Scan barcode
jada's review against another edition
5.0
after like 6 months i've finally finished. this was definitely a comprehensive history of the middle east, starting in the 80s in afghanistan, and ending with the us invasion of iraq after 9/11.
reading about all the war crimes that happened in this region and the west's seeming indifference was hard at times (i had to take a break in the middle of the armenian genocide section because it was too heavy) but now I have a better understanding of history, and that's definitely a good thing.
reading about all the war crimes that happened in this region and the west's seeming indifference was hard at times (i had to take a break in the middle of the armenian genocide section because it was too heavy) but now I have a better understanding of history, and that's definitely a good thing.
vayeate's review against another edition
dark
emotional
informative
reflective
sad
tense
slow-paced
5.0
Robert Fisk wrote an amazing book, however the book itself is filled with horrible and gruesome facts. While reading this book you choose to ignore these facts you are ignoring history and the truth.
Robert explores many dicey subjects in his creation, some of these subjects initially I only hard as rumors, for example everything that Robert wrote about Armenia. I heard a little about Armenia, but this book enlightened me. Anyway I recommend this book to everyone, but beware the book is filled with death and suffering.
Robert explores many dicey subjects in his creation, some of these subjects initially I only hard as rumors, for example everything that Robert wrote about Armenia. I heard a little about Armenia, but this book enlightened me. Anyway I recommend this book to everyone, but beware the book is filled with death and suffering.
n_nazir's review against another edition
4.0
Really tough read, not because of the (considerable) length but just because after finishing a chapter I felt I needed a break from the almost relentless horror being reported. The most depressing part of the book is the recycling of history - no one it seems, ever learns from their mistakes. This book should be essential reading for all world leaders - in fact until they read it, and complete a comprehensive quiz at the end, they shouldn't be allowed to take power. Just a thought...
emma_ireland's review against another edition
5.0
Before reading this, I had a very limited knowledge of the history of the Middle East, or the issues that still affect it today. I feel I have a much better (although of course not comprehensive) understanding now. This book had me alternating between rage and tears on numerous occasions, and as other reviewers have said, it's not easy to read: at times I was left with such a feeling of responsibility and helplessness. I've been growing progressively more cynical in relation to the media as I've got older, and this book confirms a lot of what I already suspected; it certainly makes me see the news I've watched in recent weeks in a different light (Operation Moshtarak was reported as "going well" on Sky News this evening, despite the deaths of numerous civilians). This should be compulsory reading for everyone everywhere.
socraticgadfly's review against another edition
4.0
Very good info, but .... needs an editor for organization!
First, let me say that Fisk is a very good journalist, and it shows through in the personal details he records. He knows how to both write well and ask good questions. He also knows how to connect the dots well. And, he has stuck his head out -- a lot -- to get real war stories while refusing to "embed," whether with American troops, British ones, or any other forces.
Second is that he has what will probably seem to most Americans to be a refreshing, if not challenging, take on both Arab-Israeli issues and how the U.S. has often compounded trouble in the Middle East, primarily but by no means solely due to how it has handled Arab-Israeli issues.
Third, while, while his take on modern Israel could be called "anti-Zionist," it's a canard and a red herring to call it anti-Semitism. It's a canard because equating criticisms of the nation of Israel with attacks for ethnic reasons on the Jewish people is a simple lie, one propagated by intensely pro-Israel (vs. pro-Jewish/Judaism) lobbying agencies in the U.S. And, it's a red herring because it's designed to divert people's attention from Israel's legitimate human rights and international law problems, and the U.S.'s blind backing of much of this.
Related to that, he's not "anti-American" just against much of current American foreign policy in the Middle East.
Fourth, Fisk does report this fairly; above all, while asking the "why" questions about the 9/11 attacks that American journalists play "ostrich" with, he makes clear in many ways that he doesn't believe in "moral equivalence" or anything similar.
