What do you think?
Rate this book
Το Ισραήλ, η Παλαιστίνη και η ειρήνη
Δύο τρόποι υπάρχουν για την επίλυση των τραγωδιών: ο σαιξπηρικός και ο τσεχοφικός. Στο τέλος μιας σαιξπηρικής τραγωδίας η σκηνή είναι σπαρμένη με πτώματα και ίσως να αιωρείται κάπου ψηλά το φάσμα της δικαιοσύνης. Στην τσεχοφική τραγωδία, απ' την άλλη, ο επίλογος βρίσκει όλους τους ήρωες ψυχικά ράκη, δυστυχείς, πικραμένους, αποκαρδιωμένους, αλλά, πάντως ζωντανούς. Προτιμώ λοιπόν την τσεχοφική κι όχι τη σαιξπηρική λύση για την ισραηλινο-παλαιστινιακή τραγωδία.
220 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1995
31 people are currently reading
328 people want to read
About the author
Amos Oz
192 books1,654 followersAmos Oz (Hebrew: עמוס עוז; born Amos Klausner) was an Israeli writer, novelist, journalist and intellectual. He was also a professor of literature at Ben-Gurion University in Beersheba. He was regarded as Israel's most famous living author.
Oz's work has been published in 42 languages in 43 countries, and has received many honours and awards, among them the Legion of Honour of France, the Goethe Prize, the Prince of Asturias Award in Literature, the Heinrich Heine Prize and the Israel Prize. In 2007, a selection from the Chinese translation of A Tale of Love and Darkness was the first work of modern Hebrew literature to appear in an official Chinese textbook.
Since 1967, Oz had been a prominent advocate of a two-state solution to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.
Oz's work has been published in 42 languages in 43 countries, and has received many honours and awards, among them the Legion of Honour of France, the Goethe Prize, the Prince of Asturias Award in Literature, the Heinrich Heine Prize and the Israel Prize. In 2007, a selection from the Chinese translation of A Tale of Love and Darkness was the first work of modern Hebrew literature to appear in an official Chinese textbook.
Since 1967, Oz had been a prominent advocate of a two-state solution to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews
January 22, 2026
Παλαιό βιβλίο ξεπερασμένο από τα γεγονότα. Χρήσιμο για να να κατανοήσει όμως το σκεπτικό της πλευράς εκείνων των ισραηλινών που θεωρούσαν ως λύση τη Λύση των Δυο Κρατών. Ένας απ' αυτούς ήταν ο γνωστός συγγραφέας Άμος Οζ. Γενικά χρήσιμο για να καταλάβει κανείς τις αντιλήψεις των μετριοπαθών σιωνιστών, ρεύμα που έχει πια εκλείψει.
Οι συμφωνίες του Όσλο και του Ντέιτον στη θεωρία ήταν αυτό που ζητούσε ο Άμος Οζ, δηλαδή την δημιουργία μιας παλαιστινιακής αρχής υπό την εποπτεία του ισραηλινού στρατού στα Κατεχόμενα της Δυτικής Όχθης, για απροσδιόριστο διάστημα, μέχρι οι «παλαιστίνιοι να αποδείξουν ότι θέλουν την ειρήνη» και τότε να συγκροτήσουν ανεξάρτητο κράτος. Στην πραγματικότητα, ο βίαιος εποικισμός συνεχιζόταν ακόμα και τις μέρες που διαρκούσαν οι διαπραγματεύσεις και φυσικά ακολούθησαν και την υπογραφή τους. Το ίδιο και οι διακρίσεις εις βάρος των παλαιστίνιων υπηκόων του Ισραήλ. Συνεπώς, ο Οζ θεωρητικολογεί και εξωραΐζει ή αποδεικνύει (το αναφέρει και σε ένα από τα άρθρα του) ότι στην πραγματικότητα το Ισραήλ ακολούθησε άλλη τακτική, μην μπορώντας να κάνει καλά τον γηγενή πληθυσμό, σ' ένα πεδίο της Μέσης Ανατολής που δεν το έπαιρνε τότε να κάνει κάτι πιο ριζικό (όπως σήμερα).
