AUGUST 2007
A POLITICAL LOVE STORY
By Uri AvneryŠ
NOT
SINCE the resurrection of Jesus Christ has there been
such a miracle: a dead body buried in a cave has come to
life again.
The "Jordanian Option"
gave up its ghost almost twenty years ago. Even before
that, it never was very healthy. But in 1988, some time
after the outbreak of the first intifada, it was
officially buried by none other than His Majesty, King
Hussein, himself. He announced that he had given up any
claim to the West Bank.
It was a pitiful death. There
was no proper funeral. Shimon Peres, one of its parents,
pretended not to know the deceased. Yitzhak Rabin turned
his back. From dust it came, to dust it returned.
And now, suddenly, it seems to
have sprung to life again. Three wandering scribblers
claim to have seen it with their own eyes. Not in
Emmaeus, where the three apostles of Jesus saw their
THE ISRAELI love story with the
Hashemite dynasty started three generations ago. (Hashem
was the founder of the Mecca family to which the prophet
Mohammed belonged.) In World War II, Iraq rebelled
against the Hashemite king, who was imposed on them by
the British at the time they installed another branch of
the family in Transjordan. The Iraqi king and his
entourage fled to Palestine. Here he was warmly received
by the Zionist leadership, which provided him with a
secret radio station on Mount Carmel. Many years later, I
heard this from one of the people directly involved,
Minister Eliyahu Sassoon.
The British army returned the Hashemites to power in Baghdad. But, as Sassoon added in sorrow, they repaid good with bad: immediately after their restoration they adopted an extreme anti-Zionist line. By the way, the Irgun underground organization was cooperating with the British at the time, and its commander, David Raziel, was killed in Iraq in the course of the operation.
Acre who grew up in Issam
Sartawi, one of the PLO leaders, a refugee from Iraq,
later claimed that when the Hashemites returned to
Baghdad, the British organized a massacre of the Jews in
order to gain them nationalist popularity. The documents
about this infamous episode are still kept under wraps in
the British archives.
But the relations with the
Hashemites continued. On the eve of the 1948 war, the
Zionist leadership kept in close contact with King
Abdallah of Transjordan. Between the King and Golda Meir,
several secret plans were hatched, but when the time
came, the king did not dare to break Arab solidarity, and
so he also invaded Palestine. It has been claimed this
was done in close coordination with David Ben-Gurion. And
indeed, the new Israeli army avoided attacking the
Jordanian forces (except in the Latrun area, in an
attempt to open the way to besieged West Jerusalem.)Ben-Gurion
bore the hoped-for fruit: The cooperation between
Abdallah and the territory that was allotted by the UN to
the putative Palestinian Arab state was partitioned
between Israel and the renamed Kingdom of Jordan (the
Gaza Strip was given to Egypt). The Palestinian state did
not come into being, and Israeli-Jordanian cooperation
flourished. It continued after King Abdallah was
assassinated at the holy shrines of Jerusalem, and his
grandson, the boy Hussein, took his place.
At that time, the tide of
pan-Arab nationalism was running high, and Gamal
Abd-el-Nasser, its prophet, was the idol of the Arab
world. The Palestinian people, who had been deprived of a
political identity, also saw its salvation in an all-Arab
entity. There was a danger that the Jordanian king might
be toppled any minute, but Israel announced that if this
happened, the Israeli army would enter Jordan at once.
The king continued to sit on his throne supported by
Israeli bayonets.
Things reached a climax during
Black September (1970), when Hussein crushed the PLO
forces in blood and fire. The Syrians rushed to their
defense and started to cross the border. In coordination
with Henry Kissinger, Golda Meir issued an ultimatum: if
the Syrians did not retreat at once, the Israeli army
would enter. The Syrians gave up, the king was saved. The
PLO forces went to Lebanon.
At the height of the crisis, I
called upon the Israeli government in the Knesset to
adopt the opposite course: to enable the Palestinians in
the West Bank to set up a Palestinian state side by side
with Israel. Years later, Ariel Sharon told me that he
had proposed the same during the secret deliberations of
the army General Staff. (Later, Sharon asked me to
arrange a meeting between him and Yasser Arafat, to
discuss this plan: to topple the regime in Jordan and
turn the country into a Palestinian state, instead of the
West Bank. Arafat refused to meet him and disclosed the
proposal to the king.)
