From Beirut to Jerusalem

I was disappointed that the booked was billed as the best book on the Middle East when it was more of a travel bio in the 1980 timeframe. Good antidotes and some history but too outdated. For example Sadam in Irac is history not an understanding on current Middle East

Thomas L. Friedman lost me when he credited some Lebanese buddy with the, "Peace will come to the Middle East when the Arabs love their children more than they hate us.", and didn't mention that the origin of that quote was Golda Meir at the National Press Club in 1957. He's an odd Jew who hates Israel.

Friedman's first book, by my estimation, far outpaces all of his latest works that have gained such popularity. In this title, Friedman delves into the heart of two issues that have plagued Middle Eastern peace in the 20th century and even today. The book is divided, as noted on the title, into two parts, encompassing Friedman's time in Beirut, Lebanon during the Lebanese Civil War and Palestinian Occupation as well as during his time in Jerusalem covering the Palestinian conflict.

Friedman, although admittedly Jewish, has deep misgivings about the actions of both sides in the Jewish-Palestinian conflict. His reporting throughout the book does not necessarily follow any party line, simply the views of a rationalist that has experienced war and terror firsthand. If this book has value, then, and I believe it does as a must-read for any interested in the reading, it is in the fact that "From Beirut to Jerusalem" is as balanced as one can get covering provocative issues. Friedman's sources are top-notch, at one point having sat down with Yasser Arafat while his PLO was in Lebanon. Friedman's writing is clear, informative, and highly sourced. This book is recommended with highest regards. I enjoyed the Lebanon section more than that of Jerusalem, but it truly is down to personal preference.

Tom Friedman occupies a unique place in the American Foreign Policy establishment elite; not since Walter Lippman has the voice of a journalist been more influential in Washington DC. "From Beirut to Jerusalem" was his first foray into full-length treatment on critical international issues -- and it is still his best. Moreover, although it was written two decades ago and during a very different time, it is still incredibly relevant to current events.

What makes Friedman's narrative so powerful is his liberal use of personal anecdotes from his time as a New York Times coorespondent in the Middle East in the early 1980s. The story crackles with life as Friedman reconstructs the events of the Lebanese civil war and Palestinian intifada from a broad spectrum of perspectives, from ultra-ortodox rabbis to American Jewish peace activists, Yasir Arafat and Palestinian schoolchildren, Washington policymakers and enlisted Marines. Friedman's description of life as a journalist at Beirut's Commodore Hotel is especially noteworthy and, on occasion, hilarious.

At the core of Friedman's analysis is the contrast between American naivete and the almost primordial savagery of tribal relations endemic to the Middle East. Friedman uses "Hama Rules" (after Syrian president Hafez al-Assad's brutal 1982 repression of a nascent Muslim Brotherhood insurgency in the Syrian city of Hama) as short-hand for the nature of power politics that shaped the flow of events in the region during his time there. The common demoninator in group identification is religion (by sect and by clan) and the gravest sin is to show weakness to your enemies. Friedman argues that the Reagan administration completely failed to understand this fundamental nature to life in Lebanon in the early 1980s when they committed Marines to help bolster the newly elected Maronite Christian president Gemayel, who was, in fact, more the leader of the Phalangist militia than true representative leader of the polyglot country.

Interestingly, Friedman writes that Israeli leaders often make the same mistakes as the US about the region, although some Israelis, such as Ariel Sharon, understand Hama Rules and act accordingly. Friedman describes the Israeli army reaction to the kaleidoscopic factional environment they found in Lebanon after their 1982 invasion as quite similar to the US army experience upon entering Baghdad in 2003.

Indeed, comparisons to Iraq are what struck me most when reading this book. After reading "From Beirut to Lebanon," I was amazed how optimistic Friedman was about the Iraq invasion in early 2003. He was relatively supportive of the war -- a position most likely held out of a deep desire and hope that it would succeed in bringing democracy to the Middle East, a position he passionately promotes, rather than any reasoned belief that the mixed Iraqi population would welcome a new US-installed regime. The civil war in Lebanon in many ways mirrors the intense factionalism of warfare in Iraq where religious identification -- Maronite, Druse, Shiite -- defines the membership of warring militias and undermines any attempt to use a national army to provide stability and bolster a central regime.

Many of the details about the war in Lebanon or the intifada make the book feel outdated, but the central underpinnings of conflict and discord in the region so lucidly explained by Friedman will not change anytime soon. The reader gets a sense of division and pure hatred that divides the people of that troubled land and seem to guarantee that the "peace process" is a meaningless charade.

For anyone who is seriously interested in the Middle East, this book is a "must read." Mr. Friedman gets to the heart of what the different players in this region are thinking and what their motivation is. Don't get me wrong, this is certainly not a history book. If you would like to learn the history of Israel, then please read "Righteous Victims" by Morris. If you read both of these books, you'll be extremely well educated about what makes this part of the world tick and why there are so many difficult problems.

Mr. Friedman does an amazing job of getting personal and relevant information from so many different people. He is truly a reporter extraordinaire. Worried that his Jewish background will make him biased about this subject? Don't be. He holds everyone's feet to the fire and never holds back his issues with all sides.

I am truly saddened by the number of people who are overly opinionated about this subject and yet have so little knowledge. I want to take them by the shoulders and yell: "Go buy this book!!!"

