Friedman is extremely well-informed and his first-hand experiences are truly interesting. Just be aware that it covers a limited period of time, and is very much an exposition of Friedman's own perspective. This is his only good book. It's a good account of the middle east at the time that he was staioned in Beirut and the writing quality is far better than his current books.
It's a great primer if you need middle east politics background. Sep 13, brian rated it really liked it. Oct 25, Emily rated it really liked it Shelves: This was required reading for one of my undergrad poli sci classes, and it's very good. Nov 18, Radwa Sharaf rated it really liked it. If you switch out "Beirut" for "Damascus", most of the stories would still apply.
Feb 05, Dr. Friedman's life, work and impressions of the two places when he was stationed there during the eighties, the work is informative in detail in more ways than one - horrors such as Hama and confusion of Lebanon are not this well known to those not of the nations involved, for example - and very worth reading. Even as one reads these accounts one wonders at the cry against the comparatively smaller details of events elsewhere due to the democratic nature of the nations and culture in the said elsew Friedman's life, work and impressions of the two places when he was stationed there during the eighties, the work is informative in detail in more ways than one - horrors such as Hama and confusion of Lebanon are not this well known to those not of the nations involved, for example - and very worth reading.
From Beirut to Jerusalem
Even as one reads these accounts one wonders at the cry against the comparatively smaller details of events elsewhere due to the democratic nature of the nations and culture in the said elsewhere places, while almost no sound is made about the Hama massacre of 38, Islamic fundamentalists and the neighbourhood they lived in by their own regime in an Islamic nation, just as very little noise is heard above the bare mention of the massacre of Armenian million and more by the Turkish government a century or so ago.
But then, so very little noise or mention exists about the massacre of millions of Tibetans in Tibet by China, while billions were spent to arm the Afghans against - comparatively - an almost benign, benefic Soviet occupation women will never be so free again as under the Soviet occupation according to the prophecy by the father of the protagonist in The Kite Runner, and it seems to be all too true even until now what with the neighbouring regime supporting Taliban to wage their war in a supposedly free Afghanistan, supposedly free from not only other other repressive regimes but from Taliban chiefly.
But then, it ought to be clear to anyone looking dispassionately, or with a passion for humanity, that the misplaced war on Soviet regime to the exclusion of ignoring massacres in Tibet, Hama, and elsewhere by Islamic fundamentalist regimes using weapons of terror across their own borders and within too massacre prior to independance of Bangladesh by the military of west Pakistan of what they thought were their own people in the eastern part, including the horrendous use of women of Bangladesh, kept naked and chained so they could not run away, half a million women - or was it only fifty thousand?
The only difference was the German women were probably allowed to wear clothes when they were not being used. And yet none of these various atrocities are mentioned a fraction as much as the happenings in a couple of places, easy targets for being not only democratic regimes of modern nations that believe in education and cultures of certain faiths that do not go about converting with aggressive fervour and hence targeted.
One reads about the two nations and two cultures in this work - with people of diverse agenda and more than one nations in each of the two - and one is overwhelmed with the information unless one is extensively familiar with all this, which a general reader is not quite likely to be, not so much. The diversity of Lebanon in the citizenry of not only including Christianity among the nation but remote and elsewhere not so well known branches of both Islam and Christianity is as much a new fact for most of generic readers as the description of almost claustrophobic nature of orthodox variation of faith in Israel that is so very a mirror image of Islam in its fundamental robe.
Informative although not exhaustively so - for instance, details of the terrorism are missing with their effects, and the few mentions include a branding of a people but refrains from mentioning if such branding was justified by their sympathy and covert help for those that did commit acts of terror - this is an account of the author's life in the two places and his perception, understanding, and information about the people and nations of the two places - the number being a lot more than two.
Interestingly another analogy is that about settling of US, Australia, and so forth, generally the continent s of the so called New World, by migrants from Europe; "settling" they were none of them empty, to begin with! Those two places through history of the two millennia when Jews were driven out of their homeland and dispersed, seeking to live elsewhere and never allowed to feel at home or have rights, were India and China. In the land and culture that India was before the forced partitions due to some that required supremacy of their faith as a national character , Jews lived in peace, were free to follow their own faith and culture or assimilate as much as they chose, prosper, and survive - as other refugees since and before, including Parsis, those from Persia fleeing terrors of a persecuting new religion over a millennium ago, and more recently Tibetans.
