Negative Positive
Title: Irresponsible history - Should be able to give it no stars
Review: I know this is a popular book. When I lecture on the Middle East, everyone seems to have read it. There are some good parts -- such as the author's description of his personal experience in Lebanon. It's his historical analysis that's the problem. He argues at one point that you can understand Hafez Assad's seige of Hama (February 1982) by understanding the Umayyid Dynasty (beginning in the 8th century). This is classic Western bias. No one would say you could understand (insert modern Western massacre here, say Mai Lai) by understanding (insert ancient Western history here, say the Crusades). And yet Friedman is basically saying that Arabs haven't changed in a millenia. While this is obviously not true, (and couldn't possibly be true of anyone) it reveals an underlying and subtle racism -- or just abject stupidity. There are plenty of better books, and this shows me that being an easy read will beat being responsible any day.
Is the review positive or negative? 