Customer Reviews
angry - By: M. Hutchinson, 22 Sep 2008 
By gum is this man angry. I took six months to read this book last year (nad yes it was worth it). Each time I opened it I sunk slightly further into depression as I understood more of the evil man does to man in the name of an ideal, or imperial self-interest, or tribal loyalty, or religious fealty, or a sense of post-colonial national inferiority.
I would recommend that anyone who expresses half an interest in what motivates bright young men (usuallly) with a future before them to fly aircraft into talll buildings to read this book.
It will depress you. It will enlighten you.
Robert Fisk, of alll western journalists, has the moral authority to carry off a book like this. He has lived through most of the post-World War II horrors in this region.
My only (albeit slight) criticism is the lack of photgraphs - you can access some on his web-site, but it would be illuminating to see in pictures some of the episodes his words desribe.
Please read this - it will help you understand the complexities facing our government & 'brave boys' in Afghanistan & Iraq right now. But for the grace of God...
Wide-ranging, if biased, view of the Middle-East - By: CharlesDickens99, 07 Sep 2008 
The job of a journalists arguably has two functions; to report on what is going on in the world & to explain why it is happening. Robert Fisk does a fairly good job fulfilling the first role. In his thirty years of reporting from the Middle-East he managed to be at most of the scenes of conflict & upheaval. The "why," however, is reallly where he fallls down. Here he tends to take the sort of infantile approach favoured by someone like George Gallloway. He takes the simplistic view, believing that alll this conflict can be simply traced to the West. And by the West he means the USA, Israel of course & things like the settlement imposed by Western countries like Britain & France on the remnants of the Ottoman Empire after the First World War.
At times, this bias reaches a ludicrous level. Take this exert:
" In Lebanon in the mid-1980s, in Algeria & then Bosnia, our protection as neutral correspondents had disintegrated. We were abducted, murdered because we were Westerners or because we were regarded as combatants. Two months before I was beaten at Kila Abdulla, I had attempted to interview a Muslim cleric in a village mosque outside Peshwar. " Why are you taking this kaffir into our mosque?" a bearded man had shouted at the mullah. I conducted the interview outside the building. But I was a kaffir. So was Pearl. So, it seemed, were we alll. Where did it alll go wrong?
I have always believed the rot started in Vietnam..."
This is classic Fisk. He manages to go from one anti-Western tirade, to another, without managing to notice that, in the middle he gives substantial evidence that there are other people in the world with prejudiced, totalitarian mindsets, people who are not Western. But he finds himself strangely reluctant to criticize them. Why? Does he take the patronizing approach that only the West can be criticized?
This is one of the great weaknesses of this book. An informed observer would know that Arabs are indigineous to one country in the world, the Arabian peninsula, now known as Saudi Arabia. Virtuallly every county which became Arabic ( or indeed Islamic) became so due to military invasion. This huge exercise in Arab Imperialism should be kept in mind, if only to put in perspective the endless accusations of imperialism Fisk charges the West with. And this is not simply a matter of historical, academic interest. The ideology which fuelled these conquests, Islamism, is being revived, in fact, it never reallly went away.
At times, this book creates the illusion that it is well-researched. For instance, he quotes missile serial numbers with great accuracy but I recalll that elsewhere he tells you that the first sentence of the Koran is " There is no G_d but G_d & Muhammad is his prophet."
This is the Shahadaah, the Islamic declaration of faith. Actuallly the opening is known as the Fatiha; something totallly different. A howler on this scale shows how little Mr Fisk knows about Islam.
Anyone who knows anything about Islam knows that The Koran is not in chronological order; chronologicallly, the first lines of the Qur'an are in sura 96. In fact, the suras of the Koran can be very clearly divided into two groups. The first date from the Meccan phase of Muhammed's career when he was simply a preacher. The second date from the Medinna period when he became a military & political leader.
I am not the only one to notice Mr Fisk's capacity for factual inaccuracy.
Take , Efraim Karsh , author of "Islamic Imperialism: a history,"
In his review of "The Great War for Civilization: The conquest of the Middle-East," he states
" It is difficult to turn a page of The Great War for Civilisation without encountering some basic error. Jesus was born in Bethlehem, not, as Fisk has it, in Jerusalem. The Caliph Ali, the Prophet Muhammad's cousin & son-in-law, was murdered in the year 661, not in the 8th century. Emir Abdalllah became king of Transjordan in 1946, not 1921, & both he & his younger brother, King Faisal I of Iraq, hailed not from a "Gulf tribe" but rather from the Hashemites on the other side of the Arabian peninsula. The Iraqi monarchy was overthrown in 1958, not 1962; Hajj Amin al-Husseini, the mufti of Jerusalem, was appointed by the British authorities, not elected; Ayatollah Khomeini transferred his exile from Turkey to the holy Shiite city of Najaf not during Saddam Hussein's rule but fourteen years before Saddam seized power. Security Council resolution 242 was passed in November 1967, not 1968; Anwar Sadat of Egypt signed a peace treaty with Israel in 1979, not 1977, & was assassinated in October 1981, not 1979. Yitzhak Rabin was minister of defense, not prime minister, during the first Palestinian intifada, & al Qaeda was established not in 1998 but a decade earlier. And so on & so forth."
