The recipies in the book are easy to follow and I like all the photos. Not every dish is photographed, but I like to know how the food is supposed to look before I prepare it. I am new to Mediterranean Cooking and this book is a great place to start. The dishes are very flavorful and use everyday common ingredients.

I have read so many cookbooks, and never been so impressed. Great little encyclopedia of a facinating medley of Lebanese, Italien, and French works of art. A book to cherish for generations. Every kitchen lover should have a copy.

The Author of this book made an outstanding job of combining the flavorful dishes of artistic Spain with a smart selection of impressive dishes from the old culture hub of Lebanon, in addition to a variety of delightful cuisine from all the landscape in between ...

The thesis of this book is simple: Sectarianism is not an age-old feature of Lebanese society but rather developed in a dialectical process involving locals, Ottoman reformists, and European interests. The argument is convincing, but it is still incomplete. There is virutally no treatment whatsoever of the changing economic realities the region experienced in the 19th century. As a social history, the work distances itself from the Marxist model, but unfortunately, this distancing resulted in neglect in terms of economic structures of Mt. Lebanon, esepcially with regard to the Christian peasant rebellions and the subsequent massacres which take up a large portion of the book.

There is much that is thought provoking in this scholarly but never boring book; for example, the notion of simplistic, self referential perceptions on the part of western missionaries and diplomats of the various communities in Mount Lebanon coloring subsequent views - and consequently, policies -in that part of the world, and creating artificial stereotypes which were then conveniently exploited. Makdissi's analysis is cogent and stimulating. He presents a challenging and refreshing perspective on events in Mount Lebanon in the middle of the nineteenth century and their far-reaching implications to the state of affairs in modern Lebanon. One cannot help drawing a parallel with perceptions of the world today informed by CNN-cum fast food-style information: Everything one hears is simplistically and uniformly packaged to render it more easily palatable with little regard for the complexities of any situation. What is particularly disconcerting is that even our own perceptions are colored by that type of reporting and analysis! Makdissi's book reminds us of the necessity for questioning our perspectives and assumptions thus conducting 'reality checks' that may lead to some new solutions to misdiagnosed problems.

Written by a Benedictine Nun - Mary gives an inside out view of monasticism. Sharbel had a clear vision of what God made him to be - and followed that call to a T. We see God's grace working in him, and get a thirst for knowing what our plan of life is - as well as getting a reminder of what monks and monasticism are all about.

At a time when so many negative things are happening in the Middle East, Mary Clare Vincent focuses on a most remarkable and uplifting story. It starts under the Cedars of Lebanon and lifts the reader's spirit to heaven.
Thank you Mary!

This book will help children put themselves into Sami's war ravaged world. They will feel the angst of civil war and worry about Sami's safety in a book that makes readers feel as if they could reach out and touch the rubble in the streets of Lebanon. The book portrays the intermittent bombing and roller coaster of emotions faced by those who lived through the civil war. A wonderful mix of history and fiction which must be read.

My boyfriend lived in Lebanon during the time frame of this book. This book was close to the life he knew then. I bought the book for my sister's Arab American child. It is often difficult to find children's books with an Arabic theme. This is a wonderful one.

I am a Lebanese who is living in Sweden for the past 9 years. I have read this book twice so far, the way that the author describes the events that took place during the Lebanese war, in a very detailed way mentioning dates, names, places, is very impressing. Which proves the personal expereince of the author. We Lebanese are very naive people that get carried away by men like Elie Hobeaka, who sold his country just for personal pride. I encourage every Lebanese person to get this book and read so that they can realize what kind of country and society they are living in. Finally i would like to say something if this book is a total lie, then why did the Lebanese goverment abandon it from entering Lebanon?, why dont you ask yourselve this question.

