[update: Newsweek has posted an interview with Wolfensohn that covers some of the specific issues.]

Jim Wolfensohn is now fully engaged in what will be one of the toughest jobs in the world in the coming few months -- helping the Israelis and Palestinians navigate the Gaza withdrawal and prepare for its aftermath. At Gleneagles, he received support from the G8 for something, but exactly what the G8 promised is somewhat unclear. The relevant text from the G8:

We support Mr Wolfensohn’s intention to stimulate a global financial contribution of up to $3bn per year over the coming three years. Domestic and international investors should be full partners to this process. We are mobilising practical support for Mr Wolfensohn’s efforts and look forward to further development of his plans and their presentation to the Quartet and the international community in September. We note the strong interest of Arab States and members of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, and encourage them to provide substantial additional support.

This is a somewhat different formulation from the headlines from Blair's press conference at the close of the meetings. The pres generally heralded a G8 "commitment" to provide (up to?) $3 billion over several years. The "commitment" (to support a plan) was echoed in the "news story" produced by the State Department:

Progress was also made on promoting peace in the Middle East, with the G8 leaders agreeing to support a plan to provide the Palestinian Authority up to $3 billion over three years to help spur economic development and governance necessary for the Palestinians to capably govern themselves and provide stability in Palestinian territories.

To tease out from all of this the probable reality. The official document refers to a Wolfensohn plan to mobilize around $9 billion over a three-year period, with funding to come from Arab and Muslim countries and the private sector, not just from the G8. And the only official agreement from the G8 members is to "mobilize practical support" and meet in September. So in effect, they've given JDW a green-light to put a package together, and they seem to have penciled in somewhere in the neighborhood of a third of the financing he's proposing to raise. But it's his plan to go raise all this money, not theirs.

Now a green light like that is all that a world class dealmaker needs to get going, and remember that Wolfensohn made his fortune as an investment banker. So taking full advantage of the headlines ($3 billion commitment, yahoo!), Wolfensohn has just begun a six-day trip to the region by meeting with Mohammed Dahlan, who is currently the Palestinians' civil affairs minister.

[...]Wolfensohn... described his meeting with Dahlan as "a very pragmatic and frank discussion" that dealt with all aspects of social and economic matters.

"I was asked by the G8 to come back (at the end of September) with a plan devised with the Palestinian Authority (PA) for this economic support," he said.

"We are looking very carefully at tangible evidence that will be shown to the Palestinian people a day after the withdrawal," he said. "We're talking about programmes which will be implemented immediately."

[...]Wolfensohn's visit will see him meeting with top Israeli and Palestinian officials in a bid to focus on six areas that require coordination, a statement from his office said.

They include: border crossings and trade corridors, connection of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, freedom of movement in the West Bank, the establishment of an airport and sea ports in Gaza, the houses which will be evacuated by the Gaza settlers, and the settlers' greenhouses.

He was also to work with the Palestinians on three key economic and developmental issues: resolution of the PA's fiscal crisis and establishment of a new social safety net programme; a package of "rapid impact" initiatives for dealing with unemployment immediately after the withdrawal, and a three-year plan for Palestinian development. [emph added ed.]

Lots of questions up in the air, such as where the funding is to come from for "immediate" projects, or whether Congress will continue to hamstring the Bush Administration by forbidding any monies to pass through the hands of the PA. Perhaps State is hoping that Congress will ease up once there's an overall international plan, with effective oversight mechanisms, through which the US contributions would flow.

That being said, Wolfensohn already knows his portfolio well -- a significant part of the assessments and planning that he will be drawing on has been produced by the organization he headed for ten years until just a month ago, the World Bank. A considerable number of studies and reports on the specific issues he listed have been produced over the last several years by the Bank's staff, working closely with both Israelis and Palestinians. And on security issues with others, especially the Egyptians.

Wolfensohn's intimate knowledge of the politics, the players, and the technical issues, his ability to use the media adeptly, and his dealmaking skills when it comes to raising money from both public and private sources -- plus the sheer force of his personality -- make him uniquely qualified for this almost impossible task. The main risk -- other than the general explosiveness of the whole situation -- is that JDW sure is fond of personal glory, as Sebastian Mallaby has amply detailed. But JDW has learned a lot of lessons over the past ten years, and in the final analysis, he's also a realist.

Here's hoping that being the Quartet's envoy won't be a totally thankless task.

cross-posted at Liberals Against Terrorism

I seem to be on the same wavelength frequently with Stephen M Levine of the Old Town Review Chronicles. In this case, my attack on BushLite -- the use of the neocon mindset and language to frame liberal foreign policy.

Levine explains how attachment to the content-free but high-sounding moral sentiments of the neocons -- whether engaged by right or left -- impedes clear analysis, judgment and policymaking with respect to US policy toward Syria in the aftermath of the Hariri assassination. Though he doesn't frame his remarks in BushLite's terms of "democracy" and "freedom," he argues that such an approach -- of privileging moral sentiment over principles and analysis -- will often get in the way of "doing the right thing." [BTW -- I'd argue that the same sort of blindness is produced by the moral sentiments of those who see the Israelis as "the enemy" of liberty.]

