When T. told me I had to read this book to understand the Middle East and I saw it was over 500 pages, I figured, “OK, if that’s the price of understanding, I’ll slog through it.” To my amazement this book is highly readable. In fact, I couldn’t put it down. It really does provide essential background to understand the war going on today. The only downside, which is not a criticism of the book or the author is that it really only covers the decade starting in 1980. Friedman assumes you know a lot about what went on before that, so I was frequently putting the book down to read Wikipedia articles in order to understand (at least at a superficial level) wars that happened in 1948 and 1967, etc. Now I just need to find an equally compelling book covering the time between 1990 and the present!

I think too often it is easy for us all to engage in political discussions under the guise that we either a) pretend to know what we are talking about or b) acknowledge that we don’t know but continue to campaign for our point with such little knowledge. I found this particularly prudent with discussions surrounding the Middle East and having acknowledged that I myself was a perpetrator of such behaviours, I set out reading this book with the goal of being educated enough to hold a discussion on this issue.

While I can’t yet say that I am even close to expert on this topic, or that I know what I am talking about half the time, I am confident that I have enough knowledge to hold a conversation. Moreover, i am certain that this book has demonstrated to me the complexity of the Middle East situation and that I will no longer make blanket statements without proper consideration of the repercussions.

This book was incredibly written. I especially found the first half- which focussed on Beirut- enjoyable, partly because I could relate to it but also because it was more action packed. The second half was still important and interesting but I struggled to connect with it all, in particular with chapters on the American Jewry. Despite this shortcoming, it was key to me gaining an understanding of the Israeli state and the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict. While I did sometimes find the book slightly biased through an American Jewish lens, I acknowledge that this was largely a response of my own previous experiences, as much as a lack of understanding of the Jewish outlook on the Israeli state.

Though this book may not be new, and lacks content from the last 25 years, in many way this serves as a historical strength. It is key towards gaining a deeper understanding of the root of middle eastern conflicts which seems to be layer upon layer of increasingly complex and tense dilemmas, born in a history of religious idealism and political righteousness.

Finally Thomas Friedman is an excellent writer, journalist and someone who I would very much like to meet. He has inspired me to consider international journalism as a career and I have the utmost admiration for the situations he has found himself in and the ways he has coped.

When I set out in October last year it was my goal to finish it by the end of the year. And while I may have fallen short of that, I am very happy that I persisted because I believe I am now a more considered and aware person (at least on this issue).

I strongly recommend this book to anyone who would like to learn more- hope that we can have some educated debates soon!

It was an Israeli friend who told me that if I wanted to understand today's Middle East, I should read this book. The author is well-qualified as a guide to the region’s complexities. Friedman, who is Jewish and studied Hebrew as a child, as a teen spent a vacation in an Israeli Kibbutz. He started studying Arabic as well, and fell in love with Egypt after a two-week visit on his way to a semester at Hebrew University. Less than two years later he was taking Arabic courses at the American University in Cairo. After college he earned a Masters at Oxford in Middle Eastern Studies: then, he became a reporter. In Beirut. In the midst of their civil war. He’d spend almost five years there, winning a Pulitzer Prize for his coverage of the massacre at Sabra and Shatilia camps. When American marines were slaughtered in their Beirut barracks, Friedman was on scene watching the bomb’s mushroom cloud rise overhead. He’d then spend almost four years as the Jerusalem Bureau Chief for the New York Times.

I’ve read criticisms of Friedman’s style as risible, with mixed metaphors and outlandish analogies. I didn’t really notice in the Beirut portion of the book, and I usually do. I think it’s that the story he had to tell was so riveting, I didn’t trip up on that--I just glided right through. When you’re reading about an Israeli officer being confronted in Beirut with three boxes, one filled with heads, another with torsos and another with limbs or read of how the parrot at the bar of the Commodore Hotel rendered a “perfect imitation of the whistle of an incoming shell,” it’s not style that draws your attention. I certainly found this book very readable and well-paced in that first half of the book. I admit I did start noticing the plethora of analogies in the Jerusalem portion. Maybe because a Hobbesian hell like Beirut rivets your attention more than the stories of a functioning democracy. Maybe it’s that the Beirut portions seemed more built on personal experience and observations, while the Jerusalem portions more based on interviews with others. Maybe it’s that his stylistic tics, as some reviewers suggest, increased over time and the Beirut portions were based on material written earlier. For whatever reason, I did find the second half of the book less compelling, and the style much more irksome.

