From Beirut to Jerusalem

Growing up in Beirut, politics and religion were frequent subjects of conversation at the table, while the news played endlessly in the background. Life felt strangely routine as we went about our day-to-day activities despite the turbulence around us.

I left Beirut around the age of 12 and have faint memories of the Hariri/Samir Kassir/Gebran Tueni assassinations and the 2006 war.

When I set out to find a book about the Israeli-Lebanese conflict, I had one important criterion: the author had to have experienced the situation firsthand. I chose this book because Friedman didn’t write it from the comfort of a far-off city like Minneapolis or Washington, DC. Instead, he was on the ground in Lebanon during the civil war and later during the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. His account is shaped by the experiences of journalists, politicians, businessmen, soldiers, and civilians from both sides of the conflict, providing a  personal and grounded perspective. While one can never be fully objective when covering such a conflict, I found that Friedman, an American-Jewish journalist, grew critical of Israel with time and noted his internal conflict.

I appreciated the author's writing style, and found the book easy to read. However, I would have preferred fewer shifts in dates, years, and events. A more chronological approach to the storytelling would have improved the overall reading experience.
I've also found parts of the book to be redundant, making it seem like he had to hit a specific word count.

I would certainly recommend this book to western readers interested in learning about the Middle East.

This book was written in 1989 and so much and so little has changed since then. The same variation of stories, the same level of violence, and the endless cycle of abuse perpetrated by different figures on the same borrowed land.

I learned so much! About the Middle East certainly but also about tribalism and political motivation and religion. Friedman is a very capable writer and from my point of view is strongest when he is telling stories of individuals that show the human impact and express the messiness of human emotions and reactions. If I had to guess, I’d say that he prefers Beirut. Maybe it’s because it’s where he started the story, but the way he wrote about the people, the city and what he saw there made me feel present. While I enjoyed and learned from the Jerusalem part of the story, I didn’t get as strong of a feeling or impression of place. Or maybe it’s me because I’ve read so much more about Israel and the conflict with Palestinians than about Lebanon. In any event, please read if you are interested in humanity and all of its complexities.

If you switch out "Beirut" for "Damascus", most of the stories would still apply. The sentence I liked the most was "Arabs constantly live under an IBM protocol: Inshallah, Bokra, Ma3lesh"

I used to follow and read Thomas Friedman’s columns regularly. Thought he was a pretty interesting guy even if I didn’t subscribe to his politics. But he became a bloated, pompous caricature of a journalist as he turned out junk like The World is Flat, The Sky is Blue, The Sea is Salty (well maybe the last two aren’t real but he has a bunch of similar-sounding books). I decided to go back to his first book From Beirut to Jerusalem to see how he got his start. I figured it would be a less slanted, more unbiased, open-eyed look at the world before he got sucked up into the “collective” that is the current NYT. I was wrong. He freely admits his intention to slant his stories about Israel’s Lebanon invasion because he was so “betrayed” in his “Israel on a pedestal” views. This book is not what I expected and hoped for, a history of the region and why it is in conflict. This is a “Tom’s excellent adventure” in Beirut and Jerusalem, mainly about him and his travels. It is also very focused on the personalities of the day, which is understandable because he was the reporter on the scene. The book does not travel the span of time well.

I give props to Friedman, he has some cojones going to report on the Lebanese civil war as his first big assignment. A Jew in Beirut, he figures no one would suspect him of being jewish there. Pretty ballsy. But he quickly disabuses me of the idea he is an honest reporter. Short version of his reporting: the PLO is good-hearted but amateurish and unsophisticated in an appealing way; the Maronite Christians are Beirut’s corrupt version of the mafia, evil and untrustworthy; the Sunni Muslims are mysterious and vaguely honorable; the Shia are somewhat naïve and trusting but rising up in justified anger; and the Israelis are lying devils invading poor, innocent Lebanon. I found him cold; his unemotional description of the death of his employee’s wife and daughter who were babysitting his Beirut apartment during a particularly dangerous time and were blown up by warring factions struck me; his tossing off of the gassing of Iraqi Kurds by Saddam as just how strong leaders dealt with uppity tribes; the “Hama rules” of Hafez al-Assad. His treatment of the PLO and Arafat in Lebanon was very sympathetic. His treatment of Lebanese society seemed like caricatures.

He moves to Jerusalem and reports on Israel. Again I found his writing very slanted. He describes one incident where a Jewish man is pelted by stones as he is driving. The man stops to get revenge on the Palestinian boys who could have killed him. Friedman witnesses the event but says the reason the man was so upset was because he would have to pay $250 to repair his windshield…? Are you freakin’ kidding me?