Since Levine's remarks can't be understood out of context, and in any event the Syrian situation is certainly topic du jour, here's the background. Emphasis is mine.

Discussing Israel and Syria, Levine stated that "whatever is called the left" should support the Lebanese people, together with the diplomatic isolation of Syria by the US and France, until Syria is pushed out of Lebanon.

This "anti-Syrian" view (which is also consistent with the Bush Administration's stated policy to ratchet up diplomatic pressure for Syria's immediate withdrawal) was greeted by some surprise by Morgan Feis, a co-blogger. Levine explains:

The reason: because I questioned whether an alliance between the US and Israel to secure Israeli dominance of the region is a good idea. Basically, I questioned whether the strategy enunciated in the infamous ‘Clean Break’ policy paper is the right one. Morgan responded to this by asking whether I would rather see Syrian dominance of the region instead of Israeli dominance.

Levine continues:

I think this response captures something important about the way policy in the Middle East is discussed by neo-cons and certain liberal hawks. For these thinkers, political calculation is one that concerns, above all, the content and quality of one’s political opponents. One does not look at what is the right thing for us to do, one just looks at who is a friend or an enemy. (For certain delusional liberal hawks, the friend enemy distinction maps onto a distinction between morally good regimes and morally bad one’s. This allows them to moralize that which in essence is political).

By this logic, of course one supports Israel and not Syria. But this logic of analysis is totally bankrupt because it has no substance: the question is not whether to support Israel over Syria but a question of how to support Israel. Perhaps supporting Israel means helping Israel recognize that a policy of regional dominance is foolhardy. Perhaps it means trying to achieve a regional piece [sic] even if this means breaking bread with some less then savory characters. Of course, the adjudication of friend and enemy is an important part of the equation that goes into political judgment. However, when it becomes the almost single source of judgment, it clouds clear thinking.

This, of course, is fine for the political forces that take advantage of intellectuals whose critical faculties are paralyzed by the polarizing effect that this logic introduces into political discourse. Indeed, this is the secret of success for extreme nationalist or populist movements. Hopefully, our liberal intellectuals will in the future be better able to resist this demented political logic.

Good guys-bad guys; democrats and tyrants; freedom on the march: this is the language of non-thinking and non-policy. Of relegating the "how" -- the important stuff that makes or breaks policy -- to the realm of "my way or the highway." Of self-justification wrapped in language that deflects, dismisses and denigrates open and serious discussion. Of mass mobilization.

Levine's arguments reinforce my quarrel with Beinart and TNR's constant calls to put "liberal values" of democracy and freedom at the centerpiece of foreign policy.

The road they propose is simply illiberal -- based not only on elites calling the shots, but insulating their real strategies in ersatz moral trappings. And if the trappings aren't ersatz -- if they really will dictate policy -- then they'll lead to very bad policymaking. As Levine points out, they interfere with any clarity of assessment of reality and analysis of options.

I would add to that list -- the more successful you are in mass mobilization through defining enemies and stirring high moral passion, the less latitude you will enjoy in decision-making. You become prisoner of the political dynamics you have unleashed.

I would urge David Brooks to keep his triumphalist optimism to himself until, you know, some actual concrete events have taken place. Peace efforts between the Israelis and the Palestinians have failed many, many times before. I think there is a great opportunity now, mostly as a result of Yassir Arafat's death (as opposed to anything specific that Bush has done). But I remain cautious.

UPDATE: Matthew Yglesias slams Brooks for a point that I was willing to ignore in service of my larger point: that Bobo is being dishonest in ignoring the fact that the bulk of criticism about the wall was about its location, not its existence. And indeed, the Israeli Supreme Court agreed that the route needed to change, albeit not to the degree demaned by the International Court of Justice. So did Brooks disagree with the Israeli Supreme Court's decision? If so, why?

David Adesnik writes:

So how about proposing the most radical solution of all to the Arab-Israeli conflict: a democratic Palestinian state. Perhaps because George W. Bush doesn't have sufficient credibility, no one praises him for suggesting that the Palestinians should have the same freedom as the Israelis. With any luck, the Palestinian people will take the first step toward liberating themselves by participating enthusiastically in the upcoming election -- and demanding that their elected officials behave democratically once they are in office.

Fair enough. So how about opposing Israel's settlement policy? How about understating the Weberian definition of a state?

Tom Friedman writes:

If only President Bush called in Colin Powell and said: "Colin, neither of us have much to show by way of diplomacy for the last four years. I want you to get on an airplane and go out to the Middle East. I want you to sit down with Israelis and Palestinians and forge a framework for a secure Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and progress toward a secure peace in the West Bank, and I don't want you to come back home until you've got that. Only this time I will stand with you.

