From Beirut to Jerusalem Thomas L. Friedman Hama Rules From Beirut to Jerusalem Thomas L. Friedman

Introduction Hama, a once-picturesque city in Syria, was the site of a brutal massacre in February of 1982 (Friedman 76). The massacre, undoubtedly the work of the Syrian government, specifically the Syrian President, Hafez al-Assad, was estimated to have left 10,000-25,000 dead and thousands more homeless (77). The cause of the massacre was mostly friction between the Sunni Muslim guerilla groups of the city, called the Muslim Brotherhood, and the mainly Alawite Muslim/Christian government and military (77-78). It is from his visit to the city of Hama post-attack and the tragedies he witnesses that Friedman formulates his “Hama Rules,” a set of rules that not only pertain to Syria but to most of the Middle East, highlighting the ruthlessness and gore of the conflict in the area. The logic of Hama Rules is “a combination of three different political traditions all operating at the same time” (87).

Tribe-Like Politics The first tradition is tribe-like politics, “characterized by a harsh, survivalist quality and an adherence to certain intense primordial or kin-group forms of allegiance” (87). Groups are bound together by solidarity and allegiance to the tribe takes precedence over the national community (87). Alliances begin with “the most basic blood association” of the family and slowly expand to the tribe (88). When a tribe is dishonored, a price must always be exacted to the furthest degree. Otherwise, the tribe looks weak and will be attacked again. The only way a tribe will make compromises with another tribe is “from proven strength or magnanimity in the wake of victory” (88). When the Muslim Brotherhood seized control of Hama, al-Assad saw it as a threat to his Alawite tribe and retaliated (90).

Authoritarianism The second political tradition in the Middle East is authoritarianism, “the concentration of power in a single ruler or elite not bound by any constitutional framework” (91). People of the Middle East rarely created nation-states of their own because various tribe affiliations negated the need for people to rule themselves and defend themselves against foreign invaders (92). Clans and sects would rarely submit and allow themselves to be governed by others. Rather, when a government was in place, it was usually imposed by sheer physical force. (92).

Authoritarianism Continued “The ruler was often a stranger: someone to be feared, dreaded, avoided, submitted to, and, occasionally, rebelled against, but rarely adored; there was usually a tremendous gulf between the ruler and he society at large” (92). Gentle Authoritarianism: A government sustained through negotiation and less by brute force (92-93). Brutal Authoritarianism: A government sustained by beating the population into submission (94). “Hama was not just what happens when two tribe-like sects – the Alawites and the Sunnis – decide to have it out; it was also what happens when a modern Middle Eastern autocrat who does not enjoy full legitimacy among his people puts down a challenge to his authority by employing twentieth-century weapons without restraint” (96).

Modern Nation-State The modern nation-state is another factor in tragedies such as Hama – most states in the Middle East today “were not willed into existence by their own people or developed organically out of a common historical memory or ethnic or linguistic bond,” but were instead imposed upon the people of a country (98-99). Not only were borders and leaders imposed, political institutions, too, were forced, often with the imperial powers leaving before these institutions could fully take root (99). The leaders boosted into power by imperial invaders most then search for ways to legitimize their new governments (100). The Hama massacre, then, can be seen as “the natural reaction of a modernizing politician in a relatively new nation-state trying to state off retrogressive… elements aiming to undermine everything he has achieved) (100).

Conclusion Friedman ends the chapter with an anecdote about a landlord in Beirut who would not only eat an egg for breakfast, but also its shell. He closes: “That was what Hama was all about and that is what politics in places like Syria, Lebanon, the Yemens, and Iraq are so often about – men grabbing for the egg and its shell, because without both they fear that they may well be dead” (105).

Bibliography "The Flag of Syria." Student Resource Center - Gold. Gale. Upper Arlington High School. 8 Sept. 2009  <http://find.galegroup.com/gps/start.do?prodId=IPS> Friedman, Thomas L. From Beirut to Jerusalem. New York: Farrer Straus Giroux, 1989. "Hafez al-Assad." (al-Assad, Hafez, photograph. Archive Photos, Inc. Reproduced by permission. ).Student Resource Center - Gold. Gale. Upper Arlington High School. 8 Sept. 2009  <http://find.galegroup.com/gps/start.do?prodId=IPS>. "Map of Syria." (Maryland Cartographics ).Student Resource Center - Gold. Gale. Upper Arlington High School. 9 Sept. 2009  <http://find.galegroup.com/gps/start.do?prodId=IPS>. :"President Saddam Hussein." CRSN. Gale. Upper Arlington High School. 9 Sept. 2009  <http://find.galegroup.com/gps/start.do?prodId=IPS>. Walsh, John. "Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood: understanding centrist Islam. (World in Review)." Harvard International Review 24.4 (Wntr 2003): 32(5). Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Upper Arlington High School. 9 Sept. 2009  <http://find.galegroup.com/gps/start.do?prodId=IPS>. Watson. “Hama Waterwheel.” Syria Pictures. Bugbog. September 9, 2009. http://www.bugbog.com/gallery/syria_pictures_photos/syria_pictures_20.html