This book is vital reading for anyone interested in the Israeli-Arab conflict throughout Palestine. Friedman, a distinguished journalist, writes the book like a series of extended columns about the region, and his writing is filled with history, anecdote, and an oftentimes startling sense of perception. He begins in Beirut, where he tells of him barely missing fatal bombings, hiding his identity as a Western Jew, and becoming mentally attuned to the chaotic world that he is suddenly thrown in. He clearly lays out the conflict in Lebanon between Maronite, Druse, Phalangist, Muslim, and Jew, and through countless stories great and small gives the reader a vivid picture of politics and despair of the region. After that he moves to Jerusalem, and details the tumultuous post-1948 history in an accessible way. We learn of the machinations leading up to the intifada and the effect the numerous wars have had on these people living in the Middle East. What makes this book such an achievement is the way Friedman captured how the regular people, irregardless of religion, have been feeling and been put through by the times they live in, and how world leaders have been reluctant to help for a myriad of reasons. Most of all the book serves as a fascinating portrait of a country and a people in turmoil, written in Friedman's simple yet intellectual tone. Very important reading.

The Middle East unfortunately is a part of the world where very few people can speak without any getting emotional and without bringing in their own personal biases. Thomas Friedman is no such author. Though this may surprise some people who are familiar with his columns, this book is simply one of the best books about the Middle East period. Even though it was written a while back you'll be surprised how relevant the material is in 2015.

It doesn't cover the whole Middle East of course but it covers two of it's most important conflicts, Lebanon's civil war and the Israel/Palestinian conflict. One of the things I like most about the book is that it gives you the perspective of both those in power and of the common man and woman. Many authors like to be extra critical of those in power out of some principal and while Thomas Friedman certainly has his critiques his book isn't just one big rant which I feel really helps the reader understand the Middle East.

If you're interested in this region, it's history, and it's politics, you must read this book!

Being under 30, my firsthand knowledge of politics and world events only goes back about 15 years, so most things that happened in the Reagan Administration and before are historical to me rather than something I can look back on and remember. As this presidential election plays out, we are constantly reminded of the strategies employed by previous candidates, but looking at these things from a historical perspective is somewhat strange: since I already know the outcome to the election, I tend to view strategies through that lens rather than the situation as it existed on the ground at that time.

The same thing is true with respect to foreign affairs, only more so. I was almost exclusively interested in domestic matters before September 11th, so I only distantly followed events like Yassir Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin shaking hands at the White House. But as the last eight years have increased the relevance of the Middle East to our country, I have become progressively more and more annoyed with those who speak authoritatively about something they know so little about. My reading serves as much to inform me what I don't know than fill in gaps in my knowledge, so I've realized how little about Israel and Palestine I can really speak intelligently about.

Therefore I've been reading extensively on the region, last week finally getting to Thomas L. Friedman's From Beirut to Jerusalem, an account of his time serving as a reporter in Lebanon and Israel. Shifting from memoir to reporting adeptly, Friedman is able to help the reader understand the situation, as it existed in the 1980s. While I learned quite a bit about the political situation in Beirut involving the Druse, Maronite Christians, and Arafat's PLO, what stuck with me the most was the depiction of the everyday citizen. What must it be like to live in a world where car bombs have killed someone you know?

It shames me to admit, but I really didn't have a good sense of Lebanon's history prior to this reading. Considered the ideal with so many factions of people living together in relative harmony, the tensions underneath eventually exploded in violence, something that hindsight sees as inevitable. Friedman is at his best when intertwining interviews with people on the ground along with leaders of the various factions, occasionally throwing in his own viewpoint in order to flesh out the picture. What we tend to get is a real cross-section of the culture.

As he moves on to Jerusalem, the book shifts in tone. There is much less of Friedman himself in these chapters. Instead he focuses on the Palestinian/Israeli conflict and how that was handled during his time there. I have always been one to sympathize with Palestine, but reading these passages helped me to evolve my thoughts. Not that I am less sympathetic to the plight of the Palestinian people, but now I feel that I have a better grasp to the actual problems in the region and how they might concessions be made by each side in order to achieve lasting peace.

My edition had a chapter written in 1994, five years after the book was first published. In it, Friedman opines at length about the direction he feels the two sides must take in order to solve some of the conflict. Though no expert, I believe much of this to still be applicable today. I was fascinated by how little the region has seemed to change in the intervening years, even with the rise of Hamas and the death of Arafat. Though I would like a similar account of the intervening years, I nevertheless feel that From Beirut to Jerusalem to be quite valuable for anyone trying to understand the region. What happened twenty years ago may seem like old news to those of my generation, but in the communities of Lebanon and Israel, it seems like yesterday.

First a bit of disclosure: My mother was Jewish and my father was a South Asian Muslim. I was raised as a non-observant reformed Jew and believe that both Israel and Palestine should exist as countries. Don't know if that makes me unbiased or not.
To segue into the review, Friedman is definitely not unbiased. However, his main bias (at the time of writing, rather than now) is not pro-Israeli or pro-Palestinian. It is pro a certain view of Israel. He believes that Israel should be a liberal, but religious state. This colors all of his statements about internal Israeli politics and makes his quotations from various politicians and citizens less reliable than you would expect.
On the other hand, the picture he paints of Lebanon is one of the most engaging and interesting sections of a recent history book I have ever read. Friedman has the unique ability to give the facts like a reporter, but tell the story like a fiction author.
His nuanced view of the Palestinians is quite interesting too. His view that the Israelis tried to coopt the Palestinians and that it almost work but the Palestinians finally demanded a "divorce" is quite original. His view that Palestinians do well in world opinion when they attack Israeli soldiers but not when they attack Israeli citizens is also quite perceptive.
I would definitely recommend this book as a starter for those interested in the Middle East, even though it is over a decade old.

