Conference taveng::bagels

    Yes I read it just after my recent trip to Israel.  It confirmed many
    of the things that I felt after talking to people there.  I believe
    that the "Hama Rules" are an important factor in Arab thinking and that
    they don't bode well for a solution.  It also shows the difference
    between the treatment of Israel and its Arab neighbors in the press.  
    
    I also an interested if we see the same inter-faction clashes in 
    Eastern Europe now that the police states have come down.  Are they
    going to be more Lebanons?
    
    Warren 

I've just finished the book, and I agree that Friedman shows a lot of insight
into both Israel and Lebanon.  At the same time, I have a few reservations
about the book.

First of all, it's written by a newspaper reporter.  A good reporter can look
at what is happening around him, no matter how confusing and chaotic it is,
and describe it to his audience in such a way that *they* will understand what
is happening.  Friedman does this well.

An excellent reporter can not only describe what is going on around him, but
also describe the background that led to this situation.  Friedman does a
pretty good job of this with Lebanon, possibly as good as any Western reporter.
He's good, but not as good, at this when talking about Israel.  I'd give him
the benefit of the doubt on this, and say that his views in Israel are colored
by his emotions.  In the case of the intifada, especially, I think that his
analysis doesn't fit the facts well -- and since he's such a good reporter,
those facts are all too visible in his own book.

Finally, a warning.  The front cover (of my paperbook copy) includes this
endorsement by Seymour Hersh:  "If you're only going to read one book on the
Middle East, this is it."  Hersh may be right, but I have two comments about
this:
    1)	Hersh is an excellent reporter, and he recognizes in Friedman another
	excellent reporter.  But Hersh knows a lot less about the Middle East
	than Friedman, or me, or a lot of other people, so treat this judgement
	with a bit of skepticism.
    2)	If you're only going to read one book on the Middle East, even this
	one, you're not going to have a good understand what goes on here.

So I guess that I would recommend this book.  Take what Friedman says about
Lebanon with a grain of salt, and what he says about Israel and the intifada
with a more than a few grains, but it's probably as good an explanation of the
subject matter as anything else that you're going to find.

    I have one other warning about the book.
    
    Friedman states that his opinion of Israel was changed AFTER his
    experience in Lebanon.  I have read that he was a pro-left/PLO activist when
    he was at Brandeis.
    
    I found the book an interesting perspective...but it is not news.  It
    is opinion.
    
    Av

.3>    I have read that he was a pro-left/PLO activist when
.3>    he was at Brandeis.

While Friedman does come across as being sympathetic to the Palestinians, I
also thought that he had a lot of negative things to say about the PLO.  I'm
not sure what you mean by "pro-left", but I found his biases to be pretty
conventional American liberal, quite moderate rather than extreme.

    My response relates to the central theme of his book which is that he
    has always been pro-Israel and he developed his clearly anti Israel
    government (Likud) views only when he was stationed in Beirut.
     
    I have read reviews of the book which detailed prior activism while he
    was at college which makes his self proclaimed "conversion in Beirut" 
    less dramatic.
    
    I found the book very interesting and learned much from his insights
    into the history of the conflict.  I especially appreciated his
    interviews with Rabbi David Hartman.
    
    His present opinions are not "extreme"; however, please remember that
    he is a Pulitzer prize winning journalist whose articles("opinions")
    and commentary are considered "gospel".  I have just learned to take
    him with a grain of salt... as I do Israeli spokespersons, etc.
     
    Av

just wanted to say that i found the book very interesting.  although i don't 
know enough to judge where the dicey parts are, i found him forthcoming on 
presenting at least some suggestions where i had been unable to find anyone 
before who could discuss the disparities between the palestinians and the 
israelis or was willing to address some of the real tough issues.

but i do appreciate the people who have pointed out some of the potential 
pitfalls of the book.  he answered some of the questions that i asked ages 
ago in israel_gulfwar that no one else seemed willing to help me with.  and 
SOME light, even if slanted, is better than none at all.

g.

    If this is Book Week, you might look at Still, Small Voices (or
    is it Small, Still Voices....) by John and Janet Wallach.  Everything
    you ever wanted to know about Faisal al Husseini....
    

.5>    My response relates to the central theme of his book which is that he
.5>    has always been pro-Israel and he developed his clearly anti Israel
.5>    government (Likud) views only when he was stationed in Beirut.

Hmmm, I certainly wouldn't say that this is a central theme of the book.  I
agree that he considers himself pro-Israel, and also that he says a lot of
negative things about the Likud governments, and especially about a certain
former Minister of Defense who is now Minister of Housing.

It should be pointed out that he also claims that the policies of the
Likud-led governments are largely a continuation of those of the preceding
Labor-led governments, so he's not simply anti-Likud.  He also has a lot of
negative things to say about various Lebanese government figures, the
leadership of the PLO, American government officials, ...