| July
30, 2007
Why Wolfensohn Quit
A
Warning to Tony Blair
By URI
AVNERY
Tel
Aviv.
Last
week, James Wolfensohn gave a long interview to Haaretz. He poured
out his heart and summed up, with amazing openness, his months as
special envoy of the US, Russia, the EU and the UN (the "Quartet")
in this country - the same job entrusted now to Tony Blair. The
interview could have been entitled "A Warning to Tony".Among
other revelations, he disclosed that he was practically fired by
the clique of Neo-cons, whose ideological leader is Paul Wolfowitz.
What
Wolfensohn and Wolfowitz have in common is that both are Jews and
have the same name: Son of Wolf, one in the German version and the
other in the Russian one. Also, both are past chiefs of the World
Bank.
But
that's where the similarity ends. These two sons of the wolf are
opposites in almost all respects. Wolfensohn is an attractive person,
who radiates personal charm. Wolfowitz arouses almost automatic
opposition. This was made clear when they served, successively,
at the World Bank: Wolfensohn was very popular, Wolfowitz was hated.
The term of the first was renewed, a rare accolade, the second was
dumped at the earliest opportunity, ostensibly because of a corruption
affair: he had arranged an astronomical salary for his girl friend.
Wolfensohn
could be played by Peter Ustinov. He is a modern Renaissance man:
successful businessman, generous philanthropist, former Olympic
sportsman (fencing) and Air Force officer (Australia). In middle
age he took up the cello (under the influence of Jacqueline du Pre).
The role of Wolfowitz demands no more finesse than that of the average
gunman in a western.
But
beyond personal traits, there is a profound ideological chasm between
them. To me, they personify the two opposite extremes of contemporary
Jewish reality.
Wolfensohn
belongs to the humanist, universal, optimistic, world-embracing
trend in Judaism, a man of peace and compromise, an heir to the
wisdom of generations. Wolfowitz, at the other end, belongs to the
fanatical Judaism that has grown up in the State of Israel and the
communities connected with it, a man of overbearing arrogance, hatred
and intoxication of power. He is a radical nationalist, even if
it is not quite clear whether it is American or Israeli nationalism,
or if he even distinguishes between the two.
Wolfowitz
is a standard-bearer of the neo-cons, most of them Jews, who pushed
the US into the Iraqi morass, promote wars all over the Middle East,
advise the Israeli Prime Minister not to give up anything and are
ready to fight to the last Israeli soldier.
To
avoid misunderstanding: I don't know either of the two personally.
I have never seen Wolfowitz in person, and heard Wolfensohn only
once, at a Jerusalem meeting of the Israeli Council for Foreign
Relations. I admit that I liked him on sight.
Wolfensohn
arrived in this country some months before the "separation
plan" of Ariel Sharon. He says now that the separation would
have succeeded "if the withdrawal had been accompanied by the
second part of the separation, which, according to my understanding,
would have created an independent entity that would become a Palestinian
state." He believes (mistakenly, I think) that this was the
intent of Sharon, whom, unlike his successor as Prime Minister,
he respects.
Wolfensohn
envisioned a blooming Gaza Strip, flourishing economically, open
in all directions, a model to the West Bank and a basis for the
new state. To this purpose he raised eight billion dollars. Unlike
other idealists, he invested several millions of his own money in
the greenhouses left behind by the settlers, hoping to turn them
into the basis of the Palestinian economy.
He
stood at Condoleezza Rice's side during the signing ceremony for
the document that was to prepare the way to a brilliant future:
the agreement for the opening of the border crossings. The crossings
between the Strip and Israel were to be again wide open, Israel
undertook to fulfill at long last the obligation it took upon itself
in the Oslo agreement (and has violated ever since): to open the
vital passage between Gaza and the West Bank. On the border between
the Strip and Egypt, a European unit was already taking control.
And
then the whole edifice collapsed. The passage between the Strip
and the West Bank remained hermetically sealed. The other border
crossings were closed more and more frequently. The products of
the greenhouses (together with Wolfensohn's investment) went down
the drain. The frail economy of the Strip disintegrated altogether,
most of the 1.4 million inhabitants descended into misery, with
50 per cent and more unemployment. The inevitable result was the
ascent of Hamas.
Wolfensohn's
complaint stresses the immense importance of the border crossings.
Their closure - ostensibly for security reasons - spelled death
to the Gaza economy, and, by extension, to the hope for peaceful
relations between Israel and the Palestinians. Before the Hamas
victory, Wolfensohn saw with his own eyes the awful corruption that
governed the crossings. Relations between Israelis and Palestinians
there were openly based on bribery. The Palestinian products could
not cross without payment being made to the people in control on
both sides.
Wolfensohn
lays at least some of the responsibility for the ascent of Hamas
on the Palestinian Authority - meaning Fatah – which was infected
by the cancer of corruption. The victory of Hamas in the democratic
elections both in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip did not surprise
him at all.
What
caused this idealistic person to resign?
He
puts the main blame on one person, who belongs to the clique of
Wolfowiz: Elliott Abrams. Like Wolfowitz, Abrams is a Jew, a neo-con,
a radical Zionist beloved by the Israeli Right. He was appointed
by President Bush as deputy advisor for national security, responsible
for the Middle East. With this appointment, Wolfensohn says, "all
the elements of the agreement achieved by Condoleezza Rice were
destroyed". The passages were closed, Hamas took over.
Wolfensohn
accuses Abrams openly of undermining him, in order to get him out.
True, the Quartet is not under the authority of Abrams, but a person
in this position cannot function without solid American support.
Abrams pushed him out in cooperation with Ehud Olmert and Dov Weisglass,
Sharon's confidant, whose plans were menaced by Wolfensohn's activity.
It was Weisglass, it will be remembered, who promised to "put
the Palestinian issue in formaldehyde."
In
the eyes of Wolfensohn, both sides are to blame for the current
situation, but he clearly blames Israel more, since it is the stronger
and more active party. No doubt, Israel is very important for him.
He had a lot of sympathy for it (In World War I, his father was
a soldier in the Jewish battalions which were set up by the British
army and sent to Palestine.) He gave the interview to the Israeli
paper in order to voice a severe warning: time is not working for
us.
The
demographic clock is ticking. Today, Israel is surrounded by some
350 million Arabs. In another 15 years, it will be surrounded by
700 million. "I don't see any argument that supports the idea
the Israel's situation will get better."
As
an expert on the global economy, with a world-wide perspective,
Wolfensohn could also point out that the importance of the US in
the world economy is gradually declining, with new giants like China
and India rising.
We, the Israelis, like to think that we are the center of the world.
Wolfensohn, a person with a world-wide outreach, sticks a pin into
this egocentric balloon. Already now, he says, only the West considers
the Israeli-Palestinian issue so important. Most of the world is
indifferent. "I have visited more than 140 countries: you are
not such a big deal there."
Even
this limited interest will also evaporate. Wolfensohn rubs salt
into the wound: "A moment will come when the Israelis and the
Palestinians will be compelled to understand that they are a secondary
performance … The Israelis and the Palestinians must get rid
of the idea that they are a Broadway performance. They are only
a play in the Village. Off-off-off-off-off Broadway." Knowing
that this is the worst one can tell an Israeli, he adds: "I
hope that I am not getting into trouble by saying this, but, what
the hell, that's what I believe, and I am already 73 years old."
I
do believe him - and I, what the hell, am already 83.
The metaphor from the world of theater looks to me even more apt
that Wolfensohn himself imagines.
What
is happening now to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is mostly theater,
and not the best in town.
The
actors drink from empty glasses, recite texts that nobody believes,
put on false smiles and embrace heartily while loathing each other.
The
best scene so far was the Gaza "separation". Contrary
to Wolfensohn's belief, it was merely a performance, melodrama at
its best, directed by Sharon and the chiefs of the settlers, the
army and the police. Many tears, many embraces, many sham battles.
This week the performance was again in the media, with a huge propaganda
machine trying to show how immense was the pain, how the poor evacuees
have remained without villas, how many more billions will still
be needed. The intended conclusion: it is impossible to dismantle
the settlements in the West Bank.
The
new actor on the stage, Tony Blair, is exuding charm and joviality,
embracing and kissing. We, the audience, know that his lot will
be exactly like that of his predecessor. Like him, he is the "special
envoy of the Quartet". His terms of reference are exactly the
same as those of Wolfensohn before him: much of nothing. He is supposed
to help the Palestinians to build "democratic institutions",
after the US and Israel have systematically destroyed the democratic
institutions that were set up after the last Palestinian elections.
He
has embraced Olmert, kissed Tzipi Livni, smiled at Ehud Barak, and
we know that all three of them will do their utmost to disrupt his
mission before he reaches a position that would enable him to realize
his real dream: to conduct peace negotiations, as he successfully
did in Northern Ireland.
All
that is happening now is theater. Olmert pretends that he really
wants to "save Abu Mazen", while doing the opposite. At
Bush's request, he allowed the transfer of a thousand rifles, with
a lot of fanfare, from Jordan to Abbas, so he can fight Hamas -
understanding full well that to an ordinary Palestinian this will
look like collaboration with the occupier against the resistance.
He enlarges the settlements, keeps the "illegal outposts"
and closes his eyes while the army is helping the settlers to put
up more outposts. That is a foolproof recipe for a Hamas takeover
in the West Bank, too.
Everybody
knows that there is only one way to strengthen Abu Mazen: immediately
to start rapid and practical negotiations for the establishment
of the State of Palestine in all the occupied territories, with
its capital in East Jerusalem. Not more discussions about abstract
ideas, as proposed by Olmert, not another plan (No. 1001), not a
"peace process" that will lead to "new political
horizons", and certainly not another hollow fantasy of that
grand master of sanctimonious hypocrisy, President Shimon Peres.
The
next scene of the play, for which all the actors are now learning
their lines, is the "international meeting" this autumn,
according to the screenplay by President Bush. Condoleezza will
chair, and it is doubtful whether Tony, the new actor, will be allowed
to take part. The playwrights are still deliberating.
If
all the world is a stage, as Shakespeare wrote, and all the men
and women merely players who have their exits and their entrances,
that is true even more for Israel and Palestine. Sharon exited and
Olmert entered, Wolfensohn exited and Blair entered, and everything
is, as Sakespeare wrote in another play, "words, words, words."
Wolfensohn
can view the next parts of the play with philosophical detachment.
We, who are involved, cannot afford that, because our comedy is
really a tragedy.
Uri
Avnery is an Israeli writer and peace activist with Gush
Shalom. He is one of the writers featured in The Other Israel: Voices
of Dissent and Refusal. He is also a contributor to CounterPunch's
hot new book The Politics of Anti-Semitism.
|