Tom Friedman is not a Middle East historian and his "account" of Middle East events is largely uninformed opinions rather than facts.  His unfortunate history of anti-Israel diatribes further discredits him and his book.  For facts and educated opinions, I recommend Bernard Lewis, the Mentor of Middle East historians and commentators.

For example, Friedman unintelligently insists that so-called "palestinians" are a "people" when, in fact, they are merely rebranded Arabs.  A people are distinguished by ethnic and linguistic uniqueness but there is no distinct palestinian ethnicity--they are Arabs--nor is there a palestinian language--their language is Arabic.

As Bernard Lewis instructs Mr. Friedman and others, palestinians are an invention and Arabs until recently even rejected the terms palestine and palestinian as Western inventions...

Dr. Bernard Lewis, Professor Emeritus of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University; PdD in Near and Middle East Studies, University of London;  Former Director of the University of London's School of Oriental and African Studies, Author, "The Middle East: A Brief History of the Last 2000 Years," "The Future of the Middle East," "The Shaping of the Modern Middle East," "The End of Modern History in the Middle East," "The Multiple Identities of the Middle East," "Faith and Power: Religion and Politics in the Middle East", "Race and Slavery in the Middle East," "From Babel to Dragomans: Interpreting the Middle East," "A Middle East Mosaic," "The Arabs In History

The adjective Palestinian is comparatively new.  This, I need hardly remind you, is a region of ancient civilizations and of deep-rooted and often complex identities.  But Palestine was not one of them.  People might identify themselves for various purposes, by religion, by descent, or by allegiance to a particular state or ruler, or sometimes locality.  But, when they did it locally it was generally either the city and immediate district or the larger province, so they would have been Jerusalemites or Jaffaites or the like, or Syrians, identifying with the larger province of Syria.

The constitution or the formation of a political entity called Palestine which eventually gave rise to a nationality called Palestinian were lasting innovations of the British Mandate [1918-1948]

Palestine is a Greco-Roman term brought back from Europe.  Its history as the name of a separate entity began and ended with the British Mandate, without a state and without any historic memory of separate sovereignty or even identity

For Arabs, the term Palestine was unacceptable...For Muslims it was alien and irrelevant but not abhorrent in the same way as it was to Jews. The main objection for them was that it seemed to assert a separate entity which politically conscious Arabs in Palestine and elsewhere denied. For them there was no such thing as a country called Palestine. The region which the British called Palestine was merely a separated part of a larger whole [Syria]  For a long time organized and articulate Arab political opinion was virtually unanimous on this point.

The Palestinian Arabs' basic sense of corporate historic identity was, at different levels, Muslim or Arab or -- for some -- Syrian; it is significant that even by the end of the Mandate in 1948, after 30 years of separate Palestinian political existence, there were virtually no books in Arabic on the history of Palestine."

Interestingly, during the period of the British Mandate, that is, until 1948, the terms "Palestine" and "Palestinian" were primarily used by Jews, not by Arabs.  They were not happy with these terms, but at least they designated the country as a historically separate entity.  Overwhelmingly the Arabs rejected this name which they saw as a British imperialist device to slice off a part of the greater Arab homeland.
Tom Friedman is not a Middle East historian and his "account" of Middle East events is largely uninformed opinions rather than facts. His unfortunate history of anti-Israel diatribes further discredits him and his book. For facts and educated opinions, I recommend Bernard Lewis, the Mentor of Middle East historians and commentators. For example, Friedman unintelligently insists that so-called "palestinians" are a "people" when, in fact, they are merely rebranded Arabs. A people are distinguished by ethnic and linguistic uniqueness but there is no distinct palestinian ethnicity--they are Arabs--nor is there a palestinian language--their language is Arabic. As Bernard Lewis instructs Mr. Friedman and others, palestinians are an invention and Arabs until recently even rejected the terms palestine and palestinian as Western inventions... Dr. Bernard Lewis, Professor Emeritus of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University; PdD in Near and Middle East Studies, University of London;  Former Director of the University of London's School of Oriental and African Studies, Author, "The Middle East: A Brief History of the Last 2000 Years," "The Future of the Middle East," "The Shaping of the Modern Middle East," "The End of Modern History in the Middle East," "The Multiple Identities of the Middle East," "Faith and Power: Religion and Politics in the Middle East", "Race and Slavery in the Middle East," "From Babel to Dragomans: Interpreting the Middle East," "A Middle East Mosaic," "The Arabs In History

The adjective Palestinian is comparatively new. This, I need hardly remind you, is a region of ancient civilizations and of deep-rooted and often complex identities. But Palestine was not one of them. People might identify themselves for various purposes, by religion, by descent, or by allegiance to a particular state or ruler, or sometimes locality. But, when they did it locally it was generally either the city and immediate district or the larger province, so they would have been Jerusalemites or Jaffaites or the like, or Syrians, identifying with the larger province of Syria. The constitution or the formation of a political entity called Palestine which eventually gave rise to a nationality called Palestinian were lasting innovations of the British Mandate [1918-1948]

Palestine is a Greco-Roman term brought back from Europe. Its history as the name of a separate entity began and ended with the British Mandate, without a state and without any historic memory of separate sovereignty or even identity

For Arabs, the term Palestine was unacceptable... For Muslims it was alien and irrelevant but not abhorrent in the same way as it was to Jews. The main objection for them was that it seemed to assert a separate entity which politically conscious Arabs in Palestine and elsewhere denied. For them there was no such thing as a country called Palestine. The region which the British called Palestine was merely a separated part of a larger whole [Syria]  For a long time organized and articulate Arab political opinion was virtually unanimous on this point. The Palestinian Arabs' basic sense of corporate historic identity was, at different levels, Muslim or Arab or -- for some -- Syrian; it is significant that even by the end of the Mandate in 1948, after 30 years of separate Palestinian political existence, there were virtually no books in Arabic on the history of Palestine. "

Interestingly, during the period of the British Mandate, that is, until 1948, the terms "Palestine" and "Palestinian" were primarily used by Jews, not by Arabs. They were not happy with these terms, but at least they designated the country as a historically separate entity. Overwhelmingly the Arabs rejected this name which they saw as a British imperialist device to slice off a part of the greater Arab homeland.