What Tony Blair should realise about the Middle East

12 Responses to “What Tony Blair should realise about the Middle East”

1. Red Deathy

   on June 21st, 2007 at 15:10

   Having spent the morning arguing at Harry’s Place – I think that the first step is to go beyond grievance and recrimination – the onus is on Israel, as the hegemon with the power to first of all put forward a meaningful plan to get decent civil rights for Palestineans and kick start the economy there. Beyond that, palestinean politicians have to quit worry too much about where a particular boundary is draw – whatever solution finally comes out, even if it calls itself a two state solution will have to be effectively one state, Israel rules the whole of Palestine.

   Maybe EU membership might be a better way forward…

2. http://modernityblog.wordpress.com/

   on June 21st, 2007 at 19:53

   surely the situation should be seen slightly from afar, there are many parties to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, not least the neighbouring states and their culpability in 1948 is part of it

   still more has been the desire by the Arab states to use the Palestinians as political footballs and deny them basic rights in their host countries (leaving aside Jordan)

   unless there is a comprehensive and wide-ranging peace, which includes the neighbouring states in agreeing to cease their boycotts, normalise relationships and put some of the oil wealth to better use rather than buying guns and bullets, then any resolution is still far away

   in the end, it is in Israel’s vested interest to live in peace with neighbouring states, but until they are prepared to normalise relations fully, then it will be difficult, my impression is that Israel sees these things as connected but would be willing to negotiate if there was a tangible deal possible with the Palestinians and the Arab states

3. Tom, east London

   on June 22nd, 2007 at 01:01

   “my impression is that Israel sees these things as connected but would be willing to negotiate if there was a tangible deal possible with the Palestinians and the Arab states.”

   Care to elaborate on these ‘impressions’? What sort of ‘tangible’ deals do you envisage? Do they involve the dismantling of the illegal settlements and the separation wall/security fence/whatever you want to call it? Do they involve full Palestinian economic and political self-determination? Do they involve some sort of recognition of the ‘right of return’ grievances and some kind of joint arrangement over Jerusalem?

4. http://modernityblog.wordpress.com/

   on June 22nd, 2007 at 02:59

   Tom wrote:

   What sort of ‘tangible’ deals do you envisage?

   I think any eventual peace plan will be based on the Geneva accords, give or take a bit

   I think the dilemma for Israeli policymakers, as opposed to shifty politicians, is that there are many unresolved issues, not just the conflicts with the Palestinians

   firstly, the Golan heights, then relations with Syria, wider issue of the existing Arab league boycott and trading with Arab states, etc

   my guess, and it is purely a guess, is that a lot of the settlements will be dismantled, any remaining ones will either be incorporated into a new Palestine, with Jews taking up citizenship accordingly, and the rest swapped for land

   if there is little or no possibility of suicide bombings and I suppose the barrier would be removed?

   Jerusalem is a sticking point, not sure how to resolve that, but I doubt that Israel will ever give up a large claim to it.

   as for the right to return, another sticking point as it is fairly clear that Israel will not permit the return to within the 1967 borders of 4-5 million Palestinians

   some might return, some would receive citizenship from the countries where they been dumped nearly 60 years, Lebanon, Syria, etc

   I think there will be actual financial compensation rather than a right to return to within the 1967 borders, that’s not going to happen as far as the Israelis are concerned

   for all of that to work it would need considerable political will and support from the Arab countries not only in terms of political muscle and negotiations, but also the funding of a Marshall type plan for a new Palestine

   none of that is fixed, just impressions I get from reading and stuff.

5. Benjamin

   on June 22nd, 2007 at 04:10

   George Bush has asked him to become the Quartet’s special envoy to the Middle East, and the indications are that Blair will take up the offer.

   Dave, it’s at moments like this when one wonders if satire is dead, old boy.

   Like Kissinger winning the Nobel Peace Prize.

6. Benjamin

   on June 22nd, 2007 at 04:13

   Having spent the morning arguing at Harry’s Place

   My dear boy, you must be at a loose end.

7. tim

   on June 22nd, 2007 at 08:36

   I’m surprised that more people here haven’t focused on Syria, and in particular whether the Alawite dictatorship uses conflict in the ME to prop up its totalitarian regime.

8. Sue R

   on June 22nd, 2007 at 09:12

   Well, this isn’t going to endear me to anyone but…I ust want to say, that I do wonder ust what sort of a state thePalestinians would build if they had there own state. They don’t seem to be doing to well with the land they’ve got. I’m not a Zionist, I find the idea of a nation built on religious claims nothing but superstition, however, I am a pragmatist. Mu understanding is that the Palestinians have recieved oodles of aid money and yet not much of it seems to have gone on aiding the people. The very fact that there is at present two gangs of thugs, one a band of thieves the other a group of sister-killing, throat slitters, slugging it out for control of the Palestine Liberation Movement, is not in my opinion a hopeful sign. There, I’ll probably be banned for that, it Dave allows it to be published at all!!!

9. Sue R

   on June 22nd, 2007 at 09:12

   Well, this isn’t going to endear me to anyone but…I ust want to say, that I do wonder ust what sort of a state thePalestinians would build if they had there own state. They don’t seem to be doing to well with the land they’ve got. I’m not a Zionist, I find the idea of a nation built on religious claims nothing but superstition, however, I am a pragmatist. Mu understanding is that the Palestinians have recieved oodles of aid money and yet not much of it seems to have gone on aiding the people. The very fact that there is at present two gangs of thugs, one a band of thieves the other a group of sister-killing, throat slitters, slugging it out for control of the Palestine Liberation Movement, is not in my opinion a hopeful sign. There, I’ll probably be banned for that, it Dave allows it to be published at all!!!

