth lies. It gives readers a much needed perspective.

This book also does a good job in dispelling the pervailing myth of Arab intransigence set against some major Israeli desire for peace. What this book shows is that the Israelis missed many of their own opportunities for peace. It gives an interesting look at the leaders of Israel and their own foibles and idiosyncracies. It shows how the imbalance of power really affects negotiations, and how the prepondrance of military power can create arrogance and hubris.

This is the story of a complicated man who was thrust into a terrible situation. He was king of a country that shouldn't have been. He ruled in a time of great upheaval. His story alone is an amazing story, but add to it the fact that he was king in one of the most important and volatile areas in the world, his story becomes even more fascinating. There are many contradictions in this story. He is a man of peace, but yet one who repressed his own people. He relentlessly pursued peace in the Middle East, but at the same time made many mistakes along the way. His story is a mixed bag, but a story very well told by this author here. I recommend this work.

Few born as kings, some are made others had thrones bestowed upon them. King Hussein was all of them. The book is great in describing the hard time and few good times king Hussein experienced during his reign. As a middle eastern reader this bring more insight about the mis-shief of the region and the policies drafted upon us.

Great book by all means !

Ali Asaad
Saudi Arabia

As a light biography of King Hussein, this book is passable. However, the reader should be aware that the author has an axe to grind against Israel, and misses no opportunity to do so. Sometimes it seems as if this is the primary purpose of the work, and poor Mr. Hussein has to wait patiently until Shlaim has vented his rage.

A few examples -
Page 163, referring to 1958, when Jordan was unable to get oil except by having it flown over Israel:
"Israel's behavior in Jordan's hour of need was erratic and unhelpful..."
But on the next page he says: "Hussein was grateful for Britain's help and for Israel's part in facilitating it". Hussein is then quoted as saying: "When an Arab nation [Saudi Arabia] refused [to help], an enemy [Israel] agreed.

So which is it, helpful or unhelpful? Fortunately, there is a footnote on the first comment, so we can see what the source of the "unhelpful" opinion is, and guess what? It's a paper written by the author in May 1999.

I guess Shlaim knows better than His Majesty who is helpful and who isn't.

The book is replete with such examples of pure and unadulterated objectivity, so I won't bother to quote any more. But Shlaim also plays fast and loose with the facts when it serves his purpose.

For example, this is how he describes the opening of the tunnel (25/9/96) which set off the 1996 riots:
"Of no great import in itself, the new gate to the second century BC tunnel constituted a symbolic and psychological affront to the Palestinians and a blatant Israeli violation of the pledge to resolve the dispute over Jerusalem through negotiations, not via the fait accompli."

To stuff so many distortions into so small a passage is quite an accomplishment. Let us count them:
First, the tunnel is not from the second century BC. It runs along the base of the herodian wall which was built in the first century BC to support the enlarged temple mount.
Second, in the first century BC the level of the tunnel was above ground, because the ground level was much lower. There was no tunnel, merely an open area along the wall. All this is explained to visitors when they come to see the tunnel. It is quite plain that the author has never been there, or was not paying attention.
Third, the opening of a second exit to a tourist attraction (which is what the tunnel actually is) on the outside of the temple mount in no way prejudices the status of Jerusalem, and it is ridiculous to describe this as a fait accompli which violates a pledge.

The reason for these distortions on the author's part is that he is embarrassed to give the true reason for the riots: The Palestinians were deliberately incited by their leaders with false rumors that the tunnels were going *under* the temple mount (rather than alongside it), and that their purpose was to blow up the mosques. Explosives were used to create the opening, and the sound of their detonation led credence to the rumors.
The author has copied a piece of Palestinian propaganda and presented it as fact.

These examples (and more - many more) suggest that nothing that the author says about Israel ought to be taken at face value. Presumably, he may be relied upon regarding purely internal Jordanian affairs, or its relations with other Arab countries. However, as the book progresses, Israel plays a larger and larger role, and what was an initially pleasant read turns into a tiresome exercise in sifting through bias and distortions.

This book reads like a tendentious history novel.
It is not a detailed scholarship since the author has an agenda to show that the Hashemite Kingdom is not part of the historic Palestine. However he cannot do it with pages and pages describing the Eastern Palestine and its Western wing, Transjordan and Cisjordan, Jerusalem and Hebron, Amman and Nablus where the best high school has a name of King Talal, the unfortunate father of the late King Hussein who reigned the longest in the Palestinian monarchy.
He writes, "the Balfour Declaration, monumental injustice to Palestine Arabs" forgetting that Arabs benefited from the presence of Jews even before the mandate triggering Jewish and Arab immigration to the area.
The Jewish attention elevated the Palestinan Arabs to the high level of the economic activity and education. The King Abdullah was himself a Palestinian immigrant as well as many people in his foreign court and his Arab Legion.
As of today Arab areas constitute 85% of the historic Palestine. One may decide to measure injustice in terms of territory.
Ponder this: "Abdullah turned his attention to the mountainous country [?] lying east of the Jordan that nominally formed part of the British manadate for Palestine but in practice was left to its own devices and had degenerated into brigandage and lawlessnes."
All parts of Palestine (Galilee, Negev, Judah, Gilead) were exactly the same as Moab in terms of their Bedouin. British used the Biblical term "Moab" for the emirate of Transjordan they created for the Arabian ruler Abdullah who lost his feifdom in Hijaz to the stronger Saudis.It is British (Churchill in Cairo) who turned the attention of their client Abdullah to Palestine and forbade him to make any incursions of his army into the French Syria.
As for King Hussein of Transjordan (Jordan) it is unfair to bestow on him the play of words on the Biblical "Lion of Judah" which was a title of the Jewish kings (and the Ethiopian Emperor) at the time when lions really roamed the Land of Chanaan.
I was taken aback when I did not find in the whole volume such an important fact as an exchange of territory between the Saudi Arabia and the Jordanian Kingdom when King Hussein got 18 km of the Red Sea coast to the south of his port of Aqaba but relinquished some land of the former British Palestine to the Saudi Kingdom.
It happened in 1965, 2 years before King Hussein decided to enlarge his monarchy even more at the expense of Israel and ordered to fire from his fortress in Jerusalem at the civilian buildings of the Holy City.