Customer Reviews

A Season in Bethlehem : Unholy War in a Sacred Place

5 star:		(8)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(6)

 

 

Joshua Hammer goes to a place where most of us would never dare. "A Season in Bethlehem" is an intricately woven passage that takes the reader on an emotional journey delving into the minds, bodies and souls of its characters. Hammer writes, "This is a part of the world where every square foot of land is invested with deep meaning." And it's on that note where the book begins its quest to find reason for the violence and destruction that has brought so much suffering to the people living in the region today.

Unlike most articles and material I have read on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, this book brings to the forefront some insight into why and how the chaos exists. The author makes a bold choice to humanize almost every character in this book, whether one considers them good or evil. But it's that choice that makes this book unique, it allows the human story from all sides to unfold. And for some that's a place where most people would rather not go. But if there is ever going to be change, it's a place where we have to go...

This is thought provoking, courageous journalism! This is a great read, thoughtful, powerful imagery allows reader to make sense of insensibilities, and also makes it difficult to take sides. I saw no signs of favoritism to any involved parties, just a fact filled, well researched account of 40 or so days in what one would have to describe as a crucible. This is difficult to tackle subject matter, thankfully Mr. Hammer had the sense and fortitude to endanger himself and his loved ones in an effort to tell a story that had to be told, and, hopefully, more widely read. I cannot help but to compare Mr. Hammer to Ernie Pyle and his home-spun, natural ability to accurately describe war in its own urgent undertones, making the reader sense the palpable tension that must exist there to this day. I would highly recommend this to anyone trying to understand the nature and history of this conflict, or to university students involved in Mid-eastern studies. ab/

This is a very biased inaccurate account of the actual events. This book tells the tale of the `siege' of the Christian church in Bethlehem in the spring of 2002. During this period a Palestinian death squad occupied the sacred church and used it as a bunker to hide from the Israeli army. The event was very controversial with some angry that Israel would dare to surround a church and some angry that Palestinians would dare to invade a Christian site. The siege lasted more then 30 days and ended peacefully with Arafat `promising' to put the militants in prison.

The problem with this account is that it is rabidly pro-Palestinian. Can you imagine if Jewish settlers had entered a Mosque and taken it over? Well the world outcry and protests from amnesty international and the U.N would be never ending. But basically the author argues that it was the vicious Israelis who were at fault because they dared to try to apprehend palistinian terrorists who were avowed members of a death squad. The author looks at the situation through the eyes of those who were involved in the action; a shopkeeper, a palistinian, and an Israeli. Unfortunately he choose an Israeli who was a typical revisionist, one claiming he didn't want to be in the west bank. This is a biased account, full of anti-Israeli tirades and will not be good reading if you support Israel or want a balanced account of the standoff.

The author, as a magazine reporter based in Israel, had at his fingertips a wealth of information about the inside politics of the struggle between the Israelis and Palestinians over control of the historic city of Bethlehem. Instead of giving the reader a clear picture of what has been happening, he wandered from character to character without ever providing the reader a larger idea of what was happening in Bethlehem, or the larger conflict between the two sides that has spilled through the West Bank, and the world for that matter. His character portrayals themselves are confusing. I'm sorry this book did not get the editing that could have made it a wonderful contribution to the understanding of the conflict.

People who complain about bias in this book are missing the point. "A Season in Bethlehem" doesn't aim to judge, but to present the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in all its complexity. The point is that there are no 100 percent good and no 100 percent bad guys here; everyone has blood on his hands. What's interesting about "A Season in Bethlehem" is that the author goes beyond the simple "verities" of this conflict to show the humanity, the complexity, the internal division of the Palestinian side. The book shows us that the terrorists and militiamen, however murderous their acts, are real human beings with complex motives- revenge, religious passion, crazed conviction about the righteousness of their cause. Apparently that's what gets the pro-Israel camp so riled up.

This looks like sober reporting. After all, it states that "Israel invaded" Bethlehem "on April 2, 2002, and besieged the Church of the Nativity." What could be more objective and unbiased?

Well, just about anything would have been more objective. After all, the problem wasn't the Israeli soldiers. It was a gang of Arab terrorists who, um, invaded the Church of the Nativity in order to try to get away with their crimes.

