Customer Reviews

How to Cure a Fanatic

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Amos Oz's two short essays are full of valuabe insights into the mindset of a fanatic in general, as well as into just and effective ways to deal with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Coming from an insider in every sense of the word, it is very refreshing to read his opinion that the conflict "is not a religious war, although the fanatics on both sides are trying very hard to turn it into one" but simply a "real-estate dispute". Oz is able to put things into perspective without resorting to hiding behind obscure depictions of the conflict as predominantly a clash of religions/civilizations, or worse, of vile anti-semitism. His message is all the more valuable because he is an insider.

His ideas about the necessity of injecting imagination, as well as a sense of humor, in the mind of a fanatic, provide an interesting, and possibly effective way of loosening up the rigid mould of a fanatic mind. His "Order of the teaspoon" is a fascinating concept (I'm in), but I won't elaborate on it so you'd find out for yourselves!

If only politicians would consult with novelists like Oz, our world would be a much, much better place!

Whoever has followed the Israeli-Palestinian agonies must read this realistic and informed view of what must be done. His writing , as always, is lucid, expressive, and deep.

I usually do not find books written by Israelis or Palestinians about past or present events in the land whose very name is a matter of perspective and politics to be very interesting or enlightening. The authors usually either have an agenda or are engaging in pure propaganda. This book (along with David Grossman's "Death as a Way of Life") is a rare exception.

In lucid, eloquent and sensitive language, Oz presents the situation and the necessary cures not for Israelis, not for Palestinians, but for human beings. If you do not like this book, you are probably a fanatic, and not subject to logical persuasion.

Love the writings of Amos Oz.

This book is probably the one I liked best.

It is a small book, and makes very easy reading.

I believe Mr. Oz is very naive when he thinks they can really have Peace in the Middle East. He is overly optimistic in my opinion.

However I recommend this book.

Hope every Israeli and Arab would read this book!

Amos Oz is plain-spoken, lucid, brilliant. But Princeton UP did a disappointing job with the production of the book. The 2 essays and 1 interview that make up this book are short, and you can't change that. But what kept them from using larger paper? With exactly the same type-setting but wider margins, we would have gotten a beautiful small book. Instead, it looks like one of those over-priced mini books of bad poetry.

Amos Oz, is in my judgment, one of the greatest contemporary writers. His memoir " A Tale of Love and Darkness" is a literary classic of tremendous power.

However Oz is also a 'political prophet'. And often holds forth in a way as if to suggest he feels himself taking upon himself the mantle of his Biblical namesake. Here he should perhaps have been a bit more cautious and remembered the Jewish teaching that in our time 'prophecy' is given to 'children' and ' fools'.

In this small gathering of small works Oz reiterates his well- known analysis of the Israeli- Arab conflict. It is as he understands it a 'dispute over land' between two peoples each of whom has a legitimate claim. The fanatics on one side( A fanatic in Oz's term is one for whom every means even the most bloody justifies the end) are those who say ' all is mine, and nothing is the others'. The reasonable people of which Oz is as he understands it preeminently one( though he makes it clear he too was raised as a little fanatic in pre- Jewish state 'Palestine') understand that there has to be a painful, reasonable compromise. The end of fanaticism is as he understands it the end of the Arab- Israeli conflict. A divided Holy Land, two states, one predominantly Jewish, and one Arab.

This analysis is of course not simply Oz's but has been the analysis of the moderate left in Israel, a good share of Western European Governments, and successive U.S. administrations.It now is the 'dream' of the vast majority of Israelis. It is on the basis of this analysis that US diplomatic initiatives in the Middle East has been conducted for more than half - a - century.

The problem however is that the analysis is drawn along too broad, too symmetrical and at the same time too limited lines. It is not right to say that the conflict is 'primarily' about land. Such a position was more credible three decades ago, but today given the rise of a worldwide pan-Islamic movement , it misses the mark.

The truth is that what Oz calls 'fanatics' are the great majority on the Islamic Palestinian side. ( He denies this, but the recent 'Hamas' victory in the Palestinian elections suggests he is once again ' sweeting' Palestinian positions) . The fact is that there is no symmetry between the ' fanaticism' of the Islamic world and the alleged 'fanaticism' of the Jews even those Oz calls ' settlers'. There is no Jewish Literature no settler Literature calling for the extermination of Palestinians, as there is daily Palestinian and Arab propaganda calling for the murder and elimination of Jews.There has never been deliberate Israeli effort at murdering Palestinian civilians, while murdering of Israeli civilians is a generally accepted Palestinian tactic.

Oz misleads and presents a false picture in harping on an alleged an unreal symmetry between Israelis and Palestinians.

One question of course is why he would want to do this? One answer is very simply that the kind of answer he gives makes a reasonable solution possible. Another answer is that it of course puts him above , makes him the good guy with the Europeans the Americans the Nobel Prize Committee , everyone else who would like to see the conflict resolved in this way.

Perhaps what I have just said is unfair, though Oz's tendency to preach his own views becomes increasingly irritating as they diverge with the years from the 'reality on the ground'.

Had Oz' had a bit more honesty he would have given up certain familiar 'socialist egalitarian 'mantras of his youth- and understood that there is a tremendous assymetry between the Jewish Israeli position and the Islamic Palestinian one. He would have had the honesty to understand that one very vast civilization, the Islamic, has a set of problems , which are endangering other human beings throughout the world. One such leader of that civilization , a leader who considers himself the great protector of the Palestinians, Mohammed Ahmadinejad has been continually threatening to wipe 'Israel ' from the map.

Perhaps Oz's analysis on ' fanaticism' would have been more convincing had it focused on Mr.Ahmadinejad and his ilk.

i.e. Willy- nilly whether it likes it or not , Oz's country Israel is involved in the conflict of those who champion freedom and democracy against those Totalitarian- Terrorist- Islamic Regimes which would make the 'Koran' our sole bed-time reading.

It was a small book, smaller than expected. Its an easy read but not recommended for those unfamiliar with the topic.

Two very short, thoughtful essays and an interview on the conflict between the State of Israel and the (inevitable)Palatinian State; it is about real estate (and economics) stupid; read it and, then, join the Order of the Teaspoon.