TJP

Tony Blair: The Wrong Choice for Middle East Envoy

Byron Ellis

June 27, 2007

Tony Blair, one of the architects of the ongoing chaos in the Middle East, has been appointed Middle East envoy by the so-called “Quartet.” The Quartet is a self-appointed group made up of the United States, Russia, the European Union, and the United Nation.

One of Blair’s solutions to the Middle East problem was to support the Iraq invasion to achieve regime change. As result, the BBC said that he faces an uphill task to address Palestinian misgivings over his ties to Israel and the United States. He is also mistrusted in the region, they know that he is biased and a contributor to the current instability in the region.

Blair’s appointment was delayed due to Russia’s reservations. Hamas and others in the region do not see his appointment as helpful. Many conclude that the self-appointed Quartet goal is to embrace their own interest by strengthening Fatah and marginalizing Hamas.

However, how can such strategy work with the Palestinian people? For instance, Blair argues that the consensus across the international community is a two state solution. However, a two state solution is not a Palestinian or regional consensus. It is quite obvious that he, as well as the Quartet, is not taking Palestinians views into consideration.

The public ought to remember that the so called international community, in short Europe and the United States, also almost unanimously claimed a consensus on Iraq’s weapon of mass destruction, which was a figment of their imagination. Blair and his cohorts do not understand the dynamics of the Middle East and they continue to embrace unworkable policies and strategies.

The problem of the Middle East is not the Palestinians, but rather the occupation of Palestine. Therefore, the problem to be solved is the occupation. And, it is intractable because the occupiers are unwilling to cease their occupation.

The situation is similar to the Afrikaners occupation of South Africa; as long as the occupiers were entrenched in maintaining power, the native South Africans continued their resistance to regain their country. And, they finally did. However, in the process of apartheid and the struggle for regaining their country there was countless loss of life.

In retrospect, it is clear that the apartheid regime and the freedom fighters could have achieved an optimum position without the loss of life. The occupiers could have shared power earlier under a similar reconciliation scheme, such as the one implemented by the freedom fighters without the bloodshed.

The Afrikaners, like the Israelis, were economically and militarily superior to the freedom fighters, and supported and supplied by the West. Therefore, the parallel between the former South Africa’s apartheid regime and Israel’s regime is striking.  Thus, the solutions adapted by the Afrikaners and the South African freedom fighters may be applicable to a peaceful coexistence between Palestinians and Israelis.

Like apartheid South Africa, Israelis and the Palestinians can find a power sharing position whereby both parties are reasonable satisfied. But, when the West and Israel refuse to communicate with Hamas and other opposing groups, they signal that power sharing and conflict resolution is not their main goal.