Still, I did have an obvious question. Just how complicit were the Christians with the Arab terrorists? Were they hostages? If they were, I would have hoped that the Vatican would have complained more loudly about it. Or were they siding with the thugs?

Hammer explains that the Christians offered the Arabs "sanctuary" in the church. And that the terrorists could keep their guns. It's nifty how the author thinks he can excuse everyone. The terrorists were just trying to find well-earned sanctuary. And the Church can't be blamed for supporting the Human Rights of all thugs!

Well, I think such a whitewash has the opposite effect. I know some very decent Arab Christians. But when I see stuff like this, it makes it difficult for me to sympathize with them. I know that many people have been pressured into siding with (or at least tolerating) the thugs. But there is no excuse for open support of terror.

As a minimum, every reputable Christian leader should have unambiguously denounced the takeover of the Church of the Nativity and should have supported Israeli efforts to arrest the terrorists and bring them to justice. But instead, the author tries to explain that such an idea was impossible, given the untrustworthiness of the Israelis. And he blames Israel for allowing Jews to live in the West Bank at all!

I happen to think that the Israelis were quite trustworthy. But such an issue was separate from the fact that thugs were occupying the Church of the Nativity. Would we have been so slow to denounce an occupation of the Kaaba by Christian terrorists?

I do not recommend this book. Its bias is so great that it is hard to trust what it says anyway.

I have always liked Joshua Hammer's articles in Newsweek but I really became a fan when I read his impressive piece in Mother Jones (kind of an unexpected, non-mainstream venue for a Newsweek writer) about this American peace activist girl who was killed by an Israeli bulldozer. What it made me realize about Hammer's reporting is that he mostly abstains from judgments but allows the facts and characters in his stories to speak for themselves. The same is true for this book. It is very, very good.

Joshua Hammer believes that suicide bombings are always inexcusable but that the Israelis bear some responsibility in bringing the attacks on themselves. This sentence is doublespeak. If you believe that blowing up innocent people is always inexcusable, then there IS no "but." If you add the "but," then you clearly don't believe that such attacks are ALWAYS inexcusable. Hammer is blaming the victim, much like someone who says, "Rape is always wrong, but sometimes women provoke it." If Hammer is ever a victim of one of these attacks, and he is in the hospital recovering with a missing limb or with nails embedded in his body, I hope he will remember his own words and be willing to contemplate just what he did to deserve it.

This is a totally useless biased account of the Bethlehem experience from the begginings of the Al-Aqsa intifada to the siege of the Church of the Nativity. The author exclames that he will weave the tale of a number of men living in the land. A christian businessman from the city(whose business is ruined by the terrorism and military occupation), a Palistinian murder(who yearns to kill israeli civilians but gets stuck in the siege), and a Jewish soldier(who is nice and conflicted about his role, which suits the anti-Israeli press).

This short volume portrays the deterioration of life in the Bethlehem and the lead up to the final siege of the Church. The author does a great job whitewashing the terrorists, who are portrayed as honorable fighters defending thier homeland(apparently its neccesary to murder Israeli civilians to accomplish this very noble goal). The author also does a great job justifying the occupation of a holy christian place by viscious terrorists and then treats the Israelis as goliath like monsters who 'dare' to lay siege to the chruch. Clearly the author felt the israels should have allowed the terrorists to do as they pleased after murdering civilians.

The irony and hypocrisy in this book is clearly evident. The author acknowledges that the 'cause' of the Intifada was the visit of Sharon to the Muslim Holy place(the temple mount). Its interesting then that the same author finds it totally exceptable that terrorists should occupy a christian holy place with their weapons. All Sharon did was tour the temple mount, he never entered the Mosques, yet thats viscious and unexceptable to newsweek while the occupation of one of the holy christian churches in the world by Muslims is a neccesary act so that they wont be jailed. Can we imagine the insanity Muslims would delve into were a single Jew to dare to enter a mosque on the Temple mount?

This is a book typical of the anti-israel lobby at Newsweek, and a book that is full of bias and scaterlogical writing style, doing no justice to the profound events it covers.

This book is a really good read and remarkably-well researched. As a journalist who covered some of the events described in the account, I was impressed by the level of detail Hammer managed to achieve. The account of the Nativity Church siege in the last chapter is as good as any reporting I've seen from the region lately and it's told in gripping narrative form. Well worth reading.