The book does give a more nuanced view of the society with its warring factions over how to deal with the West Bank and Gaza. Also the friction between the secular and the religious populations is decent. I found his explanation of the first intifada interesting as he brings out the impacts on both sides. This part of the book was ok.
Finally, Friedman can’t resist putting up his own solution to end the conflict. What is needed is an Israeli “bastard for peace” who will take the chance and give the West Bank and Gaza over to the Palestinians so they can have a “home” of their own. Working out really well in the case of Gaza now, isn’t it Tom? The “river to the sea” is not an empty slogan, the Palestinians will never be satisfied until the entire state of Israel is gone. For a better history and assessment of the region, read The High Cost of Peace: How Washington's Middle East Policy Left America Vulnerable to Terrorism.

2 Stars in recognition of Friedman’s guts to live and report in the region.

احتمالا بهترین کتابی است که درباره مناقشه فلسطین- اسرائیل و ایضا جنگ داخلی لبنان خوانده ام. شفاف، دقیق، روشن کننده و از متن حوادث
کتاب سه بخش دارد. بیروت. قدس و واشنگتن.
بخش بیروت را بدون زمین گذاشتن خواندم. چون اصلا نمی‌شد زمین گذاشت. بخش قدس (اسرائیل) را با فاصله و به تفاریق. ولی بخش واشنگتن را اصلا نخواندم. گمانم در دو بخش به استغنا رسیدم.

I really enjoyed this book, but more so when I realized it was memoir rather than history. Friedman is writing about his time as a journalist in Beirut and Jerusalem roughly between 1979 and 1989. He was in Beirut during the Lebanese civil war and the Israeli invasion, intended to drive out Arafat and the PLO, and moved on to Jerusalem in time for the first intifada, beginning in 1987.

I enjoyed the first half of the book more and feel that he did a better job in it of simply reporting the circumstances with sufficient historical background for it all to make sense. He lived in Beirut while there and although he conducted interviews with leaders and individuals from all the different factions, this portion of the book seemed to include more personal observations and, as another reviewer noted, fewer analogies. But when he got to the portion of the book when he was living in Jerusalem there seems to be more emphasis on the philosophies of various groups.

I appreciated learning about the different perspectives of various groups of Zionists, there was a wider range than I realized, but by the end the interviews seemed excessive. Perhaps, this is because Friedman is Jewish and wanted to avoid interjecting his personal opinion, so he gave many others a voice. I wouldn't say as some others do that he was overwhelmingly biased in favor of Israel. He takes everyone to task at some point - the Israelis, the Arab countries, the PLO, and the Americans. However, it did seem that the Israeli position received more of a platform than that of the Palestinians. This could be because of whom he had access to.

Overall, even though the book is dated, I'm glad I read it. It had been on my shelf for years, but if you are interested I would suggest trying to pick up a used copy since it doesn't have any up to date information.

The Beirut portion is a compelling mixture of historical fact, personal anecdote, and shrewd analysis. It interweaves psychology and politics. I learned a lot. The Jerusalem part turns a bit toward proselytizing (perhaps because he has more skin in the game?).

Nevertheless, this book does a great job of outlining the what, who, when, where, why, and how of the conflict in the Middle East. He does a good job of explaining the mindset of tribal conflict, of reminding us that our “Western/modern” way of thinking isn’t prevalent everywhere.

This conflict revolves around the idea of ownership of land, of belonging, of stolen land. It is too easy to think that we can analyze this from an outside, “impartial” perspective. Unfortunately, this is not the case. We, as Americans, do not have any sort of moral high ground on which to stand here; we are living on stolen land. We took it from Native Americans, often violently, and I think that until we recognize that more often and more explicitly, we are no better than the zionists. Do we, as Americans, have license to proffer judgement about an illegal occupation of land? It is very very thorny.

The Epilogue update was written around 1990. Much has happened since, and I would love another update the state of affairs then to now.

The last 100 pages were interminable.

Although a bit dated now Friedman's reporting from Beirut during the civil war and Jerusalem during the entifada is pertinent and illuminating. His analyses are cogent and clear and he actually presumes to propose solutions to the Israeli - Palestinian conflict! The writing is entertaining and the narrative unfolds coherently, more than can be said about the events he is reporting - especially in Beirut. It is odd how today's journalism can become tomorrow's historicl writings.