THE JORDANIAN OPTION was more
than a political concept - it was a love story. For
decades, almost all Israeli leaders were enamored of it -
from Chaim Weizmann to David Ben-Gurion, from Golda to
Peres.
From its first day, the Zionist
movement has lived in total denial of the Palestinian
issue. As long as possible, it denied the very existence
of the Palestinian people. Since this has become
ridiculous, it denies the existence of a Palestinian
partner for peace. In any case, it denies the possibility
of a viable Palestinian state next to Israel.
The unconscious guilt feelings
were deepened by the 1948 war, in which more than half
the Palestinian people were separated from their lands.
The idea of turning the West Bank over to the Hashemite
kingdom was built on the illusion that there is no
Palestinian people ("They are all Arabs!"), so
it could suffer no injustice.The Jordanian Option is a
euphemism. Its real name is "Anti-Palestinian
Option". That's what it's all about.
Everything else is unimportant.That may explain the
curious fact that since the 1967 war, no effort has been
made to realize this "option". The High Priests
of the Jordanian Option, who preached it from every
hilltop, did not lift a finger to bring it about. On the
contrary, they did everything possible to prevent its
realization.
For example: during Yitzhak
Rabin's first term as prime minister, after the 1973 war,
Henry Kissinger had a brilliant idea: to return the town
of Jericho to King Hussein. Thus a fait accompli would
have been established: the Hashemite flag would wave over
West Bank territory.
The same happened when Shimon
Peres reached a secret agreement with King Hussein and
brought the finished product to the then prime minister,
Yitzhak Shamir. Shamir threw the agreement into the waste
bin.
ONE OF the interesting aspects
of this long love story was that not one of the Israeli
lovers ever took the trouble to look at the problem from
the other side. In the depths of their heart, they
despised the Jordanians as they despised all Arabs.
In the middle of the 80s, I
received an unofficial invitation to Jordan, then
officially still an "enemy country". True, I
entered with a rather dubious passport, but, once there,
I registered as an Israeli journalist. Since I was the
first Israeli to go around Amman openly, declaring my
identity, I attracted quite a lot of attention in higher
circles. A senior government official invited me to
dinner in a posh restaurant. On a paper napkin he drew
the map of Jordan and explained to me the whole problem
in a nutshell: "We are surrounded by countries which
are very different from each other. Here is the Zionist
Israel, and here the nationalist Syria. In the West Bank
radical tendencies flourish, and in close-by Lebanon
there is a conservative sectarian regime. Here is the
secular Iraq of Saddam Hussein, and here the devout Saudi
Arabia. From all these directions, ideas and people flow
into Jordan. We absorb all of them. But we cannot quarrel
with any of our neighbors. When we move a bit towards
Syria, on the following day we have to make a gesture
towards Saudi Arabia. When we come closer to Israel, we
must appease Iraq quickly."
The obvious conclusion: the
Jordanian Option was a folly right from the beginning.
But nobody in the Israeli leadership grasped that. As the
wise Boutros Boutros-Ghali once told me: "You have
in Israel the greatest experts on Arab affairs. They have
read every book and every article. They know everything,
and understand nothing - because they have never lived
for one day in an Arab country."
OLD LOVES do not die. True, the
first intifada pushed aside the Jordanian Option and the
leaders of Israel flirted with the Palestinian Option.
But their heart was not in the new love, and they acted
as if driven by a demon. That explains why no serious
effort was made to fulfill the Oslo agreement and to
bring the process to its logical conclusion: a
Palestinian state next to Israel. Now, suddenly, people
are once more talking about Jordan. Perhaps one could ask
King Abdallah II to send his army into the West Bank to
fight Hamas? Perhaps we could bury the "Two-State
Solution" in a Jordanian-Palestinian federation that
would allow the Jordanians to take over the West Bank
again?
The King was appalled. That is
just what he needs! To incorporate the turbulent and
divided Palestinian population in his kingdom! To open
the border to a new flood of refugees and immigrants! He
hastened to deny any part in the scheme.Federation? That
is quite possible, he said - but only after a free
Palestinian state has come into being, not before, and
certainly not instead. Then the citizens may decide
freely.
A famous book by the Israeli
author Yehoshua Kenaz is called: "Returning Lost
Loves". But it seems that this old love is gone
forever.
A Warning to Tony
Uri Avnery
28/7/07
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 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.
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.[newprofile message1316]