I only recently read Tom Friedman's book. It must be remembered that the last chapter (update) was written in 1994. Unfortunately, so much has occurred between 1994 and the present in terms of the Mideast conflict that Friedman's book is dated. Since the writing of this volume we have seen the assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzak Rabin, the breakdown of peace talks between the Israelis and Palestinians when PLO Chairman Arafat declined Prime Minister Barak's offer of most of the occupied territories in return for an end to the conflict, and the election of hawkish Ariel Sharon as the newest Israeli Prime Minister.
Despite the fact it is dated, Friedman has written a wonderful and useful book. His chapters on life in Lebanon during the Lebanese Civil War is both horrifying and surrealistic. Friedman was finally able to explain to me why our marines in Lebanon became a target for bombs in the early 1980's that killed 240 of them. The answer is that we made the mistake of siding with Christian forces against Islamic militias when we would should have remained neutral.
Friedman explains the strange position of Syria in the conflict. Syria desires peace, but does not want to make a formal treaty with Israeli that would recognize the legitimacy of the Jewish state. Friedman recounts little known acts of brutality by the Syrian dictator Assad (now deceased). When certain elements in the country opposed his regime, Assad sent tanks into a city called Hama and utterly destroyed it killing over 10,000 people.
Friedman explains that many Arab states are simply the result of arbitrary lines drawn in the desert by the British and French at the end of World War I. Such artificial boundaries impeded the formation of real countries and split up tribes and families in the process. As a result, many of these countries are not cohesive societies.
Friedman is pessimistic about peace in the Middleast and after viewing the events of the last year or two this seems strangely prophetic. He does say, though, that the chance exists and that USA can help move the process forward through a combination of diplomacy, behind the scenes pressure, and a willingness to bargain.
Its a terrific book. Its well written and achieves the difficult task of holding the attention of people while simultaneously explaining the complicated dynamics of the Middleast conflict.

As Friedman always does, he writes in an engagingly personal way that helps the reader understand complex issues. This book is ostensibly about Friedman's time as a foreign correspondent in Beirut and then in Jerusalem in the 1980s, but it's really about the political situation in the Middle East during the time he was there (with helpful, cogent background and history).
I really enjoyed this work very much, as I learned SO MUCH about the Middle East, particularly Lebanon/Beirut, that I did not know. It also reminded me of a book I thought was very powerful about Bosnia called "Love Thy Neighbor: A Story of War" by Peter Maas, who was the stringer for the Washington Post during the war in Bosnia. These books have similar premises: that reporters have more access than the average bear to the politics and tragedies of war and become experts themselves as they learn more and more and witness so many things that don't necessarily make it into their daily stories.
This book is divided into three main sections: Beirut, Jerusalem and Washington. The last section deals with Friedman's prognoses for the future of the region and also with his Lexus and Olive Tree theme, which he developed very thoroughly in a book of that name. I thought the Beirut section was the most provocative, but I learned something on every page.
The latter chapters in the Jerusalem section dealt with the interesting issues of why Israel gets so much Western press coverage and the relationship between Israeli Jews and the rest of the Jewish people in the Diaspora, particularly in the United States. I was not aware, for example, that at the time Friedman wrote this that there were almost no reform or conservative synagogues or congregations in Israel. Citizens were either secular Jews or Orthodox.
[This 570-plus page book has additions since the initial publication in 1989, but the expanded version preceded the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin.]
Friedman says to gain peace now, no one -- not the Israelis, Jordanians, Syrians, Lebanese, Egyptians or Palestinians -- can focus on their rights or past victimization. Now they must look at what their interests dictate to them in the current climate of opportunities. He says he earned his pessimism about the region the hard way by living through and seeing a great deal of tragedy and cruelty in both Lebanon and Israel (he earned his first Pulitzer Prize writing about the Israeli military role in a refugee camp massacre of Muslims in Lebanon), and that the leaders of those nations will have to earn our optimism the hard way, too, by proving they can lead their people toward a real and lasting peace.
I strongly recommend this book. I found it incredibly engaging, readable and both local (personal) and global (political/historical).

I started reading this book not specifically because I got interested in the middle-east. I took it as a first book of Thomas Friedman. I took it as an award winning book (not that I read all award winning book though). And, I took it since I saw such good reviews around.

Having said that, I must say it's worth reading this book for several reasons. First of all, it's about the style using which everything is presented. From a jounralist, as expected, the entire landscape is painted like a presentist. No self imposed opinions, or suggestions. Excellent story telling.

Secondly, the solid coverage on the subject. If you need to read one book on middle east, perhaps this is The Book. I cannot say this must be The Book since I have not read any other book on middle east. But certainly, this could be the first book to read on this subject. At times, it appears to be a bit lengthy to substantiate any point, but that does not derrogate the quality of coverage.

Thirdly, associating the history and culture with current affairs are superb. Think of the chapter "Hama Rules". Excellent link up of Assad's mindset with the Bedowin lives.

Lastly, bringing up the views from all possible organizations, sects, religions, nationals. It's something like getting more than a ring-side view from multiple rings (you never know who is fighting with whom at what point of time). You understand how Israelis are divided, what each of them did think, how Beiruties are divided, what each of them did think, how PLOs did run, and so on. Seems like an unlimited combination of wrings and knots in a web, where you keep on unfurling each of them, one by one, and keep doing it.