Είναι πολύ ενδιαφέροντα τα ιστορικά στοιχεία που δίνει για τον αρχικό εποικισμό (όσο ήταν αγγλική αποικία η Παλαιστίνη) και την νοοτροπία των πρώτων σιωνιστών που κατέφθασαν, στους οποίους αποδίδει σοσιαλίζουσες ιδέες. Επίσης, για τη διαμάχη μεταξύ μετριοπαθών και σκληροπυρηνικών σιωνιστών μετά την ίδρυση του κράτους του Ισραήλ, μεταξύ «περιστερών» και «γερακιών» (όπως τους ονοματίζει), και για τη θαρραλέα κριτική που κάνει προς τους δεύτερους, αναλύοντας σε διάφορα άρθρα τις απόψεις και των μεν και των δε. Τη χρονιά που εκδόθηκε θα ήταν πολύ κατατοπιστικό σε έναν τρίτο αναγνώστη, σήμερα παρωχημένο και περίεργο.
Οι συμφωνίες του Όσλο και του Ντέιτον στη θεωρία ήταν αυτό που ζητούσε ο Άμος Οζ, δηλαδή την δημιουργία μιας παλαιστινιακής αρχής υπό την εποπτεία του ισραηλινού στρατού στα Κατεχόμενα της Δυτικής Όχθης, για απροσδιόριστο διάστημα, μέχρι οι «παλαιστίνιοι να αποδείξουν ότι θέλουν την ειρήνη» και τότε να συγκροτήσουν ανεξάρτητο κράτος. Στην πραγματικότητα, ο βίαιος εποικισμός συνεχιζόταν ακόμα και τις μέρες που διαρκούσαν οι διαπραγματεύσεις και φυσικά ακολούθησαν και την υπογραφή τους. Το ίδιο και οι διακρίσεις εις βάρος των παλαιστίνιων υπηκόων του Ισραήλ. Συνεπώς, ο Οζ θεωρητικολογεί και εξωραΐζει ή αποδεικνύει (το αναφέρει και σε ένα από τα άρθρα του) ότι στην πραγματικότητα το Ισραήλ ακολούθησε άλλη τακτική, μην μπορώντας να κάνει καλά τον γηγενή πληθυσμό, σ' ένα πεδίο της Μέσης Ανατολής που δεν το έπαιρνε τότε να κάνει κάτι πιο ριζικό (όπως σήμερα).
Είναι πολύ ενδιαφέροντα τα ιστορικά στοιχεία που δίνει για τον αρχικό εποικισμό (όσο ήταν αγγλική αποικία η Παλαιστίνη) και την νοοτροπία των πρώτων σιωνιστών που κατέφθασαν, στους οποίους αποδίδει σοσιαλίζουσες ιδέες. Επίσης, για τη διαμάχη μεταξύ μετριοπαθών και σκληροπυρηνικών σιωνιστών μετά την ίδρυση του κράτους του Ισραήλ, μεταξύ «περιστερών» και «γερακιών» (όπως τους ονοματίζει), και για τη θαρραλέα κριτική που κάνει προς τους δεύτερους, αναλύοντας σε διάφορα άρθρα τις απόψεις και των μεν και των δε. Τη χρονιά που εκδόθηκε θα ήταν πολύ κατατοπιστικό σε έναν τρίτο αναγνώστη, σήμερα παρωχημένο και περίεργο.
December 15, 2016
What makes this book tinged with sadness is when you look at when these essays were written and how unfulfilled the authors dreams of a solution is. OZ's arguments for recognizing that each party has a narrative that is true is potent.
July 12, 2007
His crystal-clear analysis of the historical injustices perpetrated by both sides of the Israel-Palestine conflict also reveal a hope for a future of peaceful co-existence.
April 4, 2022
Most of these essays were written in the 90s. The writing is excellent with a heavy dose of cynical realism. Oz admits, “Ultimately these pages were written by an Israeli who fought for his country and who loves it, even during dark times when he was unable to like it. I have never maintained that ‘right or wrong – I must stand up for my country’; I have often felt that my country will survive and prosper only if it does right.”
As a leader in the Peace Now movement, he argues that the conflict between Israel should not be seen as good guys against the bad guys. He regards BOTH nations as in the right (for wanting to hang on to their land) and that they must accept a painful compromise.
