Suggestions:
- Friedman, “The Third Intifada.”
- “Sharon may be missed” (Economist) added 2/13/14
- Friedman, “Israel’s Big Question” added 2/13/14
Earlier Jake reminded us of the relevance of City of Oranges. Effective use in both books of using family stories to reveal a larger history.
The Great War for Civilization: The Conquest of the Middle East by Robert Fisk is a long, rambling, pessimistic history of the modern Middle East looking back to World War I and the “construction” of the Middle East by the Western powers. The central idea: as you sow, so shall you reap; the sins of the fathers shall be visited upon the sons. E.g., we should not have been surprised by the 1979 uprising in Iran.The history of the West in the Middle East largely is that by failing to understand and respect local peoples and cultures, we made blunders that later resulted in bloodshed and chaos. Ignorance of the depth of religious and ethnic sentiment led to artificial creation of volatile nation-states and imposition of autocratic client-rulers. Ghosts of the past haunt almost every scene painted in such detail in this book Fisk writes very much from the left and has great sympathy for the ordinary Arabs who have been ignored and relegated and abused by their own rulers and by the Western hegemons. He is overtly critical of Israel.
A a more analytical and well-regarded book that also makes the case that the seeds of the current turmoil and conflict in the Middle East were sown by the actions of the West following World War I is A peace to end all peace : creating the modern Middle East, 1914-1922, by David Fromkin.
Jerusalem: the Biography, by Simon Seborg Montefiore, which we read, concludes:
If this book has any mission, I passionately hope that it might encourage each side to recognize and respect the ancient heritage of the Other. And this is before we reach an even greater challenge: each must recognize the Other’s sacred modern narratives of tragedy and heroism. This is a lot to ask since both of these stories stars the Other as arch-villain—yet this too is possible.
Montefiore is able to posit equal and shared claim to the land by reaching back to Moses, a few years before the Balfour declaration.
The Shavit book, I find, offers a more challenging but truer proposition than Montefiore or the school that places most of the blame on the Western powers and, by implication, lays a heavy responsibility for fixing things on them.