Further to my comments last week on this subject, an update on Mr Wolfensohn’s progress toward the holy grail of Rights Based Lending. As of yesterday, China has a “winning formula” that the rest of the world ought to copy, while Israel can go screw itself. Something for everyone here, I think.
(The second of those two links is, IMO, disgraceful. Lord knows I’m not exactly a fan of the actions of the State of Israel in the territory it has annexed, but where the heck does Wolfensohn get off deciding to have a Middle East policy? Note that his comments appear to have no relevance to the action project involved; the Gaza Palestinians are just going to be made to wait for their new houses because of Wolfensohn’s amour propre, “as a Jew”. OTOH, it looks like he flip-flopped again shortly after that Ma’ariv interview and the discussions are still live after all. Lord, what a clown show)
{ 7 comments }
Luc 05.26.04 at 10:45 am
Wolfensohn said that Israeli requests will receive a negative response. Not Palestinian requests (or requests on their behalf).
So how do you infer that the Gaza Palestinians are just going to be made to wait for their new houses because of Wolfensohn’s amour propre, “as a Jewâ€.?
And, yes, the World Bank needs a Middle East policy. For example a proposal to build a Gaza harbour would be an excellent investment except for the fact that as long as the occupation continues it will need the consent of the Israeli’s. To evaluate any project in Gaza you’ll need a policy regarding the Israel/Palestine conflict. One could say that that policy should be developed by its constituents instead of Mr. Wolfensohn personally. But then Mr. Wolfensohn never said his personal opinion determines the policy of the WB.
dsquared 05.26.04 at 10:48 am
Wolfensohn said that Israeli requests will receive a negative response. Not Palestinian requests (or requests on their behalf
Our survey said:
“Wolfensohn added that he met Ministry of Finance minister, Meir Sheetrit, last week in Washington. The two discussed Israel’s disengagement plan, and Sheetrit asked for World Bank assistance to build new towns, as well as assistance in the economic development of the Gaza Strip in order to reduce the unemployment levels in the region.
Wolfensohn said that World Bank experts are currently reviewing the proposal submitted to them by Minister Sheetrit. However, he noted that in the current mood Israel should not expect any positive response from the World Bank.”
Luc 05.26.04 at 11:57 am
Daniel,
These short newsitems need to be interpreted. Even if you take them literally, it is more likely that it means something else then you suggest.
Part of one of the discussed disengagement plans was that the WB would buy the settlements in Gaza and that Israel would use that money to build homes in the Negev.
As the quote you give doesn’t say where the houses are built, it could refer to this plan. Unlikely though.
Just as unlikely that Israel would formally propose to take responsibility for building houses for Palestinians in the Gaza strip, when at the same time they claim that that is the responsibility of the PA.
What is likely is that these talk were about politics. Israel want to have the final say about what happens in the Gaza, but can’t say that formally, and publicly it cannot say it is opposed to aid to the Palestinians. But the WB is in the same bind, because they can send all the money to Gaza they want, but if Israel opposes it it won’t have any effect, because Israel still has (and will maintain after the removal of the settlements) , a strict control on what happens on the ground.
What Mr. Sheetrit likely asked for was thus not a proposal of Israel asking for money for the Palestinians, but that the WB would take up certain proposals of Palestinians (or etc.) and coordinate that with Israel.
From your second link:
Wolfensohn and Sheetrit agreed that the Palestinian aid committee will arrive in Israel and will hold meetings here so as to coordinate the aid package with Israel, before a final decision is made in Washington.
There is no suggestion in this article whatsoever that there is a proposal from the Israeli’s to build homes in Gaza.
This leaves your interpretation of the Maariv article, that Wolfensohn would turn down a proposal to build homes in Gaza, a bit outside of (my) reality.
dsquared 05.26.04 at 12:49 pm
Luc, I have no control over your reality, but a number of facts about this proposal are settled. The money is being proposed to fund the construction of a new industrial zone in Gaza, a new desalinisation plant, a power plant and social funding for Palestinians.
Matthew 05.26.04 at 4:44 pm
This is similar to the well-intentioned idealism of a former World Bank director, the lovely Robert McNamara. Probably wanting to absolve his guilt from the Vietnam atrocities, he tried to help the underdevelopped world through the Bank, but ended up causing prehaps more destruction than he did as SecDef.
Whatever good social goals they staple to their manifesto, it’s always the bankers and investors that make the final calls.
Luc 05.28.04 at 1:49 am
Luc, I have no control over your reality, but a number of facts about this proposal are settled. The money is being proposed to fund the construction of a new industrial zone in Gaza, a new desalinisation plant, a power plant and social funding for Palestinians.
The WB could easily say “screw you” to Israel and continue with those projects. Except of course for the practical reasons i’ve mentioned.
Essentially those “proposals” are an Israeli view on how WB aid to Gaza should be spend.
To get a better view of the sequence of events leading to that Israeli “proposal”:
Israeli gov’t to study World Bank report on Gaza disengagement
Quoting myself:
So how do you infer that the Gaza Palestinians are just going to be made to wait for their new houses because of Wolfensohn’s amour propre, “as a Jewâ€.?
And as a beside, those proposals are highly political. The first disengagement plan contained a suggestion that the Erez industrial zone could be transferred to the PA.
The industrial zone from the “proposal” is intended as a replacement for the Erez industrial zone.
He suggested that the World Bank fund the establishment of a Palestinian industrial zone in place of the Erez industrial zone, which will close
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/430145.html
Given that the disengagement plan changes almost daily now, I think the WB would be wise to draw its own conclusions instead of honouring the Israeli “proposal”.
Luc 05.28.04 at 4:12 pm
As for the “settled facts” of the proposal, which according to Daniel included a new industrial zone to replace Erez, the new disengagement plan has the following to say (according to haaretz)
A third change relates to the future of the Erez industrial zone, which employed 4,000 Palestinians before a series of terror attacks inside the zone. The original disengagement plan promised that Israel would discuss the future of the industrial zone – again with the proviso that an international body ensure that security demands were met. Now, the plan states that the area will be handed over to the Palestinians or an international body, implying that the Israeli businesses operating in the industrial zone will be closed down.
No new industrial zone then?
The clown show is wholly yours Daniel. And not the World Bank’s or Mr. Wolfensohn’s.
Comments on this entry are closed.