I read the book and altough it contains a lot of facts, I got the feeling that Cobra was trying to make himself one of the most known guys in Lebanon during the war. Why he did not write about all the crimes that he also comminted during the war? He is not a victim no and he also was one of those who destroyed Lebanon because of the "CAUSE." I always thought about the "CAUSE" and I hated what was happenign to Lebanon and all Lebanese (Christians and Muslims) but I did not join those who pretended to protect the Christians and the "CAUSE." I am not writing to defend HK or accuse Cobra. HK is a monster that should be punished for what he did, Lebanon still have such monsters in power and as long as we have such people, Lebanon will always be doomed. However, the book is a must read. It makes me feel sick, sad, and laugh at the same time. Sick to know about those monsters, sad for the victims of Lebanon, and laugh on those who always beleived and still beleive in the "CAUSE."

The secret files of how Lebanese Christian leaders betrayed their people have finally been exposed. This will revolutionise the way Lebanese within Lebanon and abroad will think of our beaurocrats. I hope people can come to terms with this explosive account of murder, curruption and sex. The most evil sins man can commit. I would love to see the faces of the evil men mentioned in Cobra's book. Thankyou Cobra. Thankyou for giving us the honest truth.

This is a far more insightful and comprehensive work than several books on Lebanon I have read in recent years. Although I take issue with some of the author's arguments, the book is a solid academic work not only on the war but also on Lebanese society and politics. It is also based on new data and research material. The book is highly recommended for specialists on Lebanese and Arab politics.

This is a superb book in terms of addressing the events of the war. The style begins by being almost thesis-like, in which he addresses notions of state, and then becomes a more journalistic type account of events that triggered the war in Lebanon.

For the reviewer who says that denying the domestic roots of the civil war, I highly doubt that they read the book- because the book does none of that!

Highly instructive, hightly recommended.

This well researched, scholarly book on Lebanese politics and society is a welcome contribution to the study of conflict in the Middle East. The subject matter Farid el Khazen deals with is no doubt complex and controversial. But the author presents his arguments in a balanced and convincing way. His novel approach - examining Lebanon in crisis situations in broader regional perspective - is original and lucid. For anyone seeking to know the internal and external causes of the war in Lebanon, this is the book to read.

This book attempts to indict Israel, without basis in fact, history or reality. Beginning with myriad false premises--for example, that the U.S. is now and has always engaged in a nefarious plot to dominate the Middle East via a "client state"--the book quickly grows misshapen.

Chomsky's first strike: His "client state" thesis ignores the fact that, but for Harry Truman's insistence, the U.S. would have opposed the 1948 United Nations partition plan -- and Israel's founding. Through the Six Day War, the U.S. remained neutral and often hostile to Israel, providing no help whatever.

His second: The "Israel as aggressor" thesis ignores the existence and history of Jerusalem Mufti Hajj Amin al-Husseini, who in 1948 promised a "war of annihilation" against Israel, that for all intents and purposes has continued ever since. In that war alone, Israel catastrophically lost nearly 1% of her population, including 600 Israeli civilians captured and mutilated beyond recognition. In total, Israel has lost some 24,000 Jewish and Arab citizens to Arab wars and terrorism, proportionately comparable (today) to over 1 million U.S. citizens. To this war, as Werner Cohn notes in Partners in Hate: Noam Chomsky and the Holocaust Deniers (available free online), Chomsky devotes only parts of two pages, taking events entirely out-of-context.

Chomsky similarly avoids full treatment of the pivotal 1929 Arab riots. To this, as Cohn reports, "Chomsky devotes two paragraphs." His main text admits that in August 1929, 133 Jews were massacred, including a "most ghastly incident" in Hebron, where 60 Jews were killed. Chomksy quotes Christopher Sykes' Cross Roads to Israel.