First published in 1989, this book provides you a strong foundation in understanding the Middle East current issues. The author explains how the French and the British in the 1920s created a set of countries after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire that represented no more than lines in the sand. Often these lines contradicted the ethnicity, and religious affiliations of the affected populations.
The French created Syria, and Lebanon. Syria was predominantly Muslim. And, so was Lebanon. But, the French installed a Christian minority in power in Lebanon who had a stronger affiliation with the French than the other groups. The majority of the Lebanese population were Muslims split between Sunnis and Shiites. Both the Sunnis and the Shiites would have preferred joining the Muslims in neighboring Syria, but had no say in the matter. The much faster demographic growth of the Muslims caused rising tension and ongoing violence with the Christian minority lead government.
Additionally, the Sunnis and the Shiites were often at war with each other. So, it is not like Islam is one unified monotheist religion at peace with itself. Instead, it is a very fragmented religion. It is undergoing the equivalent of the Reformation era that Christianity suffered 400 years ago when Catholics and Protestants were killing each other over minute difference in interpretation of the same religion.
As we know, the story of Israel is even more explosive than Lebanon. In 1921, the British carved out the former Palestine division of the Ottoman Empire into two. The Eastern half became Jordan, and the Western half became a contested territory between Palestinian Arabs and Zionist Jews. An ongoing migration of European Jews until and after the end of WWII caused a rising tension between the two groups. This turned into ongoing violent civilian unrest that the British could not control anymore. The Brits left, and the UN took over. In 1947, the UN declared a formal partition of the territory into a Palestinian State (West Bank, Gaza) and a Jewish State. The Zionist Jews declared Israel statehood in 1948. A day later all neighboring countries immediately attacked Israel. But, Israel held its own. While Egypt took over the Gaza District, and Jordan annexed the West Bank. In 1967, a second war erupted and Israel expanded its territory and occupied West Bank and Gaza District. The tension between Arabs and Jews has not abated since.
The tension between Israelis and Palestinians has lasted over 80 years. After reading this book, you realize how difficult a sustainable peace resolution is. Tribal politics are prevalent throughout the region, and lead to a winner take all mentality. Negotiations and diplomacy are skills that are not utilized much in this region. Thomas Friedman gives you a sense that the "Land for Peace" motto so promoted in the West is actually utopic. There has been many "Land for Peace" deals offered to the Palestinians during the past couple of decades, but they were always immediately turned down by Arafat and the PLO, and quickly accompanied by a rise in terrorism and suicide bombing. The Muslim Arab World just does not recognize Israel statehood. The Palestinians and their Arab brothers have little interest in sharing land peacefully with Israel in an official Palestinian state. What they really want, is for Israel to get out. Given that this outcome is even more utopic than the "Land for Peace" proposals, this conflict may last much longer.

Mr. Friedman's From Beirut to Jerusalem casts light into the obscure origins of a conflict which, to Western eyes at least, is nothing short of mystifying. It made me realize that our pro-Zionist, Western culture is oftentimes much too eager to blame Arab leaders and people for the difficulties which haunt the region, and at the same time it elucidated the mystery of Jewish identity, which explains many of their actions (i.e., sense of inferiority, of being the "eternal victims of history"). I myself once held the (spurious) belief that Arabs (Iranians, Palestinians, Syrians) were all terrorists. But, with books such as this one, we soon come to realize that nothing is black and white (how many times must we be told this before we start applying it in our lives?). I have newfound respect for all the peoples and religions depicted in this book. Overall, this is a balanced, compassionate work with numerous instances of brilliant journalism. Everybody interested in the region should absolutely read this work. It also allows us to meet other influential thinkers - the likes of his friend Fuad Adjami - whose books, articles and views are altogether enlightening. All in all, Mr. Friedman's book made me realize that Mr. Barak's actions (read rapprochement) are nothing short of heroic, and it is because of men like him that, one day, perhaps, Palestine and Israel will be able to live as two neighboring "nations," whose nature remains to be determined. Can it be done? With Mr. Barak, or people like him, I believe it is possible. A commendable endeavor, made all the more appreciable thanks to Mr. Friedman's journalistic foray. (Note: I haven't read the updated edition, in which a chapter has been added.)

... to raise that question using the much discredited phrase from Fox News. As many people know, Thomas Friedman is a long-time reporter, and now a columnist for the New York Times. This is his first book, published in 1989, based on his experiences living in both Beirut and Jerusalem during the `80's, as the aforementioned NYT reporter. I first read the book not long after publication, and was suitably impressed, with both the "balance," as well as the wealth of information that I had not previously read. Friedman is Jewish, and in the prelude to this book says that, in high school, "I was insufferable." Insufferable in regards to his fanatical pro-Israel stance. As he states, concerning his mother's response to some of his actions: "Is this really necessary?" So, it is all the more remarkable that I do think this book represents a fair report on one of humankind's more intractable political problems today.

Friedman and his wife first went to the Middle East in 1979, and for the next decade lived in the two cities that form the title to this book, splitting their time fairly evenly. As seems to be true of every 10 year period in the Middle East, it was tumultuous. "And all the news just repeats itself" is a line from a John Prine song, truer today than when he wrote it. Friedman has a chapter on the massacre in Hama, Syria, by the forces of the current ruler's father, which killed somewhere around 20,000 civilians. This was in 1982! And his account seemed to provide the first fair discussion of it. I was in Hama in 1989, and the "ghosts still talked, admittedly, sotte voce . Lebanon has always been one of the most complex cases in the area, and Friedman seems to select the perfect epigram for his chapter, from a fellow NYT correspondent: "There is no truth in Beirut, only versions." Friedman was there when Israel invaded Lebanon in '82, and presents a rather scathing indictment of their actions, particularly their denial of responsibility for the massacre of Palestinians by Lebanon Christians in the camps of Sabra and Shatilla. Specifically, Friedman says that Israeli General Amos Yaron knew through his Lebanese liaison officer of the plan to kill the Palestinians, and refused to halt the operation. Friedman had clearly moved a long way from "insufferable." He has a knack for coining phrases that convey the essence of the matter, and the chapter on America's own intervention into Lebanon is entitled "Betty Crocker in Dante's inferno." He faithfully reports that American naval authorities felt they had the right and obligation to use their cruisers and destroyers to casually shell Lebanese villages. The why oh why is never dwelt upon enough.

