New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman is one of the most respected Middle East journalists of our time. His seminal book "From Beirut to Jerusalem" traces his journey from the late 70s to the late 80s as the New York Times correspondent first in Beirut (from 1979-1984) and then in Jerusalem (from 1984-1988). The book is divided into two main sections…Beirut and then Jeursalem.
From Beirut to Jerusalem is one of the classic pieces of Middle East literature. The defining feature of the book is the way Friedman's riveting narratives both report and explain the complex nature of the Middle East.
The first section, Beirut, blends riveting anecdotes of life in Beirut with a thematic detailing of the problems that engulfed Lebanon. Beirut is described as an impossibly complex place with rival tribes that, in Friedman's pessimistic view, will probably never live peacefully together.
The Lebanon on the 1980s is compared to the romantic version of Beirut that existed prior to the 15 year civil war. Through the comparisons of ordinary Lebanese citizens we understand just how tragic life in Beirut became in the 1980s. Corruption, mistrust, danger, and a stark sense of humour defined the life that Friedman found in Beirut.
The section is Olympic in its greatness and achieves a masterful blend of mixed and contrasting emotions which replicate the life he found there. People in Lebanon became so conditioned to the fighting that passers-by on one street would witness a raging gun battle while shoppers browsed around the corner. After a car bombing in Beirut, the most frequently asked question is not "Who did it?" or "How many were killed?" but "What did it do to the dollar rate?" Likewise, "How is it outside?" refers not to the weather but to the security situation.
Friedman's section on Jerusalem is a far more complex affair. Friedman takes on various subjects concerning Israel: The conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians, the conflict between the different types of Jews who live in Israel (one of the best chapters involves interviews with the 4 different types of Jews in Israel – secular Zionist, Haredi, modern Orthodox Zionist, and Religious Messianic Zionist), the relationship between Israel and the media and the relationship between Israeli Jews and American Jews. All these subjects are artfully bound together in a way that shows how none of them are independent of the other.
As a young Jewish man growing up in America Friedman viewed Israel as a mythical, heroic and iconic place of perfection. His travails through Lebanon and Jerusalem however forced him to remove the rose tinted glasses that he has seen Israel through ever since the triumphant victory in the 6 day war. Friedmans highly emotional connection to Israel is the problem that his analysis suffers from. Friedman expects too much from Israel. He is too emotional about Israel to give an objective and neutral analysis on its many challenges and problems. This leads him to become overly critical of Israel in general and Orthodox religious Jews in particular.
He readily admits as much in a chapter entitled Under the Spotlight. In this chapter Friedman discusses (and defends) the exaggerated coverage Israel receives in the press relative to other conflicts in the world. (He describes an American newspaper in 1988 making a bigger fuss over an Israeli soldier breaking a Palestinian rioters arm than of the fresh reports that Saddam had just used poisonous gas to kill thousands of Kurds in Northern Iraq.)
But for Friedman this all takes place partly because of the fascination the world has with the super story that they can all relate to…that Israel today is the modern continuation of the stories from the Bible that the West are so enamoured with.
Friedman admits that he expects more from the Israelis than he does from the Arabs. To him it's because he is a Jew, and therefore expects more from his team. This is why he is so quick to criticise every wrong move that Israel ever makes. Israel is criticised more in the book than her Arab neighbours that have tried so many times to attack and destroy her. But Friedman explains his analysis. He understands the difficult situation that Israel faces, as she tries to fight a war in a fair and legal manner (though he points out that it sometimes is only a pretense), even though her enemies are not playing by any rules except Hama rules. (Hama rules is a term he coined to explain the wild rules of the Middle East. In 1982, in order to quell a rebellion by the Muslim Brotherhood in Hama Syria, PM Basher Assad mowed down the entire town killing almost 25 000 people in one week.)
Friedman judges the Israelis by a higher standard because of his emotional ties to Israel. But he also soberly explains how the whole world judges Israelis by a higher standard. Because of this Friedman explains how lucky the Palestinians are that they are in a conflict against the Jews; as opposed to some other nation. It is because they are up against the Jews that their voice will always be heard and that attention will always be focused upon them.
"When the Palestinians are not victims of Jews, but of other Arabs, or when they themselves are victimisers, the West is simply not interested in their fate. That becomes clear from even the most cursory reading of newspapers during the past few years. When Israelis were indirectly responsible in the massacre of Palestinians as the sabra and Shatilla refugee camps in 1982, the story was front page news for weeks. When Lebanese Shiites were directly involved in killing Palestinians in the very same camps from 1985-1988, it was almost always back page news – if it was reported at all. This despite the fact that some 3000 Palestinians were killed during the three years of fighting over the camps."
Friedman’s emotional entanglement causes him to misread the larger context of the conflict and this is readily seen by reading his advised solutions to the conflict. He details the way he thinks the conflict can be resolved but takes a very naïve approach on the 4 main issues – Jerusalem, Security, Territory, and the Refugees. Friedman thought that Israel could readily end the conflict simply by offering the Palestinians a state. On each of the above issues Friedman's solution adopts a formula that the Palestinians today would outrightly reject. Friedman thought that the power balance between the two sides would cause the Palestinians to accept whatever Israel put on the table.
Despite this, his story is remarkably told. His criticism is generally constructive and interesting. The book really does take you on a journey from Beirut to Jerusalem. It is filled with clever descriptions and metaphors ("Middle East diplomacy is a contact sport"). Though it is now somewhat dated, it nevertheless remains one of the most compelling Middle East reads available.
At times it frustrated me, at times it challenged me, and at times it changed my views on the Middle East. But it always kept me hooked.
Gee, Im not a fan of Friedman. Im surpised you gave this book such a good review.
But I havent read it. His columns irritate me though.
Posted by: Anti-UN | October 20, 2005 at 09:56
I read this book when it came out and for years drifted through life with the vague feeling that Israel was wrong about the settlements.
Since the 2nd intifada however, I have become painfully aware of the intentions of the Palestinain leadership, the extreme bias of the media and the U.N. and the fact that Friedman is a fish-faced enemy of the people.
Furthermore, the entire "Palestinan problem" was caused by Arab aggression but the world says that only Israel has to clean it up, at grave risk to its own security. Screw that. I've had enough.
Posted by: greenmamba | October 25, 2005 at 19:29