For the record, Sykes leaves no doubt that in 1929 Haj Amin el-Husseini was likewise a major instigator. A Jewish boy was murdered after innocently kicking a ball into a neighboring Arab garden. The Mufti's henchmen walked about Jerusalem carrying clubs. Unconcerned with "sacred frontiers of the fatherland," the Mufti was "interested in religion.... The enemy was the Jewish people." Chomsky neglects to mention "the goading policy of the Supreme Moslem Council" or its purposeful "driving Jews to exasperation," (Sykes, 1967 Nel Mentor ed.). No, Chomsky relies largely on a single eyewitness (contradicted by many others, whom he ignores), thus falsely blaming the 1929 riots, as Cohn notes, entirely on the Jews.

All that--and the 1973 Yom Kippur War--negate Chomsky's theses, so the vast bulk of his action begins in 1982, with the false notion that Israel consistently rejected "any political settlement" with Arabs. This not coincidentally also avoids such mitigating factors as Israel's return to Egypt of Sinai (including Israeli-developed oil wells and resorts), within 12 years of Nasser's (renewed) 1967 vow to erase Israel from the map. Instead, Chomsky speciously cites a "flood" of letters to the U.S. media in "strikingly similar format," falsely inferring U.S. media and government support for "establishment of a Greater Israel." Good grief.

As to 1982, Chomsky avoids noting that Israel was only then responding to decades of cross-border terrorist raids and bombardments suffered by Israeli towns that took innumerable Israeli lives--all of them from staging areas in southern Lebanon. Rather, he focuses on ostensibly pro-Israel media, including profiles of Jane Fonda and Tom Hayden, whose "state worshipping" he terms worthy of the "annals of Stalinism."

This book, in fact, hardly touches on of the considerable Arab hostilities to Israel over more than 54 years. Thus, Chomsky avoids the critical fourth, fifth and sixth corners of the complex Middle East "triangle"--that render it hexagonal--Arab incarceration of Arab refugees, Arab expulsion of 900,000 Jews from Arab lands and Arab oppression of other non-Muslim peoples, including Sudanese Christians and animists, Iraqi and Turkish Kurds, Egyptian Copts and Moroccan Berbers.

Readers should, instead, somehow believe that a "persistent and sinister" ideological American Jewish plot creates "illusion about Israeli society and the nature of the Arab-Israeli conflict," and presents "the major obstacle to an American-Palestinian and Israeli-Palestinian dialogue." In short, Chomsky's false allegations closely resemble age-old libels that blame the Jews--for everything.

This book was first issued in 1983 by Noontide Press, as Cohn reports, the publishing arm of California's neo-Nazi Institute for Historical Review, whose catalogue prominently features Holocaust denial, Nazi-era propaganda films banned for sale in Germany, hate literature by Hitler, Joseph Goebbels, the late Father Coughlin--and the crème of its choice selections, the notorious Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

The French publisher of Holocaust denier Robert Faurisson, Pierre Guillaume, recounts in glowing terms his 1979 introduction to Chomsky and the latter's independent promotion of a petition supporting Faurisson's "findings" and "extensive historical research into the Holocaust question," according to Cohn.

In "Quelques commentaires élémentaires sur le droit à la liberté d'expression," (Some elementary comments concerning the right of free expression), Cohn shows, Chomsky himself declares that even fascists and anti-Semites may speak freely--but that Faurisson is neither. Chomsky writes that Faurisson is best described as "a sort of apolitical liberal." As freely as Chomsky gives patronage to such "revisionists," he gladly accepts theirs. The prominence of his books in their catalogues does not concern him, says Cohn.

Triangle strikes out at last--by likening Jewish, Israeli and Zionist actions to Hitler's in all 12 of its references to history's worst tyrant (Cohn).

Better Chomsky should call this volume "Hex-again," to make his purpose clear.

