Sign in with Facebook
Jake's Reviews > How to Cure a Fanatic
How to Cure a Fanatic
by
by
I'm not impressed. Mr. Oz correctly asserts that both Israelis and Palestinians have made mistakes and will need to make tough compromises in order to end the conflict. However, Mr. Oz draws a simplistic and unrealistic equivalency between the Israelis and Palestinians. This is the unsound foundation upon which he predicates his arguments. Mr. Oz completely ignores historical and current power imbalances between the State of Israel with its fully developed military machine and nuclear capability and the Palestinians who have security forces but no military. The state of Israel also has a fully functional economy, while Israeli military occupation and limitations have hampered economic development in both the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. So yes, compromises need to be made, but, and this is a big but, it is simply foolish to imply that these compromises are being made by two equal players in the conflict. Or two parties with equally "right" claims to land in the area.
Mr. Oz also sticks to the standard line that Arab "rejectionism" is the reason that no solution was reached in 1948. From the extensive reading I have done on the topic this simplistic assertion ignores the complex situation at the time and only serves to blame the resulting 60 years of conflicts on the Palestinians.
Mr. Oz also alludes to his military service claiming he would fight again if Israel faced an existential threat. He says that he is not ashamed to have fought in 1967 and 1973. Implicit then in his lack of regret for having fought in those wars is that Israel was facing destruction during both of these conflicts. Again Mr. Oz ignores history and relies on popular myth and revisionist claims in this case. The reason that the nascent Israelis won their first war in 1948 is that they were better armed, better trained, and better organized than certainly the Palestinians, but also their Arab neighbors. This continued to be the case, and is still the case. It is, not to put too fine a point on it, propaganda, to keep trotting out the old saw that Israelis must continue to fight endless wars in order to stave off annihilation.
I'm glad that Mr. Oz wants peace, but I don't think he has truly opened his eyes to the asymmetrical situation created by the war in 1948 and perpetuated by the well-armed, U.S. backed, military might of the State of Israel.
Mr. Oz also sticks to the standard line that Arab "rejectionism" is the reason that no solution was reached in 1948. From the extensive reading I have done on the topic this simplistic assertion ignores the complex situation at the time and only serves to blame the resulting 60 years of conflicts on the Palestinians.
Mr. Oz also alludes to his military service claiming he would fight again if Israel faced an existential threat. He says that he is not ashamed to have fought in 1967 and 1973. Implicit then in his lack of regret for having fought in those wars is that Israel was facing destruction during both of these conflicts. Again Mr. Oz ignores history and relies on popular myth and revisionist claims in this case. The reason that the nascent Israelis won their first war in 1948 is that they were better armed, better trained, and better organized than certainly the Palestinians, but also their Arab neighbors. This continued to be the case, and is still the case. It is, not to put too fine a point on it, propaganda, to keep trotting out the old saw that Israelis must continue to fight endless wars in order to stave off annihilation.
I'm glad that Mr. Oz wants peace, but I don't think he has truly opened his eyes to the asymmetrical situation created by the war in 1948 and perpetuated by the well-armed, U.S. backed, military might of the State of Israel.
Sign into Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ to see if any of your friends have read
How to Cure a Fanatic.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
Started Reading
October 9, 2012
– Shelved
October 9, 2012
– Shelved as:
books
October 9, 2012
– Shelved as:
nypl
October 9, 2012
– Shelved as:
mena
October 9, 2012
–
Finished Reading
October 31, 2014
– Shelved as:
palestine-israel
Comments Showing 1-2 of 2 (2 new)
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Arda
(new)
-
rated it 2 stars
Nov 26, 2012 12:51AM
I'm halfway through this book but I'm most probably going to absolutely agree with you. I'm so happy to have read your review because I feel like you have seen through it, and that is not an easy thing to do.
reply
|
flag
Jake, I couldn't agree more. Amos Oz's attempt to appear neutral and impartial in his book 'How to Cure a Fanatic' is ultimately revealed to be a thinly veiled justification for Israeli nationalism. As one delves deeper into the text, it becomes clear that Oz's true intentions are to legitimize Israel's expansionist policies and assign blame to the Palestinians.Oz's argument that Israel 'deserves' a larger portion of the land is particularly troubling, as it ignores the historical context of Palestinian displacement and dispossession. The forced removal of Palestinians from their homes, the denial of their right to return, and the ongoing occupation of their land are all glossed over in favor of a narrative that portrays Israel as the victim.
Furthermore, Oz's emphasis on compromise rings hollow when one considers the power dynamic at play. Israel's military might and economic dominance over the Palestinian territories make any notion of 'compromise' a farce. It's clear that Oz is more interested in justifying Israel's actions than in genuinely exploring the complexities of the conflict.
Ultimately, Oz's book is a masterclass in doublespeak, using the language of compromise and coexistence to mask a deep-seated nationalism. It's a shame, really, as a more nuanced and honest exploration of the conflict could have been a valuable contribution to the conversation. Instead, we're left with a book that reinforces the same tired narratives and justifications for Israeli aggression.