That said, the book is open to legitimate criticism. First, 1,000-plus pages is too long. About 750 would have been plenty; increase the type size 1 point and you're at 800. That said, better editing would have achieved that, plus tried to get more organization on the book. Fisk's reminisces about his father, while nice, should have been moved to another book. For organization, either a clearer chronological structure, or a tighter country-by-country structure, might have helped.
First, let me say that Fisk is a very good journalist, and it shows through in the personal details he records. He knows how to both write well and ask good questions. He also knows how to connect the dots well. And, he has stuck his head out -- a lot -- to get real war stories while refusing to "embed," whether with American troops, British ones, or any other forces.
Second is that he has what will probably seem to most Americans to be a refreshing, if not challenging, take on both Arab-Israeli issues and how the U.S. has often compounded trouble in the Middle East, primarily but by no means solely due to how it has handled Arab-Israeli issues.
Third, while, while his take on modern Israel could be called "anti-Zionist," it's a canard and a red herring to call it anti-Semitism. It's a canard because equating criticisms of the nation of Israel with attacks for ethnic reasons on the Jewish people is a simple lie, one propagated by intensely pro-Israel (vs. pro-Jewish/Judaism) lobbying agencies in the U.S. And, it's a red herring because it's designed to divert people's attention from Israel's legitimate human rights and international law problems, and the U.S.'s blind backing of much of this.
Related to that, he's not "anti-American" just against much of current American foreign policy in the Middle East.
Fourth, Fisk does report this fairly; above all, while asking the "why" questions about the 9/11 attacks that American journalists play "ostrich" with, he makes clear in many ways that he doesn't believe in "moral equivalence" or anything similar.
That said, the book is open to legitimate criticism. First, 1,000-plus pages is too long. About 750 would have been plenty; increase the type size 1 point and you're at 800. That said, better editing would have achieved that, plus tried to get more organization on the book. Fisk's reminisces about his father, while nice, should have been moved to another book. For organization, either a clearer chronological structure, or a tighter country-by-country structure, might have helped.
rachofspades's review against another edition
emotional
informative
reflective
sad
tense
medium-paced
4.5
l_hosford's review against another edition
5.0
Reading this book over the past year has been one of my most enlightening and inspiring experiences, has had a profound impact on me and has fundamentally changed how I view politics and, especially, foreign policy.
The first, most obvious impact this book has is in challenging believed or accepted realities of these 'wars' in the Middle East. The farcical nature of the claims made by the US security state across all of these conflicts are so easily swept away by even a basic understanding of how events unfolded. This is made especially powerful when his keen grasp of history lays bare that every occupying power or invader does so under the guise of 'liberation', 'democracy' and 'freedom'. The comparisons to his father's fighting in World War I share scary, depressing parallels with the lead up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003. While it does feel like a lot of the book is leading up to that disastrous moment in the history of this region, there are some very interesting insights throughout, and no regime or political leader leaves this book unscathed. The fact that Clinton and Blair have been so revered by liberal politicians and media throughout my life is disgusting after reading this book, the chapter on Iraqi sanctions in the 1990s alone. Even thinking about the amount of time adults, teachers growing up described suicide bombers as crazy, unhinged, motivated by a backwards religion is just sad. It just shows the extent people will go to to avoid any truth that might undo their own created reality. What is one of the most depressing thoughts coming out of this book is the insight into the mind of Bin Laden we get through his interviews. Placing those interviews at the start of the book was an interesting choice, because when it comes to 9/11 at the end, it almost seems like Bin Laden has been nodding in agreement throughout. While Fisk rightfully does his utmost to distance himself from Bin Laden by saying how truly terrible he is, it is hard to avoid the fact that Western forces and pro-West Arab leaders created a figure like Bin Laden through their policies and crimes against Arabs because that was his main motivating force.
Some of the most interesting insights of the book concern journalism and his critiques of Western, especially US media. He has glorious insight into the procedures that some of these big US corporations put in place to make sure that the security state gets the last word on any event involving them. The changing nature of journalism from when he started is also evident, where he describes 'pool' journalists with utter disdain and how this leads to them being viewed as combatants in these conflicts because they are indistinguishable from the soldiers and armed forces. The breakdown of the use of language in describing who was committing what atrocity in Israel/Palestine was enlightening and scholarly.