“What is the right of the Zionist side? It is the right of a drowning man who takes hold of the only available raft, even if it means pushing aside the legs of people who are already sitting on it so as to make some room for himself. So long as he only asks them to move up, and does not demand that they get off the raft or drown in the sea. A Zionism which asks for a part of the land is morally justified; a Zionism which asks the Palestinians to renounce their identity and give up the whole land is not justified…. I blame the militant Zionists for disregarding the identity of the Palestinian population; but I cannot blame the Jews for seeing the Land of Israel as their last possible life-raft.”
In his own words, “Nobody is entirely happy but everyone stops dying and starts living.”
I was able to knock off two categories in the Literary Life Podcast reading challenge with this one: A book of essays from this century and a book from an opposing perspective (I read Blood Brothers earlier this year which gave the Palestinian side of the conflict.)
As a leader in the Peace Now movement, he argues that the conflict between Israel should not be seen as good guys against the bad guys. He regards BOTH nations as in the right (for wanting to hang on to their land) and that they must accept a painful compromise.
“What is the right of the Zionist side? It is the right of a drowning man who takes hold of the only available raft, even if it means pushing aside the legs of people who are already sitting on it so as to make some room for himself. So long as he only asks them to move up, and does not demand that they get off the raft or drown in the sea. A Zionism which asks for a part of the land is morally justified; a Zionism which asks the Palestinians to renounce their identity and give up the whole land is not justified…. I blame the militant Zionists for disregarding the identity of the Palestinian population; but I cannot blame the Jews for seeing the Land of Israel as their last possible life-raft.”
In his own words, “Nobody is entirely happy but everyone stops dying and starts living.”
I was able to knock off two categories in the Literary Life Podcast reading challenge with this one: A book of essays from this century and a book from an opposing perspective (I read Blood Brothers earlier this year which gave the Palestinian side of the conflict.)
January 15, 2017
Brilliant essays on Israel and his own views of the peace process. I'd call this book a must read for any and all interested in understanding the views of Israelis, especially those on the left. Oz is a great writer.
April 5, 2007
this is why i attempt to write, teach, storytell, learn and make peace at the same time. just read the first paragraph and you'll be hooked.
November 3, 2025
This came out a while ago but not much has changed unfortunately. So as politically correct to the time and naive as this is, it’s still worth reading if only to understand his nationalist perspective. I sense blood in the water when he uses the word “peace” throughout the entirety of the persuasive argument. All this redefining of David vs. Goliath. Arabs are associated with terrorism in one sentence and given agency the next. Palestinians are seen as the equitable other side of a peaceful coin they would realistically want nothing to do with should they be given a proper hammer and sickle to break into the piggy bank.
Oz takes a “Chekhovian” perspective against the Shakespearean death drama. He throws around the name Tolstoy like he’s sat at a ghetto with him. As little as he has done the reading of folks like Dostoyevsky, who apparently misrepresents the spirit of brothers in arms, Oz does make an interesting appeal to Israel as a state founded by Communist intentions. I’ll take all the pseudo intellectualism if we get to meditate on a cushion with that one.
Oz claims we won’t like the solutions, but at least less people will die. This form of colonial pacifism frequently gets used against the optics of an occupied force. When the apparently equitable other side uses violence, we all hear about it. But when Israel’s assassination team quietly mows down generations of people we’re left to consider it an upstanding organized violence of integrity. “Integrity” being a word Oz uses while claiming writers should be aware and weary of deceptively persuasive arguments.
When Oz wants this not to be seen as a racial or religious thing he has the privilege to that perspective. We might consider how that stance is used against the other side. Words like peace and war are representationally territorialized by the colonizer. Colonial violence is okay not to hear about until Arabs do it. By then our media sources Christianize it. We’re encouraged to get out our mandalas just then. Pacifism is apparently the only way to peace when it suits the right moment. If we were to see this as socioeconomic and an actual apartheid, we might talk more seriously about MLK jr. or Nelson Mandela as socioeconomic emotional leaders…Or maybe even someone who is acting violent while black AND Arab! Although it’s difficult for the Malcom X, let alone the Huey P. Newton types to be taken seriously as anything other than poetic terrors. Too conflationary to bring Americans into this for starters. These guys are considered representatives of the wrong side of dialectical materialism. We’re not allowed to go beyond the nationalist narratives of race.