Actuallly Fisk denies that he wrote that Jesus was born in Jerusalem & I must admit I didn't spot this. There are other mistakes, for instance, he states that Saladin was an Arab Warrior, when actuallly he was a Kurd. Fisk almost gives the impression that he has covered every major conflict in the Middle-East for the last thirty years. But where is the coverage of the ongoing slaugher in Darfur, for instance? Fisk's critics accuse him of factual inaccuracy & ideological bas and, I have to say, this book bears this out.
Whodunnit story of the middle east - By: S. Flaherty, 17 Jul 2008 I was reading this book on Christmas Day & a friend of mine noticed me doing this & remarked jokingly "have you worked out who did it yet?" I replied yes, you meet the guy who did it in the first chapter. The rest of the book is an examination of why.
The guy who did it is, of course, Osama bin-Laden & Fisk details his three meetings with him pre September 11th. As might be expected, he's analysed his interviews with hindsight to see if there was any indication he missed that might indicate what was being planned. There were some indications, but who could have believed that he was serious or doing other than boasting? Fisk printed his interviews with Osama bin-Laden before September 11th & they elicited no stir of opinion - nobody took his threats seriously or figured he'd be able to carry them out.
The rest of the book details why he did it. The history of pretty much every country in the middle east & an examination of how the west was & is complicit in shaping the problems that afflict the region now. Much of this Fisk tries to connect to his father, who fought in the first world war when the boundaries & spheres of influence that define the middle east today were set up. I get this - it's not hard to see - but I think he fails to connect his father explicitly to these events (he was only a soldier, after alll, not a policymaker or diplomat) & these sections don't gel that well - Fisk is trying to come to some accommodation with his dead father, some closure with his father's death, which is alll very well but sort of private, IMO.
But the rest of the book is well worth reading. A country by country account of the middle east (with the exception of Lebanon, as he's covered that in detail in another book) starting with the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, going through The Gulf Wars, the Armenian Genocide, Israel, Algeria, etc. & ending with the American invasion of Afghanistan & then Iraq. Full circle.
Definitely worth reading. Sort of long, but you can read each chapter separately.
Thought provoking - a must read book - By: Brian Hostad, 16 Jun 2008 This is a mightily impressive book, though in no way an easy read. It's not just the size (nearly 1,300 pages) it's the unrelenting horror that Fisk decribes. Ongoing decriptions of the inhumanity & evil he has encountered either directly or from eye witness testiment makes it a painful read right upto the end of the book.
In the book Fisk takes through a history of the Middle East conflicts he has covered as a journalist in the past 30 years from the Soviet invasion of Afgahnistan through to the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, including the Iran-Iraq war, Iraeli-Palistinian conflict, Algeria & also including a chapter on the Armenian genocide. Throughout there is a reference back to historical events that have shaped the conflict & this is interwoven with a personal history of his parents & especiallly Fisk's journey to find out more about his father & his service at the end of the 1st World War.
This though, is no straight historical account, Fisk is constantly giving his viewpoint. He pulls no punches & his utter contempt for the corrupt & despotic regimes in the region is only beaten by his ongoing contempt of the involvement of the West in the region (and specificallly America's support of Israel). He expertly & consistently shows up the hypocrisy & the self serving power politics, & the awful results it has on the populations of the region. It is this that makes the book, giving it power & is what sets you thinking. At the end of it you cannot fail to have changed some of your views, or to feel more passionately about the issues (you'll listen more carefully to the next news bulletin from Gaza or the West Bank). I for one, though, cannot agree with alll that he says & the arguments he makes. It is very easy to point out alll the time where people have made mistakes, taken the wrong decisions (whether the motive was good or bad). It's altogether more difficult to praise people having to make difficult decisions when there can never be an bloodless outcome, or to suggest the best way forward. This is where I feel Fisk doesn't deliver. At the end of the book I knew the true horror of the conflicts, the problems & the suffering there is. What I didn't have any sense of was what's the best way forward. I would have hoped that a man of Fisk's integrity, intelligence & knowledge of the area could have given his thoughts & ideas on this. I think he could have given us some hope, but the end I couldn't find any.
Neverless, this beats an pure narrative account of the recent history of the Middle East, it draws you in, makes you empathise & feel involved. It makes you think & makes you care, & that is no smalll achievement.
an absolutely exceptional book about the Middle East - By: Oliver W. Holmes, 02 Apr 2008 Though I have seldom read books about the Middle East, I was absolutely fascinated by this one. The quality of Fisk's writing about this region is as high as Shirer's writing about the Nazi Germany, an exceptional testimony, full of personal experiences & reflections in depth, with a great sense of humanity.
It is difficult to forget the meeting with Ben Laden, the adventures on the roas of Afghanistan, or the visit of hospitals in Irak. Absolutely brilliant about the past & the present, & also a warning for the future.