In 1984 he moves to Jerusalem, and it is at least as complex as the various versions of Lebanon, though the US media rarely presents that picture. Friedman can be scathing in his observations. Consider: In terms of the exemption the "ultra-Orthodox" Jews have from military service, he says: "I began to understand what an Israeli friend of mine meant when he said, `It is a lot easier to pray for the ingathering of the exiles than it is to live with them.'" Or: "When the racist Israeli rabbi Meir Kahane used to call for transferring all Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza to Jordan, he would always conclude his proposal by looking his Israeli audiences in the eye and declaring, `Remember, I say what you think.' There is a little bit of Kahane in every Israeli." Friedman depicts the intense conflict between the secular and religious Israelis, and I thought his epigraph to the entire section, a quote from the French poet, Paul Valery, was pitch-perfect: "The existence of neighbors is the only guarantee a nation has against perpetual civil war."

I've been dismayed by Friedman's trajectory since he wrote this book. He has been a constant cheer-leader for the glories of "globalization," lent his prestige to the so-called war on terror, and all the wonderful transformations that American power could make in the Middle East, and has actually recently written a column, NOT tongue in cheek, about how all Americans would have to be above average now. I also liked a lot of the earlier work of Christopher Hitchens, including The Trial of Henry Kissinger and Letters to a Young Contrarian. Both seemed to lose their way in later life: the cause is always one of the "usual suspects." The ombudsman for the New York Times reported, a few years back, that Friedman was a "brand unto himself", and commanded speaker fees of $75,000 per appearance. Alas, all that money seems to have dulled the acuity of his vision.

For this book though, as with those of the younger Hitchens, it merits 5-stars.

In FROM BEIRUT TO JERUSALEM, Thomas Freidman likens the well in the nave of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, that marks the place where Jesus is thought to have been born, to the "naval" of the world. Although Freidman is Jewish, he apparently understands that Christians see the Holy Land as the beginning and the end--the alpha and the omega. Even Christians who say they are "fallen away" or secular feel a connection to the land and its people.
Friedman's book was published in 1989 and concentrates on the years 1967 to 1987. The book tells the story of his two journeys--a physical journey from Minnesota to Beirut to Jerusalem to Washington DC--and a spiritual and psychological journey from adolescent boy with a crush on storybook land to mature man in love with a nation state.
Unlike Friedman, I was not captivated by the Jews and Israel in 1967 (although Moyshe Dayan was a hero I could appreciate). I was captivated in the 1950s by with "Exodus" and "The Ten Commandments" and "The Story of Ruth" and other heroic tales produced by Jewish directors and producers. Jewish movie makers played a major role in the moral education of Americans regarding the wrongness of racism as anyone who has ever seen "Gentleman's Agreement" or "Guess Whose Coming to Dinner" knows.
I think Freidman provides as balanced a version of the events in Beirut and Jerusalem in the 1980s as anyone can. He is Jewish and his story is autobiographical but he is very forthcoming about his feelings throughout the book. This book is not "objective" news reporting in the strictest sense, although his articles in the New York Times may have been more so. Not all Jewish readers agree with him either. As he says, we all have "supermyths" that shape the way we see the truth and we each interpret the truth differently.
Freidman lays out what he says are the four major perspectives of the people of Israel about Israel--what it is and what it should become and/or remain. Apparently, there is no consensus. Points of view range from the secular Jews who see Israel as a haven or sanctuary following thousands of years of oppression, and who are not as obsessed with where the boundaries are as much that they are fixed and secure. On the other hand, the Messanic Jews think the boundaries of the modern Israel must match those of the historic Israel. And then there are in-between viewpoints.
Another aspect of Friedman's book that I appreciated discusses the "Hama Rules" of Middle Eastern Tribal warfare (think Machivelli). The West expects Israel to behave like a model citizen and follow the "civilized" rules of warfare while tribal terrorists who follow the Hama rules of warfare blow up innocents without a second thought.
Friedman says he thinks many Western journalists are perverse in their coverage of Israel. These journalists go out of their way to focus on Israeli misbehavior and look the other way when far worse events occur (and he provides plenty of examples). ... So much for objective reporting. He says the journalists and newspapers that report these biased stories have ulterior motives which he attempts to explain. And, he says Arafat is the master of exploitation when it comes to Western journalists.
... When he left Beirut and arrived in Jerusalem he was amazed to find similarities between the two--suicide bombers, identity cards, loss of civil rights. His description of life in Israel following the inception of the 1987 Intifada sounded uncomfortably familiar.

