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 Israel — 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 neocons, 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 girlfriend.
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 neocons, 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 Israel 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 $8 billion. 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 percent 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.
What caused this idealistic person to resign? He puts the main blame on one person, who belongs to the clique of Wolfowitz: Elliott Abrams. Like Wolfowitz, Abrams is a Jew, a neocon, a radical Zionist beloved by the Israeli Right. He was appointed by President Bush as deputy adviser 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. 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.”
We, the Israelis, like to think that we are the center of the world. Wolfensohn, a person with a global 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.”
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. 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.