--Alyssa A. Lappen

Because many of the other reviews on this site seem to illustrate blind trust in Chomsky, I felt it was my civic duty to give another perspective. First and foremost, Chomsky is neither a scholar of the Middle East, nor of geo-politics in general. Not to say that because of this he couldn't necessarily express informed opinions, but Chomsky, in this book as in many of his other writings, cites selective facts that he feels will support his thesis, while conveniently omitting and ignoring many others that would help to establish a more balanced and truthful account of the Middle East conflict (I am choosing not to give examples as there are so many I wouldn't know where to begin and this is supposed to be a book review, not a thesis. Besides, the examples are all out there for you to find if you so desire - see some of the other reviews on this page). I think this book, as with Chomsky's other writings on world affairs, has appeal to extreme western liberals because it presents a view contrary to that of the American "establishment". I would ask, isn't blind trust in anti-establishment rhetoric equally as dangerous as blind trust in the establishment? If its hidden, immoral agendas you are concerned about, look for them on BOTH sides of this conflict. The United States is deserving of criticism but so is the United Nations and the Arab regimes who have selfishly used the Palestinians to deflect attention away from their own failed states. (Why has none of the vast Arab oil wealth gone to helping the Palestinians establish any kind of decent society for their people instead of funding terrorism and encouraging people who they supposedly care about to kill themselves and others? What would the ... regimes of Syria and Saudi Arabia have to lose if there was peace between Israelis and Palestinians? Everything!) The really sad thing about this kind of one-sided thesis is that it ultimately does nothing to enlighten or bring anyone any closer to a solution. Anyone who really cares about the Palestinians or about Israel or, hopefully, about both, should be furious at how both sides have been co-opted and exploited to serve other agendas. Read this book if you must, but if you are truly interested in a full understanding of a complex conflict, I implore you to read everything out there and make up your own mind.

I am fascinated by the Middle East conflict. However, it is very hard to get reliable information about what is happening out there. Israelis say one thing. Palestinians say the opposite. Whom do you believe? To be honest, reporters such as Thomas Friedman and David Shipler, both Pulitzer prize winners, appear much more reliable than Chomsky. I recommend their books on the subject as opposed to this book. But, first, what is good about the book? Chomsky is very good at exposing hypocrisy on the part of Israel and the United States with regard to Israeli/Palestinian conflict. I am also certain that many examples of Israeli human rights violations that Chomsky cites are true. Plus, I share Chomsky's distaste for those US supporters of Israel who always support Israel's policies no matter what. In general, this book is a very good representation of the views of the extreme left, and so ,in this sense, it is useful to those studying the subject. However, to be honest, I don't really believe Chomsky. I don't really believe him because he undermines his credibility again and again. First, Chomsky implies that the war of 1967 was simply aggression on the part of Israel, something that every major historian would disagree with. How does he support this point? He proceeds to very selectively qoute a few major Israeli generals who suggest that Israel started the war. first of all, the quotes are taken out of context. Second, for some reason, Chomsky never even bothers to mention that Egypt's Nasser explicitly stated at the time that he and other Arab countries opposed co-existence with Israel and desired its destruction ( this is a matter of record). Neither does Chomsky mention massive military mobilization of Egyptian armies on the Israeli border at that time. Why would Chomsky not even address these issues? There are many other instances where Chomsky's explanations are, at best, problematic. For instance, he basically blames Israeli unwillingness to create a Palestinian state on racism and dismisses all security concerns as irrelevant. But why? Sure, Anti-Arab prejudice may be involved here but there are also some legitimate security issues involved. After all, Israel is surrounded by hostile states. Given its small size and past Arab aggression , why would Israel want another state next to its capital? Chomsky is right in a sense that security concerns do not justify gross human rights violations. However, to explain Israel's unwillingness to allow an independent Palestinian state purely in terms of racism and selfishness and to downplay the danger posed by the Arab states who could have probably used the Palestinian state as grounds for an invasion is unfair and misleading. Chomsky also suggests at one point that the Jewish homeland should have been created inside the US. That might have been nice but it could've never worked politically. The US would have never agreed to establish another nation inside its borders. This is the kind of argument one might expect from Hamas, not a professor from MIT. Chomsky also states that the Israelis intentionally destroyed USS Liberty. While certainly a case could be made for this position, there is plenty of evidence (check out ...) suggesting that is not what happened. The fact that Chomsky confidently accuses Israel of this with no definite proof and without even examining all the evidence that does not support his position is troubling. Sometimes Chomsky's distortions are minor but nevertheless annoying. For example, to persuade the readers that Israel's legal system is biased, Chomsky mentions the case where Israeli soldiers buried a few Palestinians alive and got only a short jail sentence. He has a point but would it hurt to at least mention that the Palestinians were rescued? Chomsky does not. Moreover, some of the sources in this book are just bad. At one point, the author states that Israel blew up some Lebanese fishing boats. His source: Pictures in a Lebanese newspaper. Since when is state-controlled censored Arab press a reliable source of information? All these things seriously undermine the author's credibility. If you want more intelligent criticism of Israeli policies, I would once again recommend the authors I mentioned earlier. To summarize, read this book but take everything with a grain of salt...

