Amos Oz represents for me a typical case of an author whose writing I like very much, and to whom I am indebted a lot in terms of literary development, but whose ideas are at the very very other end of my own thinking. I've read most of his books and I am always curious about new releases, but it seems that from a book to another, I am more and more disappointed.
The last two days I tried tremendously to finish a book who is greatly appreciated in Germany, Judas, as it was translated, or The Gospel According to Judas, according to some variants. It tells the story of a small microcosmos at the end of the 1950s Israel, made of Shmuel Ash, one of the best portrayed intellectuals in Oz's writings to date, the old Gershon Wald he is hired to take care of and entertain for couple of hours in exchange of boarding, and his daughter-in-law of his deceased son, Atalya Abrabanel. Following the bankrupcy of his parents company, Ash has to leave Haifa and his studies and find some work. Meanwhile, his girlfriend left him and he is left in the middle of a dramatic existential crisis. Atalya, a woman in his mid-40s, whose hands are obsessively described quite often - always as looking older than the rest of her appearance - was the daugher of a deceaed leader of the Zionist movement, who was in favour of a separation of the land with the Arabs. Ash is kind of falling in love with, accompanying her shyly to her pretended different detective work assignments, and the game of feelings is one of the best parts of the book.
Hoping in an eventual return to academic studies, Ash is using his time when not dating Atalya or entertaining Wald, to work to his graduation thesis, about Jesus from the Jewish perspective. The development of his ideas, his references and the discussion about them are actually the main part of the book. The thesis is that, in fact, Judas, is the one who played the most important role in spreading Christianity because he is the fact the one that was the agent of history whose treason made things happened. It seems that Oz himself is trying to come to right terms with his own history - his intelligence involvement with a British sergeant and his constant position since 1967 on behalf of Palestinians. The interpretation of Judas' personality resonates with the various discussions about the Abrabanel's radical separation from Zionism, with his final pledge against the very creation of a Jewish state.
How far you can go?
The questions are: What are you about to do in order to achieve your ideas? What you do when your dream is fulfilled: you keep dreaming or you build another dream?
In an interview for Israel Hayom with Eshkol Nevo, Oz explains that: 'sometimes, the title of traitor can be wear as a badge of honour', giving as diverse examples as Ben Gurion who accepted the partition plan, or Rabin or Ariel Sharon. He said that 'This book emerged from the pit of my Jewish stomach for all haters of Israel, for all those who creed Judas and drove the dagger into us and burned down the synagogue with the Jews alive inside it'. However, the problem is that the interpretation of the traitor cannot be separated from this new version of Judas and this is simply hard to digest. With a couple words and using his authority of star writer, Oz just turn everything in his favour. I can understand that he tries to publicly explain his own history and image in Israel but still, this sounds very false and in fact, excuses any treason, because, of course, the reason behind it was more noble than it looks at the first sight. Somehow, there is no middle way here: those who are weak and leftist will clap their hands and find a new rationale while those who understand why they are doing this, will never accept it. End of the story.
Deceived by the dream
'Israel was born out of a dream, or an entire spectrum of dreams. Every dream that is fulfilled leaves behind a taste of partial disappointment. The only way to maintain the purity of a dream is not to fulfill it. This holds true when it comes to building a house, writing a novel, traveling the world or fulfilling a sexual fantasy. Israel is a dream fulfilled, and thus necessarily leaves behind a slight taste of disappointment, despite the fact that it is still a fascinating fulfillment of some of the dreams', he said in the same interview. In other words, his apparent detachment and extreme positions that can be assumed as a traitor's are in fact the cri de coeur of too much love and intellectual instability.
With words, everything can be explained and justified, whatever the reason. Should it be a moral limit to it? Here to, it is a matter of choice and, after all, of intellectual honesty.
This book was expected sooner or later, but left me very deceived because it just prove once again some personal assumption that great minds are not necessarily honest.