Israel did have the upper hand at this time on the Viet Nam War narrative, in large part due to intellectuals like Michael Walzer. You’d think we could delve into that and into liberalism more generally, if we’re going to do the reading and win the argument. Instead we get pseudo intellectualism and the demeaning swathes of nationalist gut perspectives. Oz embodies a media driven populist belief in neoliberalism, as liberalism.
His Chekhov vs Shakespeare makes sense. But Dostoyevsky as a fabled brothers in arms? Is this used to bring awareness to communism again? His equating Israel’s faults to a fear of communism is almost McCarthyist. Which is too bad because there’s some actual truth in it, when you look at Stalin and the financial motivations of nation states in WWII. Here is where Oz could have employed Walzer if he wanted to guide an interesting argument against the equitable communist style mechanization of human behavior long term.
Communism and the roots of the Israeli nation state is a fascinating idea. But he also wants two nation states, to equate one nation state to another when it comes to the accountability of violence. We can’t all get along with each other like we should be expected to do, without an authoritarian enough public rule. A liberal belief most of us are still economized by. Oz mentions the Arabs have been here for a while too! Unfortunately, he lazily couches it in hypothetical Palestinian nation state status only when the Arabs are not supposed to be piping us full of lead.
Oz takes a “Chekhovian” perspective against the Shakespearean death drama. He throws around the name Tolstoy like he’s sat at a ghetto with him. As little as he has done the reading of folks like Dostoyevsky, who apparently misrepresents the spirit of brothers in arms, Oz does make an interesting appeal to Israel as a state founded by Communist intentions. I’ll take all the pseudo intellectualism if we get to meditate on a cushion with that one.
Oz claims we won’t like the solutions, but at least less people will die. This form of colonial pacifism frequently gets used against the optics of an occupied force. When the apparently equitable other side uses violence, we all hear about it. But when Israel’s assassination team quietly mows down generations of people we’re left to consider it an upstanding organized violence of integrity. “Integrity” being a word Oz uses while claiming writers should be aware and weary of deceptively persuasive arguments.
When Oz wants this not to be seen as a racial or religious thing he has the privilege to that perspective. We might consider how that stance is used against the other side. Words like peace and war are representationally territorialized by the colonizer. Colonial violence is okay not to hear about until Arabs do it. By then our media sources Christianize it. We’re encouraged to get out our mandalas just then. Pacifism is apparently the only way to peace when it suits the right moment. If we were to see this as socioeconomic and an actual apartheid, we might talk more seriously about MLK jr. or Nelson Mandela as socioeconomic emotional leaders…Or maybe even someone who is acting violent while black AND Arab! Although it’s difficult for the Malcom X, let alone the Huey P. Newton types to be taken seriously as anything other than poetic terrors. Too conflationary to bring Americans into this for starters. These guys are considered representatives of the wrong side of dialectical materialism. We’re not allowed to go beyond the nationalist narratives of race.
Israel did have the upper hand at this time on the Viet Nam War narrative, in large part due to intellectuals like Michael Walzer. You’d think we could delve into that and into liberalism more generally, if we’re going to do the reading and win the argument. Instead we get pseudo intellectualism and the demeaning swathes of nationalist gut perspectives. Oz embodies a media driven populist belief in neoliberalism, as liberalism.
His Chekhov vs Shakespeare makes sense. But Dostoyevsky as a fabled brothers in arms? Is this used to bring awareness to communism again? His equating Israel’s faults to a fear of communism is almost McCarthyist. Which is too bad because there’s some actual truth in it, when you look at Stalin and the financial motivations of nation states in WWII. Here is where Oz could have employed Walzer if he wanted to guide an interesting argument against the equitable communist style mechanization of human behavior long term.
Communism and the roots of the Israeli nation state is a fascinating idea. But he also wants two nation states, to equate one nation state to another when it comes to the accountability of violence. We can’t all get along with each other like we should be expected to do, without an authoritarian enough public rule. A liberal belief most of us are still economized by. Oz mentions the Arabs have been here for a while too! Unfortunately, he lazily couches it in hypothetical Palestinian nation state status only when the Arabs are not supposed to be piping us full of lead.
May 1, 2007
Hearing the strong voice of a peace activist
June 7, 2009
Admittedly, just some of the essays. Fabulous.
November 13, 2023
"Do despicable and criminal methods employed by your enemies give you, or do they not, the right to employ reprehensible and criminal methods in your own struggle?"