Friedman seemed to me very even-handed. He certainly took to task not just Arabs, but the Israelis and the Americans for a generous share of the blame. Some reviewers pegged him as a Neo-Con, but given his insistence there will be no peace until Israeli settlers are withdrawn from the West Bank, his account of the Israeli occupation there, and his criticism of the Reagan and first Bush administrations, he hardly came across to me that way, and the Goodreads bio taken from the Wiki described him as "left-leaning." I don't think he's so easily labeled, at least not in this book. He identifies three forces that drive much of the madness of the Middle East, and interestingly it isn’t religion, or at least religion per se, which he blames. Even when it comes to Islamic Fundamentalism, he believes it “is at root a secular socioeconomic problem.” He points to three conflicting and competing forces: tribalism, authoritarianism, and nationalism--particularly in the context of how the colonial powers drew very artificial lines when in the aftermath of World War I the Middle Eastern states were established.

I may not always agree with Friedman's analysis or his solutions, but certainly his account of his time in the Middle East makes for a good primer on the nations of the Middle East and their conflicts, even though almost a quarter of a century has passed since the original publication. And the 2012 edition I read had an interesting Afterword on the events that have passed since, particularly Friedman’s thoughts on the Arab Spring and its opportunities and dangers. This may not be the last word on the subject of the contemporary Middle East, but it’s not a bad place to start.

A very insightful book that tells the story of two different cultures at odds, not just with one another, but with themselves. He draws parallels between these two disparate societies by focusing on each one's search for identity. In addition to the politics, greed, and the arrogant assumption that cruelty can be justified by an invisible sociopath in the sky described in this book, the author also beautifully conveys the dignity and sanity of which human beings are capable, even in the worst situations.

I don't pretend to know a hell of a lot about politics and I've never been off of the North American continent, so I can't say much about the accuracy of the author's assessments or predictions, but they seem a lot more realistic than the cartoonish view of the world that Sean Hannity and his merry band of jackasses at Fox News present.

So, if you want to read a very clever book about a bunch of idiots killing each other over a patch of dirt, then this is for you.

According to one cynical goodreads reviewer, From Beirut to Jerusalem offers some insight into “two sets of idiots killing each other over a piece of dirt.” My instinctive reaction when I read this was to feel sorry for this reviewer who clearly doesn’t know what it means to have a homeland, and to be so deeply invested in it as to be willing to die for it. My husband pointed out that the reviewer may actually know what it’s like to have a homeland. What the reviewer doesn’t know is what it’s like to have it taken away – a defining experience to which both Israelis and Palestinians lay claim.

This is but one of many divides between American culture and what’s going on in the Middle East, which is why Americans may never truly understand what’s happening there. I feel that this book is an excellent attempt at bridging that gap. Friedman writes clearly, and you come away from the book feeling like your understanding of Middle Eastern history and politics has both deepened and broadened greatly. For that alone, it’s a great book.

I admit that my feelings toward Israel as a Zionistic Jew currently living here in Israel tend to be emotional and irrational, and I’m aware that it was with no small measure of hypersensitivity and defensiveness that I read Friedman’s criticisms of Israeli behavior. I do applaud Friedman’s efforts to put his Jewish origins aside and report objectively on what goes on in the region. Objectivity and accuracy are important in journalism, even if this means that I won’t always like what the writer has to say.

I wonder, though, whether Friedman goes too far in the other direction. I believe that he has succeeded in overcoming feelings for Israel that would lead him to see Israel’s actions through rose-colored glasses and to report the news in a way that attempts to justify them. Instead, his reaction is frequently one of anger when Israel disappoints him and makes him ashamed of his Jewish identity – an equally personal and emotional reaction, and no less biased.

Friedman writes the following about his exclusive interview with Major General Amir Drori, the Israeli commander in Lebanon, following the Phalangist massacres at Sabra and Shatila which took place under the Israeli army’s watch:

“I must admit I was not professionally detached in this interview. I banged the table with my fist and shouted at Drori, ‘How could you do this? How could you not see? How could you not know?’ But what I was really saying, in a very selfish way, was ‘How could you do this to me, you bastards? I always thought you were different. I always thought we were different. I’m the only Jew in West Beirut. What do I tell people now? What do I tell myself?

“…So the next morning I buried Amir Drori on the front page of the New York Times, and along with him every illusion I ever held about the Jewish state.” (p. 166)

I’m not trying to justify what happened in Sabra and Shatila. Drori arguably deserved to be buried. But there was clearly a personal agenda here for Friedman, just as personal as a pro-Zionist agenda would have been.

Friedman writes with plain disgust about the indignities suffered by the Palestinians under Israeli occupation, an occupation which, incidentally, began after Israel won the territories in a war fought for self-defense. The chapter where Friedman describes this is replete with anecdotes and quotes from victimized Palestinians and bullying Israelis.

In contrast, Friedman compares the Palestinian challenge to Israel to a “poke in the ribs.” He goes on in the very next sentence to say:
“Palestinians planted bombs in Israeli supermarkets, on their airplanes, under the seats of their buses, and even in an old refrigerator in the heart of Jerusalem. They hijacked their airplanes, murdered their Olympic team, and shot up their embassies.” (p. 347)

Some poke in the ribs! Ever ridden on a bus where a suspicious “package” is discovered? I have. So have my children. But that experience doesn’t compare to riding a bus where the suspicious package remains undiscovered. It goes way beyond a poke in the ribs, I can tell you. Interviews with people who have lost arms, legs, or children to this poke in the ribs were woefully missing from Friedman’s account, as was a fair effort to place oppressive Israeli behavior in context.