As of this writing, 168 reviewers have reviewed this book, so I will be brief. Thomas Friedman, for all his real acumen and gifts with language (both spoken and written) tends to be cute or trite too much for comfort. That said, this book suffers from precious little of this. It is definitely in the genre of "New Journalism" now quite old, where the reporter is part of the story, maybe even the story itself at times, but this does not detract from the boldness of this work in the form of its written style, which is free, easy, yet complex, handling each topic with a certain grace and style and formal beauty. Friedman brings a complex topic to a general audience without sacrificing nuance (in fact, this is his main thrust) to show both Lebanon and Israel as cultures of almost impossibly subtle nuance, where small difference of sects and creeds can be the difference between war and peace, bliss and pain

This book is a great introduction to the Middle East and the conflicts that you see in the news every day. The problem with the news is that it is difficult to learn about why certain things are going on and what led to those events. BEIRUT is not a history book, but it does provide a historical perspective, and it also provides analyses of why these things are happening. Most importantly, it gives a personal perspective, and it's filled with stories of his experiences during the decade or so that he spent in the Middle East.
Friedman is at his best in this book. He manages to refrain from taking sides while writing about issues that people tend to get very passionate and emotional about. Some people think he's pro- this or that, but I disagree. While he certainly endorses the state of Israel, he acknowledges the mistakes it has made and the flaws it still has. He criticizes everyone, and the Israelis and Israeli leadership are no exception.
What does come through is the concern that he has for this religiously and historically significant region of the world, and for the tragedies experienced by those who reside there. It is one person's view of the Middle East politics, and taken as such, it is very much worth reading if you are confused by the chaos there and want to know more about the region.

It's tough to be ambivalent about the Middle East. And Thomas Friedman, for all his best efforts, manages to rankle plenty of nerves with his 1989 book (updated in 1995) covering the conflicts in Lebanon and Israel.

"From Beirut to Jerusalem" is Friedman's part-analysis, part-memoir from his nearly 10 years as the New York Times correspondent stationed in these two cities. The book is a lucid account of the background and status quo in the Middle East through 1994. At 571 pages, it's hardly a quick read. But those who feel that they should know more about the situation in the Middle East could do worse than plunging into this book, and sticking with it to the end.

Readers with strong opinions about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict may find their blood boiling while reading Friedman's work. The author is loath to take sides between the Israelis and Palestinians. He asserts that neither side can claim the higher moral ground in the cycle of violence and control in this region. Nor does Friedman throw bouquets at Israel's neighbors, the US government, nor the Arab world. The conflict is a morass with no easy solution, and Friedman shows only reluctant signs of optimism in the book's final chapter.

The Israeli partial withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and the West Bank has put this book back on the radar screen. Friedman's reputation ensures that people with questions about the conflicts in the Middle East will turn to him for answers. "From Beirut to Jerusalem" educates, but don't expect to find any easy answers inside.

I was first attracted to Friedman by reading "The Lexus and the Olive Tree," which was a fantastic book on its own. I then became more interested in his articles in the New York Times. However the book that started it all, "From Beirut to Jerusalem" always seemed to elude me even though it had won many accolades including the National Book Award. I finanlly decided to read it and finished it almost as soon as I picked it up.

Friedman's style it very engaging and I love the way he illustrates his points anecdotally. He has an uncanny ability to reduce very complicated issues to a level understood by a wide array of readers. "From Beirut to Jerusalem" can be read as a book on politics or a work in cultural geography. Furthermore, there are many other disciplines that Friedman seems to address in recounting his years of experience living in both Beirut and Jerusalem. The book is not a comprehensive history of the conflicting regions nor is it an outright endorsement of the state of Israel. In fact, Mr. Friedman, who is a Jew, has some rather interesting things to say concerning the state of Israel and their behavior over the last couple of decades. He recognizes the legitimacy of the Palestinian's argument and has an even-handed approach to the issue.

My only complaint is that I wish Friedman would continually update the book since the relationship between the Palestinians and the Jews is one of the most dynamic relationships in world politics today. The situation is always evolving.

As is stated by Seymour Hersh on the back cover of my edition, "If you're only going to read one book on the Middle East, this is it." I agree wholeheartedly.

This book recounts major observations and informative insights on the Israel-Palestinian conflict by Thomas Friedman, a New York Times journalist who has lived through the terror in the region for many years. Friedman assumes that the reader has no knowledge of the conflict and takes time to give the reader ample background on the geography, politics, history, etc. of the troubled region.
In the first half of the book, Friedman discusses Lebanon and Beirut while the second half moves to Israel and Jerusalem. Friedman focuses extensively on the leaders of the region over the years (i.e. Arafat, Sharon, Rabin, etc.) and how their personalities have molded the conflict. As a gifted storyteller would, Friedman discusses the Palestinian society and how events lead to the emergence and explosion of the Palestinian intifada. Also, intricately intertwined into this conflict are the Arab world and the United States. Friedman also explores these relationships and their impact on the conflict. Here, he sheds some light on the dictatorial characters of the region, including Saddam Hussein, by briefly explaining how these men came to power and are able to maintain it.
The book essentially ends in 1989 or 1990. It would be interesting to read Friedman's thoughts on the region in the next decade-plus since the book was written. Regardless, this book should be a mandatory read for individuals who want to either begin to or further understand the situation in the Middle East.

I started reading this book about a year ago just out of interest and finished it up the other day. I must echo what other reviews have said in that this book is extremely pertinent to the issues of today in the region. The territorial fighting still goes on, the hatred still exists and the solutions are still few.

This book doesn't propose any "plan for peace," which is actually very refreshing. Other books on this topic are generally just the ranting of gasbags who have little comprehension of the history behind the conflict. The truth, as Friedman points out, is that the solution lies in the hearts and minds of the Palestinians and the Israelis. There is plenty of blame to go around, but no outside government--including the US--will ever be able to force peace on these people. Every president since the foundation of Israel has tried to gain peace in the Middle East, but it never works.