This is by no means a complete or exhaustive list, either - it includes all those from east or west that came with intentions of life rather than that of death of others. China on the other hand assimilated the Jewish diaspora gently - according to Pearl S. Buck, for example - until trace of such assimilation is found in a name here, a nose there, and very little more.
In India - what is now retained by that name - however, one can find old Jewish settlements in various places, and people who have lived there for all this time. The young might have emigrated elsewhere, but that was due to better economic prospects post formation of Israel as much as a returning to an ancient homeland or finding others of one's faith from across the globe - all the positive reasons, and none of the usual ones of persecution or lack of any rights of citizenry on par with everyone else. Events have gone far beyond the book's beginning of Hamas, of course.
Now the world is smaller, terror spread beyond boundaries of the nations that have been the usual target, rogue nations have been reluctantly admitted by various powers of west after attempting to coopt them into "fight against terror" by labeling them as a partner of US in this fight and bribing them with billions of dollars unaccounted for - only to find the money vanishing, more demands for sophisticated weaponry, and backdoor coordination by those "partners" with the very agencies of terrorism they have been pretending to cooperate fighting.
This is today, post not only the horror of towers unfolded over a decade ago but nearly a year post having the man who masterminded or at least was leader and spirit being hunted down in his lair in the very heart of military establishment of the "partner" of US in fighting terror. Few dare to ask, was US really so stupid as to be duped by this nation, one born less than a century ago out of terrorism used for demanding it to begin with but teaching its children, falsely, that it had existed for over a millennium, never mind how unlikely it was to exist even today without the massacre of thousands in Calcutta to force the demand , all along, or was it something else?
Hamas has been joined by various other agencies of terror as a front for the authorities of the rogue nation - agencies that merely change names and claim to be institutions of charity, on the whole creating a picture of a killer on the loose pretending to be a beggar and denying both begging and killing, or blackmail that joins the two.
Aug 28, Tran Nguyen rated it it was amazing. A book with great humanitarian value. Sep 02, Nahed Elrayes rated it it was ok. More or less agree with Edward Said He then moved to Jerusalem traveling rather ostentatiously across the Lebane More or less agree with Edward Said He then moved to Jerusalem traveling rather ostentatiously across the Lebanese-Israeli border with his golf clubs , where he wrote about the Israeli political scene, with particular attention to the intifadah. He remained in Israel until mid He then returned home to become the Times man in Washington. For his Middle Eastern coverage Friedman won two Pulitzer prizes, both of them, interestingly enough, about major Palestinian events: Friedman is no ordinary reporter, however.
He is, as he tells us right from the start, a young American Jew who grew up in Minneapolis, was galvanized into Zionist enthusiasm by the War, studied Arabic and Jewish history first at Brandeis and then at Oxford, and went on to become a major figure in discussions and policy analysis of the Middle East. Yet Friedman is also something of a craftsman. The result is therefore an interesting book, as much a collection of anecdotes as it is clever writing studded with eye-catching but symptomatic bits of analysis.
Not surprisingly, therefore, it is a strangely ignorant book: So astonishing a jump, from modern, predominantly urban Syria to the prehistoric desert, is of course the purest Orientalism, and is of a piece with the moronic and hopelessly false dictum offered later in the book that the Arab political tradition has produced only two types: These ludicrous reductions do have sources: In fact Friedman belongs very clearly on one side, the side associated with classical anti-Arab and anti-Islamic Orientalism, the world according to Bernard Lewis, Ajami, Bailey, and their ilk.
Of course Friedman is perfectly entitled to his views, which are not always unsympathetic, but what is particularly shady is that Friedman palms off his opinions and those of his sources as reasonable, uncontested, secure. In fact they are minority views and have been under severe attack for several decades now.
They represent a narrow consensus associated not with desirable political change but with the equally political, basically conservative perspective of thestatus quo. People in this camp characterize themselves as pragmatic and realistic, labels that are intended to dismiss the theories of Marxists, non-Western and non-white nationalists, feminists, political economists.
Because Friedman presents himself as more than a reporter, his book as more than a personal chronicle.
From Beirut to Jerusalem is the marketing strategy by means of which a young reporter consciously elevates himself to the rank of foreign policy sage, there to reap rewards and, alas, to recycle the illusions of American power and visionless realism. Not only is there scarcely a reference in From Beirut to Jerusalem to the latest work on Arab history and society, but Friedman is also quite innocent about the latest in Israeli scholarship that has analyzed the origins of the Palestinian refugee problem, or the birth of Israel, or the internal dislocations within Israeli society.