For example, in one particularly painful anecdote Friedman describes a Palestinian man interrupted during an intimate moment with his wife by Israeli soldiers who have come to arrest him. The soldier telling the story admits to wolfishly eying the wife as the husband dresses to accompany them. What Friedman doesn’t tell us is what the Palestinian man had done to deserve his arrest. Would the anecdote read the same way if we were also informed that this man was directly involved in innocent civilian murders? I don’t know what the man’s charges were or whether they were justified, but the complete omission of the context surrounding his arrest makes the story seem very one-sided.

Israeli arrests of Palestinians were generally painted by Friedman with a broad brush as largely unwarranted, paranoid behavior by Israelis. I’m not saying this is never the case. But I do think it’s more complicated than Friedman makes it sound. In contrast, behavior by various Lebanese groups in Beirut which might seem unfathomable to a Westerner was carefully explained by Friedman and rendered almost understandable, if not sympathetic.

I don’t want to overstate my case. Friedman does discuss Western hyper-scrutiny and quick judgment of Israel, and factors which go into over-reporting by the media of Israeli mistakes. He defends Israeli behavior occasionally, or at least explains it. And I’m sure that if I could get hold of Edward Said’s review of this book, I would get some perspective on Friedman’s possible unfairness in the other direction as well. Finally, as I said, I know that my objectivity when it comes to this issue is sharply limited.

Overall, I’m glad I read the book. “From Beirut to Jerusalem” both expanded and deepened my knowledge of what’s going on around me, and I think it’s important for me to start gathering the facts and not just the experiences. My understanding of my position as a Jew here in Israel is far more complex now than it was before I read the book. And the book is readable as well as informative – I whipped through its 500+ pages pretty quickly. My husband, who is better-informed than I am on these issues, summed it up well when he told me that he feels Friedman’s perspective is a legitimate one – but it’s one of many legitimate perspectives out there. And now, I want to read some others. My increasing desire to read further on the subject may be the greatest testimony to the book’s worth.

Another of those books where I'm out of my depth and at the author's mercy, but I'm happy to trust Thomas Friedman if for no other reason than that he's a skilled writer. (That's not the only reason, though.)

The material is interesting, compelling, a good blend of colorful stories and lucid analysis. My only complaint is that this edition was last updated in 1995, and the world has insisted on moving on since then.

I found this book on my grandmother's shelf a couple of years ago, and I'm glad I finally read it. Thanks for the recommendation, Grandma!

I am woefully ignorant of most of the conflicts in the Middle East, and even though the information in this book is pretty dated, it offers a useful window into the dynamics in Lebanon and Israel. Friedman writes with restraint and insight, and has some truly great pieces of analysis, like the chapter on Israel and Jewish identity. Now if he could only stop indulging his analogy fetish. Which one is it, Tom? Is the Middle East like an ice cream cone, or is it like The Great Gatsby? Make up your mind!

Sống động, tràn đầy thông tin, độ chân thực thì chưa rõ, nhưng đọc rất hấp dẫn!

A must read for anyone trying to understand the root issues in the Israel/Palestine conflict. Perfect timing with the war in Gaza happening now. Thomas Friedman is a great writer and I found it a fascinating read.

A one sided extremely biased book. Mr. Friedman! You could have done a much better job had you relayed the views of both conflicting parties of the Lebanese war. Blaming all the miseries on one side only while picturing the other side as the innocent victim only accentuates your incomprehension of the reasons that led to the war, or maybe reflects the result of an 'inflated pocket'!!!

4.5/5 The first half of the book deals with the Civil War in Lebanon. Was greatly reminded of the situation in Afghanistan that I learnt by reading Ahmed Rashid's acclaimed Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia. Half-a-dozen tribes/sects and each of them in war with every1 else and the neighbours getting involved to burn their hands. Also realised that Friedman's skill of insightful narration with anecdotes is unparalleled. Finally, understood what it was about.
The second half is on the Israel-Palestine conflict. Again the author discusses Zionism, the various sections of the Israeli society, the roots of the conflict,the intifada, its media coverage in the West and the relations between America and Israel in some depth. Was dry for a while in between but mostly interesting. Also liked that views and experiences of a number of people have been recorded as in a travelogue.
Cant say it enough, havent seen an author as perceptive with such a great eye on the big picture as Thomas Friedman. Deservedly, he has 3 Pulitzers. And 3 5-star ratings out of the 4 books that I have read by him.

This was required reading for one of my undergrad poli sci classes, and it's very good. Anyone who's interested in learning more about the history of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict should read it.