|
If you like the Middle East then you should enjoy this too. It felt more like a propanganda peice rather than true journelism. This was my first look into the world of books on CD's & it was fair. The story was one that was recommended to me but I was not overly impressed.
It's an incredibly fast read and will open your eyes. This book does. Visit Apellicon's book recommendation site to read more reviews and see more book lists by category. If you only want to read one book on the Middle East, this is it. Despite all the press devoted to this area, the media does not offer context.
If that sounds presumptuous, it is far, far worse when he claims that Yasser Arafat "can never fully understand the needs and feelings of Palestinians under Israeli occupation, because he has never been one of them" (p. Okay, he also spoke to some interesting people along the way, but he's a reporter. He claims that for the first 200 years after independence, the U.S. The most interesting and thought-provoking parts of this book consist entirely of quotations or paraphrases of other people.I still give this book two stars, rather than one, because it is not completely worthless. Friedman's boot-licking is made almost comical in light of his admission that Beirut's "international press corps" was "generally uncritical" (p. Peppered throughout the book are little vignettes, the slices of life, stories about people and events that go beyond what you will see in the average history book. I do not recommend this book.
A reporter's job is to ask knowledgeable people questions, and write down the responses. Consider the very first sentence: "In June 1979, my wife, Ann, and I boarded a red-and-white Middle East Airlines 707 in Geneva for the four-hour flight to Beirut." In one short sentence are five completely useless details. I mean he concedes from the outset that he doesn't have anything to offer: "I had decided that the academic ivory tower was not for me and that if I was ever going to be able to hold my own on the Middle East, I had to live there and experience the place firsthand." P. This book has virtually no citations. 103), according to whom. But such gems are too few and far between. had only two serious foreign engagements: the Mexican-American War and the Spanish-American War (p.
119). He isn't a Middle East historian, either. 116-17), not diminished in the least by the PLO's kidnapping and murder of Israeli athletes in Munich (p. No matter how momentous the historical events he describes, Friedman is always the star of the show. 411) and, shockingly, calls a friend of his "Abdul" (p. Did Friedman conduct a poll.
104), doesn't know Hebrew (p. 25)). Seriously). To learn about history, or culture, or about perennial political problems -- all of which interest me greatly. But opinions about the Middle East are far more informative when backed up with facts. Or an ethnologist. On the same page, Friedman claims America had "no real need. Please.I also found Friedman's sympathy for Arafat's cause (even if Arafat's understanding was at sub-Friedman levels) noxious.
A good writer knows the importance of detail, to be sure, but it's the telling detail that matters. I apologize for the length of this review, but it's hard to condense all that is wrong with a Thomas Friedman book into a few short paragraphs.This book is basically a memoir and reflection on Thomas Friedman's time in Lebanon and Israel as a New York Times reporter, from 1979 to 1989. It is something else to read the details of an entire neighborhood that was literally flattened by heavy machinery, along with its former residents. I can't really fault Friedman for not knowing them -- he's a Middle East reporter, not a historian of post-Revolutionary America.
But that's exactly my point. 205). Or a political science expert. Arafat can't possibly understand Israeli Palestinians, but Friedman is somehow qualified to write hundreds of pages on the causes, meanings, failures and future of the intifada.
Friedman's account of the massacres at Sabra and Shatilla are more evocative than a bare report of the number of people who died. He mistranslates the phrase "alhan wa-sahlan" (p. It is not completely useless, but I do not recommend it because the weaknesses far outweigh the strengths, and 500 pages are too many to get the few interesting bits scattered throughout. I'm not just talking about mixed metaphors (on page 2, he mentions a "multicolored river of humanity that flowed through [Jerusalem's] maze of alleyways," because apparently people are water, water flows through mazes, and alleyways look like the front of David Bowie's castle in Labyrinth). Or a linguist.
I don't care what Friedman's wife's name is, or what color his airplane was, or what airline he used, or how big the plane was, or the city where he had a connecting flight, or how long it takes to get from Switzerland to Lebanon. That's not to say reporters aren't entitled to share their opinions -- of course they are. Freidman's style is obnoxious, his assertions are unsupported, his chronology is meandering, and his conclusions are without merit.Why would someone pick up a book about the Middle East. The primary problem with this book is, stated simply, a lack of command of important facts, which leads to over-generalizations and a total lack of confidence in Friedman's conclusions and the significance he attributes to his observations (like when he spends ten pages trying to interpret a pork chop.
He isn't a very interesting star, either. 7. 121). 119, the massacre "kept the Palestinian cause relevant," nothing more), Freidman asserts that Arafat didn't share in the widespread PLO corruption (p.
But this book isn't about any of those things. It's not about the intifada; it's about Tom Friedman's generalizations about the intifada. No citation, of course. Other than Benedict Arnold, the other names in that list are not exactly household words. to learn the seamier dimensions of diplomacy, espionage, and covert operations." Nowhere does Friedman betray the smallest indication of familiarity with Thomas Jefferson's diplomatic trip to France, of the names of spies like Benedict Arnold, John Andre, Edward Bancroft, Benjamin Franklin Stringfellow, or Lafayette Baker.I admit I'm cheating a little bit, here. Or an expert on anything, really, other than newspapers (I assume). Shortly after a rapturous review of Arafat's leadership qualities(pp. It is one thing to read that Hafez Assad butchered 20,000 of his own citizens in the city of Hama.
Or does he just presume to speak for "most Westerners". During his decade in the Middle East, Friedman talked to some interesting people, and saw some interesting things. This book is not about the Lebanese civil war; it's about Tom Friedman reporting on the civil war. The War of 1812, the Barabary Wars and the undeclared war with France were perhaps insufficiently "serious" for Friedman's tastes, although British soldiers burning the White House strikes me as fairly serious. 422). Even if we assume for some reason that academics can't or don't live in the Middle East, the statement is disturbing because Friedman admits he cranked a thick book out of nothing more than an exotic residence (it's certainly not his language skills. Western observers "assume that all the surface trappings of nation-statehood -- the parliaments, the flags, and the democratic rhetoric -- can fully explain the politics of these countries" (p.
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. 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.
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. 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.
This book is vital reading for anyone interested in the Israeli-Arab conflict throughout Palestine. After that he moves to Jerusalem, and details the tumultuous post-1948 history in an accessible way.
Very important reading. 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 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.
From Beirut to Jerusalem is a good place to start if you're interested in studying the Middle East, but it's only one of many views about the region, and to get a firm grasp on the struggles that occupy so many of our minds and TV screens, one will need to delve into the works of ALL sides. I think that's pretty tough to avoid considering the subject, though, and a sizable proportion of the work done on this region is accompanied by similar concerns. Despite the thickness, it's a pretty quick read. I'd recommend this book to anyone who is unfamiliar with the region because it really pulls you in like a novel or a flick, and it paints a vivid picture. However, several academics are unsatisfied with some of Friedman's views, and the omission of various facts.
|
