SUMEDHA MAHESHWARI
Review of journalist, political commentator, and three time Pulitzer winner, Thomas Friedman's book - 'From Beirut to Jerusalem'.
"It is a strange, funny, sometimes violent, and always unpredictable road, and in many ways, I have been traveling it all my adult life." Thomas Friedman, thus, describes his journey through the Middle East in his book From Beirut to Jerusalem. Published by Friedman in 1989, the book provides a primary account of the political, military and ideological clashes that were significant determinants of life in Beirut and Jerusalem in the late twentieth century. Friedman charts his course as a journalist at the same time. He lays bare his time in the Middle East, with events, anecdotes, facts, opinions, and various people involved in them. This confusing territory is explained as clearly as possible, even to the casual reader.
The places within Beirut and Jerusalem exist in a state of perpetual confusion. Friedman expresses this war within people and religions by highlighting their identity, territory, and clashes. The book is divided into two sections, of his time in Beirut and Jerusalem. Beirut is in a tug of war between the Sunnis and Shias as well as between the Christians and Muslims. This identity crisis inspired several armies like the Phalangist militias and the Tigers militia. Power is currency, and every group is desperate to get it.
Vivid descriptions about death in Beirut fill the pages, with Friedman describing it as "death for no reason". Indeed, another war the Beirutians waged was against death itself. People could die anywhere, anytime, by anything. Friedman personally sees his former apartment building blown up, with his colleague Mohammad's family dead inside. "Death had no echo in Beirut", and still millions lived in it. "Beirut was always a city that provoked more questions than answers".
Friedman's recounting of the Hama Massacre contains not only the facts and the death toll but also dispels the myths too. Based on logic and evidence, he pieces together an account of the shadowy event. Hama is just one of the many wars Beirut citizens were waging against their own leaders. The author breaks down former Syrian President Hafez al – Assad's actions and his line of thinking. He explains the psychology behind his actions in detail, making the reader feel as if they had experienced it themselves. He calls Assad's efforts to defeat the Muslim Brotherhood - Hama rules. Religion and ideologies were at war, with innocents caught in the crossfire. Locked in bloodshed, the government and citizens tried to establish dominance.
In the midst of this cultural confusion, Israel invaded Lebanon. Israelis had an idealized notion of Lebanon and the comforts it could provide. "Lebanon, like any house and illusions, is always easier to step into than it is to find a way out of." Indeed, Beirut was even more confusing to outsiders like former Israeli Defense Minister Ariel Sharon. The glimpses he had had never prepared him for the reality that met him after he invaded Lebanon. Friedman drives home the point that Beirut can never be fully understood.
The identity crisis in Jerusalem is expressed through the Six-Day war of Israel occupying the West Bank and Gaza. As the reader moves to the second half of the book, one becomes distinctly aware that Beirut was not the only one struggling to define itself. Israelis struggled to understand or answer the kind of nation they wanted. Instead of choosing an objective, the political parties – Labor and Likud- skirt around the issue. Friedman points out that it was difficult at most times to even distinguish between the two since both acted in the same way. Confusion sweeping the Israelis led to a lack of concrete decisions—a state of inaction gripped both the citizens and the government.
Politics aside, Israelis were also unable to define what their nation stood for because of ideological reasons. Old, new, religious, and liberal schools of thought collide, creating disagreements. The factions were against each other. It was a war inside religion. Each was ignorant of the other and confident in its power. Waiting for the others to die out, "different visions grew side by side". Friedman talked to a native, Ya'acov Shavit, who told him, "You can't escape the utopian aspirations of the left or the messianic expectations of the right. People are always arguing about your identity." And a nation without an identity can never have any peace.
Not only could Israel not define itself, but it had also confounded its identity further by mingling with Palestinians. Israeli society had established itself in West Bank and the Gaza strip. But this led to another war. "The Palestinians did wake up and find themselves in bed with the Israeli system – but instead of a marriage they demanded a divorce." Violent clashes occurred with Palestinians screaming for liberation. Angry at the world for forgetting them, they turned to war to establish their identity. They sought to fight confusion through war.
Friedman explains everything rationally and logically. He adds evidence, reasoning, and logic to everything he has written. The books flows, and the chronology does not drag or feel irrelevant anywhere. He weaves together narration and description but never attempts to tell the reader what is right or wrong. This is where Friedman's journalism standards shine through. That does not mean that the writing is detached. Far from it, the author wrings out emotional reactions frequently from the reader.
In Beirut and Jerusalem, with an objective eye, he makes sense of the fighting, killing, and massacres through psychology, interviews, leaders, political scenarios, and more. But his most significant strength is also his flaw. For human actions can never be fully explained. The chaos sweeping Beirut and Jerusalem were at times incomprehensible. Friedman answers many questions, but by the end, the reader has many new ones. The book has several layers, and if the reader peels them off, expecting a final answer, prepare to be unsatisfied. The Middle East is unexplainable, but this book is the closest they can come if one wishes to understand.
The views expressed and suggestions made in the articles are solely of the authors in their personal capacity and the Center for Middle East Studies and O.P. Jindal Global University do not endorse the same.
Comentarios