Rating: 7/10. Genre: Middle East History and Politics. Pages: 541

About Lebanon

Over the last year, the Middle East has taken center stage in global politics. 

At the heart of this region is Lebanon, a tiny country no bigger than 10,452km, squished between Israel in the South and Syria in the North, bordering the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea. 

Lebanon, a tiny melting pot, is prided on being one of the few countries in the Middle East to host the largest percentage rate of Christians in the region.

Out of the 5.8 million people in Lebanon, roughly 32% are Christians, with the largest Christian group being the Maronites. The remaining 68% consists of Druze and various Islamic sects, including Sunni, Shia, and Alawites.

After the fall of the Ottoman Empire after World War I, Lebanon fell to the hands of the French. 

When the French left in 1943, gaining Lebanon’s independence, the government formed a parliamentary democratic republic with a confessionalist system. This structure was established to ensure that all Lebanese citizens, regardless of religious background, had some representation in Government and Parliament. 

In this government structure, political power is distributed among various religious groups. The President of Lebanon must be a Maronite Christian, the Prime Minister must be a Sunni Muslim, and the Speaker of Parliament must be a Shia Muslim. 

However, with the increasing growth of the Muslim population in Lebanon, tensions began to arise between Maronite Christians, who held the most political power and Muslim groups, who demanded more representation. Consequently, the country slipped into a civil war from 1975 to 1990.

To further accentuate the problem, as tensions arose between Palestine and Israel, Lebanon became home to many Palestinian refugees.

The country also became a base for the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), an umbrella political organization meant to represent Palestinians. While the PLO was in the south of Lebanon, they began launching attacks against Israel, which helped ignite the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982.

About The Book

In From Beirut To Jerusalem, Thomas Friedman details his experience as a New York Times correspondent in the region. From 1979 to 1984, he lived in Lebanon to cover the Civil War, the Israeli Invasion, and other regional conflicts. After 1984, he was transferred to Jerusalem until 1990.

During this time, Friedman most notably wrote a piece on the Shatila and Sabra massacre, a tragic event during the Lebanese Civil War, where Palestinian refugee camps were attacked by Christian militias, resulting in the deaths of thousands of civilians. Friedman’s coverage of this event won him his first Pulitzer Prize for International Reporting in 1983.

What I liked

I was initially intrigued to read From Beirut To Jerusalem because of my native ties to Lebanon and my genuine interest in the Middle East. 

At first, I had no clue who Thomas Friedman was (although, after learning that he supported the Iraq war, I wish I had researched him before buying his book.)

When I saw the book cover featuring the Lebanese flag alongside an Israeli flag, I couldn’t resist satisfying my curiosity and reading the book, despite already having extensive knowledge of the political and historical relations between the two countries.

To give credit where it’s due, Friedman is an incredible storyteller and writer. 

Despite moments of frustration with Friedman’s writing, I found it hard to put his book down. His book evoked various emotions, from rage to laughter, sadness to pride. If I did manage to set the book aside, I was quickly drawn back into the story.

In addition, Friedman interviews a wide range of individuals throughout his book, capturing various perspectives from across the Middle East. 

In Lebanon, he interviews Phalangist members, friends, locals from different religious groups, and political advisers. In Palestine, he interviews Palestinians across Gaza and the West Bank, including most notably Yasser Arafat, the former leader of the PLO. In Israel, he interviews many Israeli Jews, from orthodox to secular, to provide a comprehensive view of the Middle East at that time.

This kaleidoscope of perspectives perfectly highlights the intricacies of the Middle East and its level of complexity. What might seem black and white to the Westerner’s eye is really various shades of grey for those living in the region. 

What I disliked

All that to say, Friedman’s incredible writing abilities still had a few faults. 

My main dislike for the book is Friedman’s heavy use of Orientalism. 

Orientalism, initially coined by Palestinian Author and Academic Edward Said, is the negative depiction of the Middle East by the West through media, literature, and various forms of art. 

And unfortunately, Friedman’s work had no shortage of Orientalism woven into it. 

Friedman’s orientalist writing style is vividly portrayed in the “Hama Rules” chapter, where he discusses Hafez al-Assad, the former President of Syria, and the massacre in Hama in 1982.

During this event, approximately twenty thousand or more civilians lost their lives in the armed conflict between the Ba’athist regime’s military and the Muslim Brotherhood.

To explain why Hafez al-Assad allowed his regime to carry out the Hama massacre, Friedman argues that “politics in the Middle East is a combination of three different political traditions all operating at the same time.” These three traditions are tribal politics, authoritarianism, and imperialism. 

As Friedman puts it, “The best way to understand the influence of tribalism on political behavior in the modern Middle East is by looking at the phenomenon in its purest original form among the nomadic Bedouins of the desert.” 

Although I understand Friedman’s argument, using terms like “tribe-like politics” and then analyzing Middle Eastern politics through the lens of a desert only reinforces the negative stereotypes that the West uses to depict those in the Middle East. 

Further, I hold Friedman’s writing in higher regard because he’s a journalist who understands the power of words. From a purely journalist perspective, Friedman understands that when crafting a story, descriptive words like “tribal” with certain connotations surrounding them influence the story he’s trying to tell. 

Friedman has the right idea about why political alliances and loyalties are formed in the Middle East. Some political ideologies are passed down over the generations, and many political alliances are rooted in conflicts that have lasted millennia.

The idea was right, but the execution of explaining it was blatantly offensive.

Conclusion

From Beirut To Jerusalem is a good read if you feel confident in your understanding of the history and politics of Lebanon, Palestine, and Israel, particularly from the late 1970s to the mid-to-late 1980s. 

The book is excellent if you want to read about the various perspectives of the region during the turbulent 1980s to 1990s.

However, where the book falls short, and where I urge readers to think more critically when reading, is whenever Friedman offers his own political commentary. 

With that in mind, if you do plan on reading the book, I’d suggest focusing more on the facts and less on what Friedman thinks of them.