"As long as you're out there, I will not let Rummy or Cheney fire any more arrows into your back. So get going. It's time for you to stop sulking over at Foggy Bottom and time for me to make a psychological breakthrough with the Arab world that can also help us succeed in Iraq - by making it easier for Arabs and Muslims to stand with us. I don't want to see you back here until you've put our words into deeds."

Well so much for that idea ...

Over to you, Greg.

By the way, I know that Bush has said that he's waiting for the Palestinians to establish a responsible democracy before engaging in any peace process, but it's worth noting that neither Egypt nor Jordan are anything close to democracies, and they're at peace with Israel. So ... is Bush making excuses or does he really think democracy is a necessary precondition for a settlement?

Both the Israeli and Palestinian breeds. And there might be some American and European varieties with a few ruffled feathers as well. About time!

Jailed Palestinian to Run for President

---

[UPDATE 11-14-04 12:20PM]

Well this was quick!

2 dead as Moussa Arafat's forces clash with Abbas guards

At least two people were killed Sunday when bodyguards of former Palestinian prime minister Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) exchanged fire with troops under the command of Gaza security chief Moussa Arafat as Abbas paid a visit to an official mourning tent for Yasser Arafat in Gaza City.
One of the two killed in the shooting is believed to have been a bodyguard for Abbas. The former prime minister, who was named earlier Sunday as Fatah's candidate for the Palestinian Authority chairmanship, was unhurt in the shooting; five other people were wounded.

The 69-year-old Abbas was accompanied by Mohammed Dahlan, the former Palestinian security chief in the Gaza Strip.

Apparently the gunmen shouted "Abbas and Dahlan are agents for the Americans" . Seems the lines in Gaza remain sharply drawn from the conflict a few months ago, with Abbas-Dahlan versus Moussa Arafat. And these are the folks who are supposed to be working together with the Egyptians to plan for transition security when Israel proceeds with disengagement! Have to pity the Egyptians on this one.

I've been busy working on my new toy.

But here's what I've been reading in between edits:

• Impending success in Falljuah but whack-a-mole in Iraq as a whole, and now it's with extra Kurds (to get the insurgents out of the way). Let's hope they succeed without setting off a wave of inter-ethnic violence. In the meantime, maybe something should be done about angry, unemployed former Mukhabarat officials and embittered Sadr city residents.
  
• Kevin Sites has photos of American troops in Fallujah, and Alaa is doing some good analytical blogging of the situation.
  
• Dueling fatwas over whether Iraqi Shi'ites should partipate in the January elections.
  
• Today's chaotic burial of Yasser Arafat doesn't seem like an auspicious start for Abu Mazen. Jonathan Edelstein has a thoughtful post-mortem assessment of the man who betrayed the cause of which he was a living symbol. Greg Djerejian thinks the Bush administration is serious about engaging in a revived Israeli-Palestinian peace process, but Laura Rozen suspects otherwise, perhaps with good reason. Brent Scowcroft sees an opening for peace. Of course, the last time he gave advice, Bush didn't listen. Has he learned his lesson?
  
• Matt Yglesias makes a good point that ties in with what I think we're trying to do with Liberals Against Terrorism: it isn't so much that Democrats don't have national security experts, but that the general Democratic operative community doesn't pay much attention to them.
  

Finally, happy Diwali to our many Indian and Indian-American Hindu readers.

Traditional neoconservative doctrine has it that Arab rage over the travails of the Palestinians is really misplaced anger towards their own oppressive regimes. The road to Jerusalem, it was said, ran through Baghdad.

So why is George Bush calling the non-elected dictator Hosni Mubarak in order to secure his cooperation in Gaza? Shouldn't he be supporting democratic reform in Egypt as a precondition to peace in Palestine? Or am I just confused?

Just in case anyone was wondering, "Bush will still pursue 'agressive foreign policy'" according to Colin Powell in an interview with the FT. (State Dept transcript here.)

“The president is not going to trim his sails or pull back,” Mr Powell told the Financial Times on Monday. “It's a continuation of his principles, his policies, his beliefs.” In his first interview since the presidential election last Tuesday, Mr Powell stressed Mr Bush had won a mandate to pursue a foreign policy that was in the US national interest.

That policy would also be in the interest of friends and alliances, and while it would be “multilateral in nature”, the US would act alone where necessary.   more »

The Washington Post has a good overview of the maneuverings in the recent hours about the Palestinian succession process.

[UPDATE] And since nothing between Israelis and Palestinians can ever be simple, an inventory of some of the complexities of Arafat's memorial service(s) and burial.

[UPDATE 2] And since nothing approaches the complex tin-foil edifices found in that intellectual Bermuda Triangle where "the coalition of the willing is leading the freedom march in Iraq" meets "the WoT as waged by Likudniks" meets "moral values," the Order of the Shrill has sent out for emergency assistance for our Wonkette. Her friends will be relieved to know she's being cared for in the Keening Blasphemy Wing after being driven to shrillness by David Frum. Luckily, the Order has expanded its treatment facilities and is ready for four more years.