If there is one thing to leave this book with it is the voice of the people directly impacted by this imperial fantasy. This is where his clearest motivations lie and give the book a level of credibility that I don't think could ever be matched. His unrelenting desire to tell the story of children dying in hospitals hit by shrapnel, talking to people whose houses have just been crushed and recording all of the lost family members' names. These accounts undermine any discussion around 'geopolitics' or 'strategy' that tend to dominate conversations around conflicts. All war is a crime and the powerful have a right, as laid down in the Geneva Convention actually, to ensure citizens are not in the way. This does not happen and in fact civilians, while usually only thought of as important in internal conflicts, are used just as instrumentally in international ones, or those involving an invading power anyway.
While the world has lost a moving voice in the region, we can only hope that the next generation of journalists see themselves as opposing and critiquing these power structures that inevitably lead to this kind of death and destruction, and focus on the human toll of these actions. While there are still some good examples of this today, too many of his critiques of journalists are all too present today. A must read. RIP
The first, most obvious impact this book has is in challenging believed or accepted realities of these 'wars' in the Middle East. The farcical nature of the claims made by the US security state across all of these conflicts are so easily swept away by even a basic understanding of how events unfolded. This is made especially powerful when his keen grasp of history lays bare that every occupying power or invader does so under the guise of 'liberation', 'democracy' and 'freedom'. The comparisons to his father's fighting in World War I share scary, depressing parallels with the lead up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003. While it does feel like a lot of the book is leading up to that disastrous moment in the history of this region, there are some very interesting insights throughout, and no regime or political leader leaves this book unscathed. The fact that Clinton and Blair have been so revered by liberal politicians and media throughout my life is disgusting after reading this book, the chapter on Iraqi sanctions in the 1990s alone. Even thinking about the amount of time adults, teachers growing up described suicide bombers as crazy, unhinged, motivated by a backwards religion is just sad. It just shows the extent people will go to to avoid any truth that might undo their own created reality. What is one of the most depressing thoughts coming out of this book is the insight into the mind of Bin Laden we get through his interviews. Placing those interviews at the start of the book was an interesting choice, because when it comes to 9/11 at the end, it almost seems like Bin Laden has been nodding in agreement throughout. While Fisk rightfully does his utmost to distance himself from Bin Laden by saying how truly terrible he is, it is hard to avoid the fact that Western forces and pro-West Arab leaders created a figure like Bin Laden through their policies and crimes against Arabs because that was his main motivating force.
Some of the most interesting insights of the book concern journalism and his critiques of Western, especially US media. He has glorious insight into the procedures that some of these big US corporations put in place to make sure that the security state gets the last word on any event involving them. The changing nature of journalism from when he started is also evident, where he describes 'pool' journalists with utter disdain and how this leads to them being viewed as combatants in these conflicts because they are indistinguishable from the soldiers and armed forces. The breakdown of the use of language in describing who was committing what atrocity in Israel/Palestine was enlightening and scholarly.
If there is one thing to leave this book with it is the voice of the people directly impacted by this imperial fantasy. This is where his clearest motivations lie and give the book a level of credibility that I don't think could ever be matched. His unrelenting desire to tell the story of children dying in hospitals hit by shrapnel, talking to people whose houses have just been crushed and recording all of the lost family members' names. These accounts undermine any discussion around 'geopolitics' or 'strategy' that tend to dominate conversations around conflicts. All war is a crime and the powerful have a right, as laid down in the Geneva Convention actually, to ensure citizens are not in the way. This does not happen and in fact civilians, while usually only thought of as important in internal conflicts, are used just as instrumentally in international ones, or those involving an invading power anyway.
While the world has lost a moving voice in the region, we can only hope that the next generation of journalists see themselves as opposing and critiquing these power structures that inevitably lead to this kind of death and destruction, and focus on the human toll of these actions. While there are still some good examples of this today, too many of his critiques of journalists are all too present today. A must read. RIP