The NY Times carries word of the latest Bush Folly: Tony Blair as new Mideast envoy. You can just imagine how this one was cooked up. Condi was sittin’ and shootin’ the shit with George with the latter saying just how much he’d miss the old guy now that he’d left No. 10. And that light bulb goes off in Condi’s head: “Hey, let’s make him our peace envoy! You know those Dems in Congress have been pushing for you to appoint somebody. Now, here’s your chance. Blair’s a guy you know and trust, not to mention a real pushover. What’s not to like about this idea??”
Well, a few things for starters. First, while Tony Blair does seem to have his head screwed on right regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, he has absolutely no credibility as someone who can actually move Bush to do anything. Look how many times Blair has sounded the clarion call over the past few years about Israeli-Palestinian peace. How many times has he met with Bush and pushed this agenda? When the Iraq Study Group made essentially the same analysis as Blair that the I-P conflict must be solved if there is ever to be long-term Mideast stability–did Bush pay any notice?
Tony’s main problem is going to be Cheney and the neocons. They still have Bush locked up policy-wise. The only way the Blair appointment would work (that is, if it even happens) is if Blair has some sort of special agreement with Bush that gives him presidential access and carte blanche to negotiate on U.S. behalf without interference from the above-mentioned parties. I just can’t see that happening. Not ever.
In fact, this is how limited the view is of his portfolio:
It remains unclear how broad Mr. Blair’s role would be. American and Israeli officials want him to focus primarily on shoring up Palestinian institutions and governance, economic development and security issues in the West Bank.
Yeah right. They want him to wade into that dysfunctional Fatah-run mess called the West Bank and turn it into a Palestinian paradise. Hey, good luck Tony. You’re being sent on a fool’s errand.
Perhaps that’s why there is some sourness from the other side of the pond:
British officials said Mr. Blair had not yet decided if he would take on the task, and bristled that public comments from the Bush administration were premature.
Interesting that Ehud Olmert had this reaction:
Senior Israeli officials said Mr. Olmert was also very keen on the idea.
What does he know that we don’t? I can’t imagine that Blair will look favorably on Israel’s historic bag of tricks used historically to impede the peace process.
Hello Richard,
I agree that the idea of sending Blair really is a bad joke. I assume, hope correctly that you feel it is a “bad Joke.”
For an important view of the current situation in the West Bank and Gaza from the British newpaper The Guardian, please check out “Hamas Acted Upon The Very Real Fear Of a US-sponsored Coup.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,2108926,00.html
Also, in light of this article and recent events you may be interested in revisiting your comments on my February article, Rice Jerusalem Summit More About Regime Change Than Peace.
https://www.richardsilverstein.com/2007/02/14/nita-lowey-throws-personal-wrench-into-us-mideast-policy/
Take care,
Ira
Yup, I just reread what we both wrote then & you were far closer to the truth than I. The Bushies were stupidly hoping that Fatah would wipe the floor w. Hamas when Fatah couldn’t find its way out of a paper bag. What is it about the Bushies that they always manage to find the most inept allies when they need dirty work done?
I bet it makes George & Dick yearn for the days of Nixon-Kissinger when if you allied with a tough military regime like Pinochet’s you wouldn’t be disappointed in the results. Nowadays, you just can’t find efficient killers like that for love or money.
Could Tony Blair ever really take on the role of Middle East envoy even if he were offered the post?
Unlikely. There are so many vested interests and such a variety of conflicting factions crowding the Middle Eastern theatre that any real chance for his mediation there seems doomed from the outset. Tony has, perhaps, too high a profile, is too well known a politician to successfully be ‘all things to all men.’
Equally, it can be argued that some bland diplomat occupying the position would, almost certainly, fare no better. And we’ve seen enough of those already.
But that would seem to eliminate everyone. Who then is left to take on the mantle of Rice, Clinton, Carter, Mitchell, Tenet and all those others whose efforts amounted to little more than spitballs against such entrenched positions?
Think of it as a test, a puzzle needing to be solved. Exactly how this can be done may seem very obscure to us just now but that’s not to say we’re incapable of doing it.
A favourite pastime in this country used to be crossword puzzles. I’m not sure if they’re still as popular today but certainly in the past they could while away many an idle afternoon. The most fiendishly complex crossword was generally considered to be that of the ‘Times’ newspaper. Very hard to get all the answers to that one.
Over time, however, it become possible to get ‘inside’ the minds of those compiling the puzzles and the solutions then became that much easier. For those who could do it.
What if the rest of humanity took a hand in the matter? If we became, as it were, our own Middle East envoys? Could we not then make a better fist of things? The trick, I suppose, would be for us all to get inside the mind-set of these various contending groups, find some commonality in each of their competing agendas.
So what might they have in common?
Perhaps more than you think; perhaps more than they think.
http://yorketowers.blogspot.com
John Yorke.