10. Igor

    on June 22nd, 2007 at 10:07

    This post is all well and good, but bears no relation to what is actually happening on the ground. I mean, which Palestinian government will Blair talk to? Until the Palestinians sort out their internal struggle for power, I don’t see any sort of peace process getting started. Sure, Abbas will get support from Israel and the quartet etc, but until the internal Palestinian situation is sorted out any deal with Israel will look pretty hollow.

    Everyone knows what a final peace deal will look like; the problem is creating the conditions in which it can happen. Just last week I saw the Israeli deputy ambassador in London insisting at a public meeting that 2 states was the only solution. I know you think this is just Israeli propaganda, but Israel really did dismantle all the settlements in Gaza and pull out its troops; and the Israeli electorate really did vote in a government on a manifesto of more dismantling of settlements and more withdrawals. Do you never ask the question, if this is what the Israeli electorate want, and what their politicians are promising them, then why doesn’t it happen? It’s as if you think every Israeli is in on some big con. Of course the real reason why it hasn’t happened is because Israelis have seen no benefit from previous withdrawals, only greater danger. You totally ignore Arab/Muslim aggression against Israel as if it is entirely defensive, or they don’t really mean that they want Israel to disappear even if they say it. So your analysis ends up being nothing more than a collection of slogans.

    Perhaps some of you think the idea of 2 states is an unacceptable compromise with Zionism. Your dream of one state is as fantastic – and the process will be as gruesome – as all those people on the Israeli far right who wish the Palestinians would all ‘disappear’ over the border to Jordan. Try ditching the ideology and addressing ordinary human reality. Why do you think it is that thousands of Gazans used to travel into Israel every day in the 1990s, but now it is just one big prison? Why is it that my friend who lives in Jerusalem used to go to Bethlehem every weekend, but now is relieved that there is a wall/fence/whatever to stop suicide bombers coming the other way? ‘Security’ is not just an excuse for Israelis, it reflects a very real fear based on years of terrorism. And yes, I know many more Palestinians have been killed than Israelis since 2000. What does this prove exactly, other than that Israel has more powerful weaponry? I don’t think you can do right and wrong by numbers.

    This reminds me of the Unison motion that got passed this week. Parts of the British left live in a bubble where Israel/Palestine is concerned, and don’t allow events to intrude on their fixed views. As for this boycott…it’s just an excuse to be able to sit at home and say “look what I’m doing to help!”, when of course it helps no one at all. It’s just more ‘not in my name’ self-indulgence rooted in ideological and political bankruptcy.

11. Victor

    on June 22nd, 2007 at 19:26

    I don’t really doubt that many Israeli citizens imagine they want a peace deal but feel insecure and suspicious. The point is we all know the reality of Labour, Likud and Kadima policies with regards to land, water and human rights on the West Bank.

    There are two options on the table from the wings of the Zionist movement: 1) continued expansion and cleansing 2) the handing over of an series of ghettoes to Fatah so they can police them and stick a flag pole somewhere.

    I don’t doubt that large numbers of Palestians and Israelis would prefer the second option.

    With international pressure it could even lead (perhaps under a Democratic presidency) to formal peace deals with Lebanon and Syria.

    It also reflects the human reality on the ground.

    Will it bring real lasting peace?

    Not a chance in hell.

    By the way Igor the word your looking for is acquiesce

12. Alec Macpherson

    on June 22nd, 2007 at 23:53

    BENJAMIN ==> Dave, it’s at moments like this when one wonders if satire is dead, old boy.

    ==> Like Kissinger winning the Nobel Peace Prize.

    Irony, my little fudge-muffin. Only a weary resignation at your inability to understand prevents my plumbing the depths of my pedantry in explaining the difference betwixt it and sarcasm.

    DAVE OSLER ==> Palestinian resort to terrorism is wrong, but hardly surprising.

    By the same token we should then be equally resigned to the inevitability of lethal Israeli responses, and not to seek some form of mediation, compassionate listening, call it what you may. Except, following that line, as Gandhi said, the whole whacky whorld ends up blind and toothless.

    ==> For every Israeli killed, Israel kills 3.4 Palestinians, most of them innocent bystanders.

    An imbalance which those killing Israelis would be more than happy to redress many times over if they had access to the same weaponry as the Israelis, or even free access to the chicken coop with homemade explosives and an AK-47. An imbalance which *is* redressed by through Palestinian-on-Palestinian violence.

    Day-to-day behaviour of Israeli forces in the OTs is often vindictive or plain stupid, but when there is a state of affairs in which much greater numbers of Palestinians dying in internecine battles than at Israeli hands, the question has to be asked if Israel is right to want to protect herself from such a mentality.

    ==> There is also no getting round the fact that Hamas won the last election

    There is. They won 45% of the vote, i.e. a minority, and have proceeded to attempt to seize 100% of the power. That is not the behaviour of a party committed to democratic coexistence.

    ==> Finally, there has to be a recognition that real peace requires an admission by Israel of the historic wrongs it has perpetrated to Palestine [...]

    Withdrawing to stable borders will require an acceptance that the past 40 years have been draining – in self-respect, personal morality, awareness of perception of the world – and that all the hubris and excessive pride which characterized previous days has resulted only in their managing to survive for 60 years. And all they’ve had to sacrifice are the lives of thousands of their friends and family-members, enduring war-wounds which run deep below the apparent lives of monied affluence.

    Both sides should be treated with the utmost sympathy, and not be required to further abase themselves or admit to some basic depravity.

    RED DEATHY ==> Having spent the morning arguing at Harry’s Place [...]

    My dear boy, you must be at a loose end.