He is clear about these matters, but he feels somehow that his prized sensibility, saying one thing in one breath and then contradicting it in the next, can carry the whole burden of interpretation and evaluation. And underlying his overestimated sensibility is a patronizing attitude toward all the little people who do not have quite his olympian perspective. Inside this serenely untroubled cocoon of the purest race prejudice the Friedmanian sensibility ambles from subject to subject.
When he arrives finally at the vexed problem of press coverage, he warns us that the media are unfair in their relentless fixation on Israel this from the journalist-author of a page book on the subject , then he compliments the Israelis on manipulating the media brilliantly, then he blathers on about Israeli troops beating up three-year-olds, and how that vigorous form of outdoor exercise provides them with self-knowledge!
He does not seem quite to have apprehended that other peoples besides Westerners with sharp-angled symbols and superstories might have had a sense of nationhood, or that when a whole society is shattered and its people dispersed and stripped of their lands, it might on its own, without a Biblical superstory or a sharp Western symbol, try to reforge itself and create a new independent society.
There is little self-irony, no twinge of doubt in what he ladles out; mockery and sarcasm are reserved entirely for local Arabs and Jews, not for earnest Times reporters. Read his prescriptions at the end of the book and you will quickly realize that Friedman has internalized the norms, if not the powers, of the secretary of state not just of the United States, but of all humanity. His formulas suggest that everyone should try for limits and realism, except, of course, Friedman himself. Rosenthal whom Friedman credits with having helped his career , opinions about the Muslims and Arabs that could not be printed about any other people on earth.
Jul 02, Ryan Schnier rated it it was ok. It tracks the author's growing disillusionment with Israel and its policies, as he progresses from a young zionist to someone that sympathizes more with the Palestinian cause. As a result, this book the second half, in particular tells the Palestinian narrative of the Israel-Palestine conflict, holding Israel to a higher moral standard without serious regard to its perspective.
Below are a few examples: He also stole millions of dollars in international Palestinian aid for himself though in the author's defence this took place after the book was written. This is one of the only times in the book he discusses the effect of the conflict on Israelis; the rest describes Israeli actions against Palestinians. It is worth pointing out that although Friedman is highly critical of the Israelis, his proposal for a solution implies that Palestinians undertake virtually all the initiatives, and until they do, he does not blame Israelis for their skepticism of any peace deal.
He notes that until the Palestinians develop social, cultural, economic and political infrastructure of their own, no peace deal will be effective. I believe this to be accurate. In general, this book provides an informative account of the formation of the PLO and some of the reasons for the anti-Israel attitudes among Palestinians, as well as an interesting solution. However, it fails to provide Israeli viewpoints i.
Navigation menu
Dec 04, Matt rated it really liked it. Friedman's book is easily one of the best primers on the history of the conflict in the mideast. I have mixed feelings about Friedman as a columnist, but this book is built on his time as a journalist in the region - first as a reporter in Beirut, then later as bureau chief in both Beirut and Jerusalem. His time in the region - over a decade - means From Beirut To Jerusalem has an impressive level of comprehensiveness. While the depth of Friedman's reporting is one of the main strengths of the b Friedman's book is easily one of the best primers on the history of the conflict in the mideast.
While the depth of Friedman's reporting is one of the main strengths of the book, I also admire his decision not to remove his personal experience from the text. It would be all too easy, especially for a journalist, to adopt the authoritarian tone of objectivity - when, of course, no such thing really exists. As I mentioned in my review of Air Guitar , I've lost my taste for non-fiction that doesn't couch its terms in autobiography - whether it be criticism in Hickey's case or history. Friedman's account of the region was formed as much by the bombing of his Beirut apartment with his good friend and translator losing several family members as it was by interviews with Arafat - it was a wise decision to include accounts of both.
From Beirut to Jerusalem has one major flaw, though - a holdover from when it was published. The section on Lebanon does a wonderful job of providing both a history of the region and an analysis of the psychology of the participants. On switching to Israel, however, Friedman loses an important half of that balance. His analysis of the psychology and politics of the Israelis and Palestinians is just as sharp, but he skimps on recounting the actual chronology of events. The reason for this is obvious - when the book was original publish, it was only a few years after the first intifada started - and the American media was saturated with information on the uprising.
No one likely to pick up Friedman's book would need a narrative of the events immediately before and after the intifada. Unfortunately, when the intifada was declared, I was in elementary school - and I was not, I'll be the first to admit, an avid newspaper reader in 3rd grade.