This books makes the tragic marine occupation a heroic act, one warranted and needed, while ignoring the absolutlely unarguable role "The Root" played in advancing the United State's colonial-style role in the Middle East. This book should not ignore the Marines who died but make clear that they, like the Lebanese and Palestinians, are the victims of the United States attempt to gain contorl over the region. It was the United States who incited and allowed Isreal to attack Lebanon, the United States who funded the Isrealis, and the United States who can be counted as responsible for the massacres in Sabra, Shatilla, and the chaos brought upon Beirut. This book hails the actions of the government as heroic, ignoring their self-intereseted, despotic, international tyranny and attempts to gain power at any end, over the lives of Marines, Lebanese, and Palestinians. The Root would be better known as The Massacre.

A very good book that tells it like it is. I know, I was there. Mr. Hammel's book should be required reading in every high school in America.

This is an updated review. My last review gave the book 4.5 of 5 stars for a critical typo. Mr. Hammel was kind enough to point out that the typo had long since been fixed.

Here is my review:

A hard look at our duty in The Root from the Grunt's perspective. Very comprehensive, leaves nothing out.

It provides an eye-opening view of Beruit and what we experienced there. Often a contray view of what the media communicated to Americans during that time.

Get the book. Read it. Cry. Be proud that you are an American.

I am proud to have served with the 8th Comm Bn.(81-84) during this difficult time. As Admiral Chester Nimitz said "Uncommon valor was a common virtue," speaking of Marines and their actions on Mount Suribachi; this book shows that the Marines of our time still display the same courage and seflessness of Marines past.

Semper Fi!

Suheir Hammad shows a lot of promise as a poet. Her collection of poetry titled BORN PALESTINIAN BORN BLACK is both a refreshing and intelligent voice from a seldom heard Palestinian American minority. Unfortunately, as a memoirist, she still has a long way to go to develop an ear for good and engaging prose. DROPS IN THIS STORY is not only a painfully thin volume but it also lacks cohesion and depth. Suheir's publisher would have done her a favor by handing her back this manuscript and telling her to come back in ten years when she had something better to say.

Hammad routinely ripples the water on the surface many subjects that beg for deeper analysis. From sexism and bigotry to her parent's ill fated attempt at finding her a suitor. From her father's alcoholism to cutting her long virginal hair to simply being-an-American-while-looking-like-a-Puerto-Rican-and-not speaking-a-lick-of-Arabic. Instead of delving into these funny and painful experiences in her coming of age story , Hammad sticks them to the pages of her memoir like post-it notes, reminding the reader of events that don't connect.

What the reader is left with is scattered pages from some one else's diary that never quite bridges the gap into becoming a real memoir.

Hammad routinely talks about her DROPS--this constant "wetness" that begs her to write, demands that she write...but the story as it was published isn't memorable. One reflection in DROPS recants the story of a waiter asking Suhier what she does:

"I'm a writer," she says

"What do you write about?" he asks.

"Myself," she answers to which he retorts,

"How boring."

