[Author’s Name]
[Institution’s Name]
Essay on "From Beirut to Jerusalem"
From Beirut to Jerusalem, by Thomas Friedman of The New York Times, has coasted to a comfortable position on the best-seller lists since its publication in July, pushed by a rise in public interest in the Middle East as well as by glowing and unquestioning reviews.
In the rest of the world, thee is now a broad consensus on the Arab-Israeli situation: The Palestinians, like the Israelis, have the right to self-determination led by their chosen representatives; the actions of the Israeli occupation forces in the West Bank and Gaza Strip have long ceased to the justifiable; unilateral moves in the region by the great powers are dangerous and counterproductive. Only in the United States do policy-makers and opinion-shapers think otherwise, and it is impossible to ignore the influence of The Time's Jerusalem bureau chief on their views.
Friedman wants to have it all ways. In From Beirut to Jerusalem, he argues that the United States should pull back from the active diplomacy of past years until the parties show they are "serious enough" about peace. At the same time he praises President Ronald Reagan's decision to bomb Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi's tent in 1986 and the deployment of U.S. warships in the Persian Gulf. To Friedman's credit, he proposes that the United States speak truth to the Israelis about Palestinian rights and even proposes the subtle use of economic and diplomatic measures to pressure Israel. But anyone seeking his view of Palestinian rights will discover "self-determination" on page 504, a "mini-state in parts of the West Bank and Gaza Strip--without Jerusalem" on page 421 and the 1982 Reagan plan, which explicitly ruled out a Palestine state, endorsed as the Palestinians' "best opportunity since Camp David" on page 171. Throughout the book, Friedman disguises the one-sided nature of U.S. involvement in past and present Arab-Israeli affairs.......