I found myself, throughout the second half of the book, waiting for Friedman to put the higher-level analysis on hold to give a quick narrative of the events - which never really quite came. That said, the rest of the book is so fantastic, it's hard for me to not recommend the book wholeheartedly. Sep 29, Onkar rated it really liked it. I always wanted to know the background on Israel-Palestine conflict so I picked up this book. Thomas Friedman writes with clarity and since he spent a large chunk of his time in both sides of the conflict, he has certain authority in the matter.
The book is split in two parts, first one explains the horrors faced by Beirut and second one talks about an alarming situation in Jerusalem. Even if this books is set in the 80s, it still does a great job in explaining the conflict. If you are intereste I always wanted to know the background on Israel-Palestine conflict so I picked up this book.
If you are interested in knowing details on why these two sides are fighting, this book gives a fairly decent explanation. Friedman, who is a Jew, should be commended for his objective analysis. It is easy to get biased in the matters of homeland, but he tries to remain as impartial as possible. Friedman gets disgusted at times because of the atrocities faced by Lebanese and Palestinian people, and at the same time does not feel that much agitated by similar attacks on Israeli people. It becomes very apparent in the second part, the part that talks about Israel, that he is more concerned about only one side of the conflict.
- The Baptism of a Moth?
- See a Problem?.
- Blues en rouge sur blanc: La nuit démasque (French Edition)?
- From Beirut to Jerusalem - Wikipedia.
- The Prince Bishops of Durham?
- Cows in Action 12: The Viking Emoo-gency.
- Comment on this item?
Fortunately, many of use have our homelands. It is easy to mock Jews who went through generations of struggle to finally find a place which they can call home. Friedman, who already has a homeland, does not share the sympathetic feeling towards Jews. As if the mocking is not enough, he goes one step ahead and says that Israelis keep bringing up their "victim mentality" by talking about Auschwitz Concentration Camps and the horrors associated with it.
On one side he goes on and on about atrocities in Beirut and on Palestinian people, and on other side he does not seem that concerned about the abductions, car bombings, murders of Israeli Olympic team and shooting at embassies. When Palestinians plant bombs in Israeli super markets, on Israeli planes, under the seats in Israeli buses, in Israeli refrigerators, he does not paint it like an atrocious act, but more like a glorious freedom fight. It is hard to take sides in a conflict which has such a complex and turbulent past.
There are mistakes from both sides but Friedman seems to choose one side over other, and that is my biggest disappointment. Having said that, this book is very well researched. Even if I largely disagree with his one-sided views; for his courage, analysis and passion for journalism, Friedman has my total respect!
Jul 06, Susan O rated it really liked it Shelves: 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 and 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 I enjoyed the first half of the book more and feel that he did a better job in it of simply reporting the circu I really enjoyed this book, but more so when I realized it was memoir rather than history.
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.
Reader comments (12) on this item
I wouldn't say as some others do that he was overwhelmingly biased in favor of Israel. 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.
Nov 24, Hanna rated it liked it. I understand Friedman's forte is journalism, not literature, and I believe this was his first full length book, but I found some of his metaphors and similes unacceptably tenuous: Palestinians and Israelis as a couple lying about wanting to get pregnant?? I also just personally felt awkward reading a very reporter-esque transcription of certain events coupled with Friedman's own biases, and this might simply be a response inherent in the experience of a Jew reading a Jew criticizing the Jewish homeland.
He's obviously disappointed in Israel, and his admonishments of that country frequently puncture an otherwise objective recounting. Towards the end of the book, for instance, he repeatedly discusses Israel's negative treatment of West Bankers and Gazans by referring to Israelis as "the Jew" - precisely the eternal, objectifying term used by Nazis to vilify Jews in World War II era propaganda.
All to be expected from a book on the middle east though this is currently my only point of reference. Apr 04, Amy rated it really liked it. This is an excellent read. Friedman is an eloquent writer. The first half of the book is a riveting account of Friedman's stay in Beirut between - as a journalist for the New York Times. He doesn't try to prove points, but rather makes observations that are reinforced by his actual experiences and a plethora of data he collects, whether this data be a formal interview, a casual conversation, or overhearing a TV or radio ad.
These observations all come together to paint an impression of This is an excellent read. These observations all come together to paint an impression of Beirut.
As I read, I got the sense that I was forming a clear picture of Beirut for myself, and not one biased toward the author's persuasion. Beirut came across as a savage, barbaric, beautiful, exciting place, rich in history and culture, and brimming with conflict. I would recommend this book to anyone just for the Beirut half.