'Tis

I enjoyed reading Hammad's book because her voice was so authentic. I think her story would be particularly valuable to immigrants and the children of immigrants because many of the issues she faced are common to people in similar situations. While I've decided to use this book in a college composition class next semester, I did hesitate somewhat because of the very "spoken" (read "ungrammatical") language of the text, but I think her messages outweigh any language concerns. I also strongly believe that the Palestinians' story is one that needs to be shared, and Hammad does a nice job of introducing it in a personal way. A couple of things I did find annoying, though, were the unending references to those "drops" and also a couple typos within the text that should have been caught by an editor before going to print. All in all, though, it's a quick and enjoyable read that encourages thought.

I was assigned this book in a U.S. Literature tfrom 1929 course. I loved it. I found Hammad's constant use of the words "drops of this story" intriguing. It seemed to me that it was representative of the piece itself. She was giving the reader little drops of her own personal story, so when she shifted to another part of her story she let the reader know.She is a passionate and gifted writer. Her insight and honesty make "Drops of this Story" a compelling piece to read. Please write more Hammad.

Lebanese Christian Nationalism is an excellent resource for those seeking to learn more about Christian myths. Not only does the author present a very biased view of the Lebanese civil war, but he also presents the unfounded argument that Lebanon has always been Christian and is only for Christians.

This book is in-line with the author's political views, which are to regenerate an exclusively-Christian movement in Lebanon including the revival of the Syriac language. The value of this book is only seen in its demonstration and promotion of typical Christian nationalist thought.

Not only Phares book is the first comprehensive study of the Ethnic Claim of the Lebanese Christians in English, but it actually scares the Arabist elites worldwide. For "Lebanese Christian Nationalism" simply establishes facts that are hidden by Arabist Historians and Commentators. He shows that an ethnic group, the Aramaic Christians of Lebanon, have established a homeland of their own in Mount Lebanon for centuries. Therefore this enable them to claim autonomy, or a Federal system in Lebanon. Phares praises the Democratic solution to the conflict, and is inclusive of all other communities. However his study focuses on one group, therefore he doesn't examine the plight of others in his volume. Arabist scholars and reviewers resents the fact that a Maronite Lebanese intellectual demonstrates to the West what they try to hide for decades: The existence of many non-Arab and non-Islamic minorities in the Middle East. Phares being among the first authors to clearly shed light on this issue, one has to expect Arabist critiques to go ballistic. For if Phares -who is secular and not religious minded- demonstrate that claim in Lebanon, a domino effect will take place: Copts in Egypt, Assyrians of Iraq, Southern Sudanese, Kurds, Berbers will establish similar claims, setting a major blow to the Pan Arab dreams. Phares' conclusions were twisted by some Arabist reviewers. They put alien words in his mouth. They actually never read his previous and subsequent work. All shows that instead of religious dimension, he refers constantly to the sociological one. This is typical of "ideological" reviewers when they are confronted with a new phenomenon. For instance he never calls for a "Christian Movement" as portrayed in the imagination of Arabist commentators, but for a multi-ethnic secular state, under a Confederal regime.

Phares book has gained its place in the literature, and that is a fact. The caravan has passed..

Malek Adam Lebanese University

Lebanese Christian Nationalism is by far the best book on Lebanon, published in the West so far. Not only it shed light on unknown historical facts, but it also explains complex issues related to the identity of the Lebanese Christians. Walid Phares does an incredible job in summarizing and clarifying a very difficult subject, longtime disregarded by the academic and media worlds. Phares takes us to the heart of the issues, demonstrates the "existence" of a enthic group, the Lebanese Christians, and underline the fact that this group, like many others in the world, has a legitimate and historical claim. Phares book contradicts most books and essays on Lebanon and explain tothe reader why so many issues remained unclear despite the large literature on Lebanon. The book's only missing section is forecasting the future. I believe Phares reserved his opinion for another work, which I am awaiting for..hopefully.