This book is not just history it's emotion as well; which makes it all the more entertaining. I recommend it highly.

Thomas Friedman spent the decade of the 1980s in the Middle East (hence the title of the book) as a foreign correspondent for the New York Times. That he was able to survive as a Jew living in Lebanon during the height of the mid-80s kidnapping craze there is remarkable in and of itself. "From Beruit to Jerusalem" is Friedman's account of his time in both capitals, one for which he justifiably won the Pulitzer prize. Despite that somewhat limiting title, Friedman's focus is on the entire region as the key flashpoint in the modern world.
What makes the book so compelling is the way the Friedman uses history to paint the backdrop for his story. He goes beyond a mere reporting of the facts and scratches behind the surface to the underlying reasons for the Middle East's many conflicts. Friedman's reportage on Syrian president Assad's massacre of his own people in the city of Hama, for example, is used to explain how power politics reigns supreme among the unelected rulers of the Arab world, to the continuing detriment of their people. On the flip side, Friedman is openly critical of Israel, particularly for the 1982 invasion of Lebanon and how the country responded to the first Palestinian uprising in the late 1980s. Friedman's even handedness makes his work that much more valuable.
Though his observations are now more than a decade old, there are plenty of lessons here that remain valid today. Though Lebanon has for the most part settled down since then, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is more dangerous than ever, especially in the wake of increased terrorist activity after September 11th.
Overall, a first rate work of journalism and history that is one the most important books released on the Middle East in the past twenty years.

This is a superb look at the Arab-Israeli conflict, Lebanon, and the Middle East, despite being a bit dated. As foreign correspondent for the New York Times, author Thomas Friedman has spent years reporting from Beirut, Jerusalem, and other hotspots in the Middle East. Friedman is a skilled journalist who seems neither pro-Palestinian nor pro-Israeli, and he provides the type of in-depth and balanced reporting one seldom finds on the subject. I particularly liked his coverage of the tragedy that has befallen Lebanon since the 1970's, and his examination of Israeli politics. As Friedman shows, in addition to discord between Palestinians and Jews, there are also many internal conflicts between Arabs, and between Israeli's (some of whom are Arabs). The author does more, however, than merely cover politics. He also looks at the psychology of ordinary people in the arena, be they Muslims, Christians, Jews, Arabs, etc. This stellar book dates from the late 1980's, and obviously cannot cover everything. Still, it remains a super source for understanding conflict in the Middle East.

FROM BEIRUT TO JERUSALEM won the 1989 National Book Award for non-fiction. Author Thomas Friedman also has two Pulitzer Prizes, and at this writing one can occasionally view him on PBS-TV's "News Hour" and other programs. This is journalistic writing at its finest.

Friedman uses his experience in the middle-east, as well as his access to the powers-that-be to present a good commentary of the strife-torn Lebanon and Israel.
Quite interesting to note was that most politicians in Israel are unable to provide one sound reason for following the policies of Palestinian subjugation. Most of them seem to be biding for time, hoping that the something dramatic would happen in the future which would quietly subside the Palestinian demand for a homeland. No political party knows for sure the advantages of forced Israeli settlement in the the Palestinian territories captured in 1967. No political party dares to clearly state what outcome would satisfy them enough to co-exist with the Palestinians.
The only reason for giving this 4-stars is because the analyses of Beirut/ Lebanon leaves a lot desired. Friedman doesn't even take a jab at suggesting what could be done to stop the civil war. Instead it seems to be more a commentary on the daily lives of the Lebanese as they cope with and become immune to the everyday acts of terror.

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.

Friedman is certainly as good an authority as any on the subject having won a Pulitzer Prize for international reporting and having lived as part of the chaos for a good while. If you can get past the name dropping and the slight pro-Israeli bent (no, I'm not pro-Palestinian either, I just want the two sides to kiss and makeup b/c there some fault on both sides dating thousands of years), you'll live vicariously through Friedman as an eyewitness to the obstacles to peace that are ingrained in the multitude of "tribes" in the middle east. The book was first published in 1989 with an update in the early 90s I believe and I read it in 2001 - it is eerie and depressing that the players in the conflict are still rehashing the same issues over a decade later (and as they were in 1948, 1967, etc. etc). Like I said, tough to slog your way through the gazillion anecdotes on this world leader telling that joke to Friedman in his presidential office, but there is no chronicle like it.

I actually read New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman's thoughtful and often provocative account of the Middle East situation about fifteen years ago, and it is certainly a testament to his journalistic skills that the book holds up so well today. Sadly it also shows how little the Middle East has changed in the intervening years in terms of the possibility of conflict resolution. Certainly with the current Israeli air strikes in Lebanon, the book has even greater relevance today for anyone who wants a deeper understanding of the religious and historical foundation for the conflict.

What sets Friedman's book apart from others is the highly personal approach he takes with the history lessons he presents. The author begins his journey as a teenager watching the 1967 Six-Day War on TV, when the concept of Israel sparked a lifelong passion for him. However, like anyone else, the actions taken by Israel since then to defend its sovereignty have often been challenging to embrace. When Friedman later became a reporter in Beirut, an assignment that lasted nearly a decade, he shares how he coped with the ongoing violence and sought normalcy through whatever means he could. This also affected his reporter's ability to discern the facts in the stories he covered in the region, a challenging position at best, especially with the 1982 slaughter at the Sabra and Chatila refugee camps as a flashpoint for his own inner turmoil. He makes palpable the rage he felt toward Israel for its accountability in the massacre.

