Tikun Olam-תיקון עולם: Make the World a Better Place

Pages

• Home
• Photo Gallery
• Advertising
• Comment Rules
• Subscribe to Posts (per post)
• Tikun Olam Store
• Donate
• Subscribe (daily digest)
• Contact
• About
• Monthly archives
• Terms of Use

4 Responses to “Tony Blair’s Mideast Peace Envoy Role Grows Curiouser and Curiouser”

1. LeaNder says:

   June 28, 2007 at 2:57 AM

   When Condi was over here in Germany for the first time she gave interview with DER SPIEGEL.(2002/2003?) I’ll probably never forget the following passage.

   Condi: After 1989 everybody wondered what would be the next great threat- ;-(;-no more Cold War ;-). But then 911 happened and everybody knew.

   I have find it to get the exact phrasing for you. I already thought about it, when Condi was on your mind last time. It read strangely delighted to me.

   Reply
2. John Yorke says:

   June 28, 2007 at 1:11 PM

   Hi Richard,

   No need to worry about Tony B and his effectiveness as envoy extraordinaire to the Middle East. I e-mailed him on Tuesday when he was still Prime Minister. He now has the full spec on what to do if it all falls apart in his dealings with matters Middle Eastern.

   Here is what I said..

   ——————————————————————————————————–

   RE: International Affairs
   Dear Mr. Blair, 26th June 2007.

   Although I may have disagreed with some decisions made in your name – and technically mine also – I am somewhat saddened by your departure from No. 10. After so long a residence there, it will take some time to get used to not having you about the place. No doubt, this will reflect your own feelings in the matter.

   You now appear to be embarking on a fresh round of Middle East diplomacy. Good for you and I hope you manage to make a better fist of things as peace ambassador than most of your predecessors. That being said, this particular port-of-call has seen precious little return on all such efforts – and there have been many over the years. In the event yours meet with similar success, might I suggest you take along a back-up plan, some fail-safe device to throw into the breach should more conventional measures fail you. I would not like to see you come away from the table with absolutely nothing to show for all the commitment and promise your journey there might carry.

   I may also send this to Gordon. I think the first paragraph should appeal to any chancellor of the exchequer worthy of the name. As for the last paragraph, it contains the most classic get-out clause of all time. It must, therefore, surely recommend itself to politicians everywhere – with, perhaps, the exception of one contingent.

   http://yorketowers.blogspot.com

   Warmest regards,

   John Yorke.
   —————————————————————————————————————-

   His reply was certainly formulaic but welcome nonetheless.

   —————————————————————————————————————

   Thank you for taking the time to email me.
   It has been an enormous honour to serve as Prime Minister for the last decade, and I appreciate your kind words.
   My family and I appreciate the wonderful support that we have been shown during our time in Downing Street.
   Tony Blair

   ———————————————————————————————————————-

   So there you have it , Richard. Tony’s getting on board with the program; there will be peace in our time and all will be right with the world. What next? Well, that, I suppose, remains to be seen.

   JY

   P.S. Hi BJ.

   A good quote but ‘It read strangely delighted to me’ . Can we take it that you liked itl?

   Reply
3. LeaNder says:

   June 29, 2007 at 12:52 AM

   No John, you can’t take it that way. This would mean, I would welcome WWII/IV without any hesitations. … But I can see that if you produce weapons and fund ever rising military budgets you need conflicts. And that this production is a huge power – jobs – that MUST have impact on politics. Sometimes it feels the military and its developments is at the center of our whole industry-machine.

   I wondered after 1989 what would happen now, as many did. And I somewhat feared that now the huge and ever rising production and budgets of the US would need a new valve. What would happen to the ideas that were meant for Russia, would people give up further research in their the military Research and Devoopment give up the path they followed before? I doubt, very, very much..

   What is first the hen or the egg?

   I have to admit that I had shares in the securities sector, I possibly might think differently. But I can also see that the main hindrance to any attempts at conflict solution are the well trodden path, and the money it produces.

   I have to get the quote and I have to get it in context. And than you tell me what you associate with it. I have to admit that to me Condi’s statement somehow mirrored the Research & Development kind of thinking of her former employer. I can easily admit that she is a very bright person, she made the German number one political talk show lady look rather stupid. And I do not think she is in any way “evil” but I sometimes wonder if our structures are.

   Reply
4. John Yorke says:

   June 29, 2007 at 3:05 PM

   Large scale warfare, pre and post 1989, along with the desire and the ability to wage it, stems primarily from fear. Fear of the unknown, fear of an enemy who we do not know and can never get to know, fear of our own dark and primitive common ancestry so often held in check only by the thinnest veneer of so-called civilisation,

   To combat this, a high degree of certainty is needed. And building more weapons of war, more military funding, seldom promotes thoughts or actions along that direction.

   Always a new threat surfaces to replace every old one we succeed in vanquishing. Alas, twas ever thus. And, as long as that situation remains, it will be ever thus.

   Sorry if that sounds a bit depressing. It’s late and I’m tired. I’m sure things will look much better in the morning.

   Goodnight,

   John

   Reply