It's a colorful, intriguing story about a colorful, intriguing place. The Jerusalem half was not as action-packed as the Beirut half, but interesting nonetheless. It contained more speculation than real experience, if you compare it to the Beirut half. One chapter I found interesting was the one about the different kinds of Judaism practiced in Israel; how the secular Zionists clash with the ultra-Orthodox Jews the Haredim. It examined the media coverage of the Palestinian-Jew conflict and tried to get at what the real story was and is.
It both applauded and critiqued Israeli politics. Aug 07, Paul, rated it really liked it. This is a really eye-opening book, especially for someone of my generation. Most of the events in this book happened before I was born or while I was a toddler, and our public education system tends to ignore other countries. So, Friedman provides a thoughtful, insightful analysis of the Middle Eastern problem. He gives a lot of background and makes it interesting by including his own personal experiences with terrorist bombing and hijackings.
His personal knowledge of events really shines throu This is a really eye-opening book, especially for someone of my generation. His personal knowledge of events really shines through. The discerning reader will notice that Friedman is a lot sharper and more on-point in his analysis of the issues in Beirut.
When it comes to analyzing Israel, especially the culture, it seems as if he relies less on facts and more on generalizations. Not to say that his analysis is bad, per se, but it is definitely a bit different when describing the Palestinian problem in Israel and the Arabic-Christian problems in Lebanon. I feel like this book is a great and necessary read for all Americans from the Zionist Christian tradition as it puts everything in a bit different perspective than "support Israel all the time no matter what they do.
Unfortunately, some 20 years after the triumphant handshake between Arafat and Rabin that concludes the book Israel and Palestine are still at odds with one another.
From Beirut to Jerusalem by Thomas L. Friedman
Friedman is an internationally renowned author, reporter, and, columnist—the recipient of three Pulitzer Prizes and the author of six bestselling books, among them From Beirut to Jerusalem and The World Is Flat. He is the son of Harold and Marga Thomas L. He is the son of Harold and Margaret Friedman. He has two older sisters, Shelley and Jane.
It carried Peter Lisagor. He was a favorite columnist of mine. I used to grab the paper from the front step and read it on the living room floor. First was to broaden the definition of foreign affairs and explore the impacts on international relations of finance, globalization, environmentalism, biodiversity, and technology, as well as covering conventional issues like conflict, traditional diplomacy, and arms control. Second, I tried to write in a way that would be accessible to the general reader and bring a broader audience into the foreign policy conversation—beyond the usual State Department policy wonks.
It was somewhat controversial at the time. So, I eventually decided to write a book that would explain the framework through which I was looking at the world. It was a framework that basically said if you want to understand the world today, you have to see it as a constant tension between what was very old in shaping international relations the passions of nationalism, ethnicity, religion, geography, and culture and what was very new technology, the Internet, and the globalization of markets and finance.
It is all about the intersection of the two.
Books by Thomas L. Trivia About From Beirut to Je Short of the Palestinians taking up the two-sided tactic of civil disobedience and explicit recognition, Friedman foresees no real change in the status quo. Although he calls the intifada an "earthquake," he cannot imagine it solving the basic impasse:. One of Friedman's strong points as a writer is his ability to convey complex problems simply and pungently.
His expression "Hama rules" referring to the Syrian city's destruction by the Asad government has entered the vocabulary. His aphorism, "Middle East diplomacy is a contact sport," is quoted on occasion. Not bad, either, is his dubbing of the Commodore, the West Beirut hotel that once served as base for Western journalists, "an island of insanity in a sea of madness. But if Friedman excels at the journalistic insight and the apt quote, he is in the final analysis unable to transcend the limits of his craft. His proximity to the scene of action means he gets the larger context wrong.
Explaining Ayatollah Khomeini's anti-Americanism as a function of his "grudge" against Americans support for the shah is a woefully inadequate reading of Khomeini's ambition to spread an ideology of radical Islam. The same superficiality extends to Friedman's treatment of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Even though the Arab states' hostility toward Israel remains the heart of the Arab-Israeli problem, there is hardly a word about it in From Beirut to Jerusalem , which suggests that the Arab-Israeli conflict is nothing more than a bilateral confrontation between Palestinians and Israelis.
Friedman's exceedingly narrow vision may reflect the fact that the Palestinians are more prominent in the daily news coming out of Israel; but a book needs to be more than a compilation of news dispatches. His implication that the communal contest is the real problem reveals a shallow understand of eight decades of Arab-Israeli strife. Finally, the author's highly emotional relationship with Israel biases his views of that country.