Friedman clearly divides the book between the two cities of the title with the first part devoted to the ongoing civil war in Beirut among the Shiites, Druse, and Maronites. The second part focuses on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with a particular emphasis on Israel's occupation of Lebanon. This originated with the idea of flushing out the PLO, even as the various sects were battling among themselves. The net result has obviously not been liberation but a staggering quagmire of sociopolitical strife among groups all vying for power in the region.

With these types of revelations, the current air strikes begin to make strategic sense from a military standpoint since the Israelis strongly feel outright destruction of Lebanon's infrastructure is now the only option to snuff out the Hezbollah. It's rare that a seventeen-year old book, no matter how well documented and written and even with the addition of an updated chapter, can actually feel more prescient than it did before. Even as Friedman impressively shares with his increasingly accurate globalization forecast in "The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century", he shows an even more immediate awareness of what may lie ahead for the Middle East.

From Beirut to Jerusalem provides a concise and vivid primer on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the form of Friedman's personal experience in his New York Times postings to both cities. Whatever one may think of his personal opinions, Friedman has spent many years on the ground talking to individuals on both sides -- his take therefore deserves more respect and patience than that of the endless armchair ideologues always ready to lend a rant.
That said, the Beirut section of the book is the stronger, because of its richness of fascinating detail in describing the city's unique society and fall. Once in Jerusalem there is more pontification, though much of it is learned and interesting.
Though the book wanders a bit down the back stretch, it's hard to imagine a better one book introduction to the 1980s Middle East than this.

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.

An interesting book that provides a lot of information about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the relevance of Lebanon. Many books about this topic seem to be dry, but not this one. This is a fun and quick-read. If you want general information on the history, politics, individuals, and organizations involved in this dilemma this is an excellent book. The recent Intifada, assassination of Rabin, and the recent West Bank settlement issue have occurred after the writing of this book. Yet to understand the current problem it's a great book that will never be outdated. The roots of the cause remain the same. This will be helpful for those who have become interested in this region after September 11. The focus is on Israel and Palestine, and not the entire Middle East. An informative and great read.

Friedman not only 'gets' the Middle East, but also has the ability to express his understanding of it to the reader. This book was my first foray into the Middle East, other than a few brief surveys of the region in relationship to WWII. Since reading it, I have also read several other books about the Middle East. However, I continue to come back to the passages that I underlined and the notes that I wrote while reading this book.
Friedman does more than merely describe historical events. He invites the reader (both the well-versed and the not-so-well-versed in Middle Eastern history) to increase his depth of understanding with his thoughtful use of examples and illustrations.
One of the most compelling aspects of Friedman's writing, in my opinion, is that he is passionate about his work. He writes with energy and enthusiasm. If you would like to broaden your understanding of the world in which we live, then I highly recommend this book.

This book was recommended to me by a Friend, after 9/11, to help me understand the "thinking" in that area. Since then I have done a great deal of research but this was my "starter" book. I found it to be excellent in giving the true complexity of what has been and is now going on in that area

I recommend this book to anyone who wants a history lesson on the Civil War of the 80's in Lebanon and then, compare what happened then to what is happening now.

I find it fascinating to hear what the perceived solutions to the problems at the time were, what was done, and what has happened since.

This is an insightful and entertaining account of the author's years in the Middle East as a journalist for the New York Times. Thomas Friedman (currently op-ed columnist for the NYT) spent almost five years in civil war torn Beirut from the late seventies to the early eighties, covering such events as the Hama massacre and the Israeli invasion (and subsequent pullout) of Lebanon, and winning the Pulitzer prize for international reporting (twice) in the process.
His account of the years in Beirut is the best part of the book. The capital of a country once known as the Switzerland of the Middle East was reduced to a battleground with an unknown number of factions fighting each other, complete with militias, carbombs, checkpoints, snipers... the works. With such rules as 'I operate a checkpoint, therefore I exist.' Friedman attempts to make sense of this seeming chaos, going beyond the history of this particular conflict to try and understand the cultural and historical reasons which determine the way things work in the Middle East. Not being from that part of the world, one cannot judge whether his conclusions are valid or not, but it is clear that he has been completely honest in describing things as he saw them, and his understanding of a world far removed from his own is by no means superficial.
As another reviewer has pointed out, he does seem to hold Israel to a higher moral benchmark, and his account of the Jerusalem days is somehow not as satisfactory. Nonetheless, this book is an excellent read, being not only informative, but also highly readable and entertaining.

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!

From Beirut to Jerusalem is a remarkable work, clarifying the muddy waters of the Israeli and Palestinian conflicts. The book mixes personal stories with regional history, to give both color and context to regional events.

The author brings a unique perspective to issues, as he was formerly the New York Times correspondent initially to Beirut and later to Jerusalem. He brings an objective viewpoint to the topics at hand, which is noteworthy when most books take an extreme position on one side or another. In addition, he presents an interesting history of the troubles in Israel and Palestine, proposing why certain peace initiatives have failed, as well as proposing an option that just might work. Like many observers of the region, he mixes hope with a healthy dose of pessimism for a situation that always seems too complicated to be resolved.

Since the initial printing of the book, Friedman has achieved international acclaim as an objective expert on both globalization (the Lexus and the Olive Tree) as well as terrorism in the post-9/11 era (Longitudes and Attidues). Perhaps the acclaim he has received in the current era is what brought about the return of his initial solid work. The book certainly is as relevant today as when it was written.

If there is one book to read to better understand the subject, this is it.

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.