"In the race between the opening of eyes and the intensification of hatred, which side will win, reason or hatred?"
"Palestinian freedom is morally inevitable and undeniable, and, as long as the Palestinians have no freedom, our own freedom is doomed to remain crippled."
"Wherever right clashes with right [with claims to the land], a value higher than right ought to prevail - and this value is life itself."
"The conflict between Israel and Palestine is, I always insist, a tragic collision between right and right, between two very convincing claims. Such a tragedy can either be resolved by total destruction of one of the parties (or both of them), or else it can be resolved through a sad, painful, inconsistent compromise in which everyone gets only some of what they want, so that nobody is entirely happy but everyone stops dying and starts living."
"Perhaps the very first joint project to be created by Palestinians and Israelis, as soon as peace between them is established, should be a monument to our mutual stupidity."
"I have never maintained that 'right or wrong - I must stand up for my country'; I have often felt that my country will survive and prosper only if it does right."
"Flag-patriotism must give way to humanity-patriotism, earth-patriotism, patriotism of the forests, the water, the air, and the light: creative relations with creation itself."
"In the race between the opening of eyes and the intensification of hatred, which side will win, reason or hatred?"
"Palestinian freedom is morally inevitable and undeniable, and, as long as the Palestinians have no freedom, our own freedom is doomed to remain crippled."
"Wherever right clashes with right [with claims to the land], a value higher than right ought to prevail - and this value is life itself."
"The conflict between Israel and Palestine is, I always insist, a tragic collision between right and right, between two very convincing claims. Such a tragedy can either be resolved by total destruction of one of the parties (or both of them), or else it can be resolved through a sad, painful, inconsistent compromise in which everyone gets only some of what they want, so that nobody is entirely happy but everyone stops dying and starts living."
"Perhaps the very first joint project to be created by Palestinians and Israelis, as soon as peace between them is established, should be a monument to our mutual stupidity."
"I have never maintained that 'right or wrong - I must stand up for my country'; I have often felt that my country will survive and prosper only if it does right."
"Flag-patriotism must give way to humanity-patriotism, earth-patriotism, patriotism of the forests, the water, the air, and the light: creative relations with creation itself."
February 23, 2024
oz captures the tragedy of the war like no one else. so refreshing to hear an individual with direct ties to one of the two “sides” be so clear-headed in his understanding of the right and wrongs of both. so beautiful in its writing and so very sad that oz never got to see his hopes for the two states pan out. doubly sad to see that we’ve seemingly progressed backwards since the writing of these essays and speeches. oz genuinely believed that peace could be maintained, though i wonder if his opinion would have changed in modern day. it breaks my heart to know that his relatively realistic and highly probable solutions might now be impossible. i hope we can still achieve the ideas oz proposes, and i hope i love to see it. i highly recommend this to everyone, and strongly believe it should be required reading for anyone hoping to discuss israel and palestine.
February 15, 2025
Es un libro interesante, que reune breve escritos y enayos de Amos Oz. Mi apreciación es que muchas veces los argumentos entre ensayos se repiten. No obstante, reunen el pensamiento de Amos Oz acerca de su visión sobre el proceso de paz en el conflicto Palestino-Israelí.
Este libro fue publicado en 1994, cuando se veía alguna luz al final del túnel con los acuerdos de Oslo. Desgraciadamente hoy en día ya no es posible ver ninguna luz de esperanza en este conflicto.
Este libro fue publicado en 1994, cuando se veía alguna luz al final del túnel con los acuerdos de Oslo. Desgraciadamente hoy en día ya no es posible ver ninguna luz de esperanza en este conflicto.
December 29, 2025
This was ok, but it requires quite a lot of knowledge of Israeli historic political affairs which I don’t have, and also some of it is fairly repetitive. The best essay is probably the transcript of his 1993 Peace Now rally speech.
April 25, 2019
Σκληρό και ρεαλιστικό
Read
November 17, 2023Feels weird to rate the books I'm reading to learn more about Israel and Palestine, so I won't.
October 7, 2024
3.5⭐️
not the best book on Israel & Palestine ive read
not the best book on Israel & Palestine ive read
November 2, 2023
Amos Oz, a través de múltiples ensayos, analiza y trata profundamente el conflicto Palestino-Israelí desde un lugar moderado. Como siempre, Oz prueba ser profundo, ameno y analítico.
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews