[E-rundbrief] Info 575 - Avnerys warning to Tony Blair

[Matthias Reichl]

E-Rundbrief - Info 575 - Uri Avnery (Gush Shalom, 
Israel): A Warning to Tony (Blair). The 
difference between the negotiators James 
Wolfensohn and Paul Wolfowitz (both from USA).

Bad Ischl, 29.7.2007

Begegnungszentrum für aktive Gewaltlosigkeit

www.begegnungszentrum.at

============================================================

A Warning to Tony

Uri Avnery's Column

28/07/07

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 got rid of 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% 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 - who were 
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's Column at Gush Shalom

http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1185656870/

===========================================================

Matthias Reichl, Pressesprecher/ press speaker,
     Begegnungszentrum fuer aktive Gewaltlosigkeit
     Center for Encounter and active Non-Violence
     Wolfgangerstr. 26, A-4820 Bad Ischl, Austria,
     fon: +43 6132 24590, Informationen/ informations,
     Impressum in: http://www.begegnungszentrum.at
Spenden-Konto Nr. 0600-970305 (Blz. 20314) 
Sparkasse Bad Ischl, Geschäftsstelle Pfandl
IBAN: AT922031400600970305    BIC: SKBIAT21XXX