Friedman confesses having grown up thinking of Israel in mythic, heroic terms; he then charts the progress of his disenchantment, the final stage of which occurred in September , at the time of the Sabra and Shatila massacre. When official Israel obfuscated about the role played by Israeli armed forces in permitting the massacre of Palestinian Muslim Arabs by Lebanese Christian militiamen, a grievously disappointed Friedman "buried.
Actually, however, Friedman continued to be haunted by what he calls illusions, and he still labors under their sway. Their effects can be traced in the intense mix of affection and anger that suffuses his writing about Israel, so unlike his Olympian reports from Lebanon. When, for example, he refers heatedly to "Jewish power, Jewish generals, Jewish tanks, Jewish pride" as Menachem Begin's pornography, he may be revealing more about his own fantasy life than Begin's.
He still feels tied to Israel, and therefore in some inchoate way responsible for what Israelis do.
Beirut to Jerusalem flights? - Lebanon Forum
Friedman on Israel resembles an anthropologist who studies his disowned family. Writing in , my colleague Adam Garfinkle observed that "the new tradition of The New York Times ' foreign correspondents writing long, anecdotal, and lyrically styled books on the subject of their most recent assignments" has filled the niche once held by nineteenth-century travelogues.
Both genres emphasize first-hand experience; both serve as adjuncts to scholarly literature; and both offer severe reductions of complex political and cultural realities. Thomas Friedman has produced one of the better of this unusually blighted form, even if he does not transcend his journalistic roots.
In some part, this has to do with his academic background in Middle East studies plus command of both the Arabic and Hebrew languages. The more the pity, then, that Friedman no longer brings his special skills to cover the Middle East. Like virtually every other large institution in the United States, The New York Times ceaselessly moves its employees from one assignment to another. Unlike European newspapers such as Le Monde or the Financial Times , American ones condemn themselves-and their readers-to reportage by journalists who are ever learning their beat.
As this book is likely to be Friedman's last writing on the Middle East for a while, it is to be savored. During his final year at Brandeis, after returning from a summer of study in Cairo, Friedman belonged to the steering committee of a self-styled "Middle East Peace Group. It also asserted that "international condemnation of terrorist activities for which the PLO is responsible can have little effect The Middle East Peace Group continued to profess its "concern" for Israel by criticizing American "military and political elites" for reinforcing the strategic alliance with Israel.
As a journalist in Lebanon, Friedman writes, he experienced "something of a personal crisis. The Israel I met on the outskirts of Beirut was not the heroic Israel I had been taught to identify with. Freedom of association, of course, is a constitutional right, which Friedman, no less than any other American, enjoys. Friedman concedes—for he could hardly do otherwise—that he was "not professionally detached" when he wrote his prize-winning articles after Sabra and Shatila.
Again in , after Israel's capture of the terrorist Sheik Obeid in Lebanon, followed by the grisly home movie of the hanging of Colonel Higgins, Friedman declared on Nightline that "both sides [sic] have really used Higgins. As for the "old unwritten rule" at the Times about not sending a Jew to Jerusalem, that, too, is a myth. During the Arab riots in Palestine, the slaughter of more than Jews in Hebron and Jerusalem produced a stream of Times articles as hostile to the Zionists as they were indifferent to the Jewish victims.
Friedman and Arafat, about the time of the former's professed disillusion with Israel. The timing of his disillusion is critical to Friedman's story. Further, I have talked with Friedman several times and he always struck me as trustworthy. Auerbach uses the word "myth" to describe Friedman's rewriting of his past. The charges against Friedman call for an answer from him. If so, how does he account for the claim that he lost faith in Israel only during ?
In the absence of a satisfactory answer to these questions, readers are forced to reconsider Thomas Friedman's continued credibility as a correspondent. Friedman stayed on the Middle East beat long after this book came out and I offer a decidedly more negative view of his understanding of the region today at " The education of Thomas Friedman.
May 16, update: Thomas Friedman's Iraq Predictions. Friedman wrote a frankly anti-Israel and even antisemitic column today, " Newt, Mitt, Bibi and Vladimir " that has aroused much ire among his usual fans. In the article is this memorable Walt-Mearsheimer-style passage: That ovation was bought and paid for by the Israel lobby. It would have helped people focus on my argument, which I stand by percent. There is no real difference between "engineered" and "bought and paid for.