From Beirut to Jerusalem

Friedman describes Beirut during the civil war as a place marked by political and military violence on the one hand, and normalcy and commercial luxury on the other. How does the motif of violence alongside the pedestrian and the luxurious feature in the book, and how does it play a role in the situation in the Levant?

What do you think about Friedman attributing the massacre of Hama to tribalism? Is that a reasonable way of connecting the past with the present, or as some critics allege, is it a way of “othering” Arab behavior that ignores the fact that all peoples are capable of similar atrocities?

Evaluate the characters of Yasser Arafat and Ariel Sharon. In what ways are they different, even opposites, and in what ways are they liable to similar kinds of mistakes in the shared context of Lebanon?

How does Friedman characterize the American contingent, and its overall mission, in Lebanon? Do you find it accurate, or does it reflect some of Friedman’s own biases as both an American and as a believer that America can and should facilitate the ultimate resolution to Middle East conflict?

How does Israel mirror Lebanon in terms of its struggle to define a national identity? Do you see any way for Israel to resolve that difficulty?

How would you evaluate Friedman’s overall position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Is he fair to both sides, and in what ways might his position seem to contradict itself? Are those contradictions reconcilable?

Friedman has been one of the most consistently read and respected American writers on the Middle East. What qualities does he display in this book that might have earned him his reputation? Does any aspect of the book puncture that reputation?

How does the Israel-Hamas war either uphold or upend Friedman’s analysis? What is the value of reading a text from the period in question when so much has happened in the time since?