What can Blair achieve?
There is, of course, a connection - beyond the merely flippant - between Tony Blair's political troubles and his efforts to end the troubles of the Middle East. His stance on Israel's war in the Lebanon poured petrol on to the burning embers of resentment at the Iraq war. This will lead many to dismiss this trip as merely a photo opportunity designed, in the provocative words of a Palestinian protest, "to wash Lebanese blood off his hands using Palestinian water".
It is neither fair nor accurate, however, to say that the prime minister has suddenly alighted on the issue of Palestine. I recall his passionate speech to the Labour Party conference soon after 9/11 when he declared that "the kaleidoscope had been shaken" and that the world should be "re-made", starting with bringing justice to the people of Gaza. I travelled to Israel and to Gaza with him then and Mr Blair displayed his characteristic optimism by insisting that there was a real chance of peace.
Many in George Bush's administration credit him with selling the "roadmap" for peace to the president and persuading him to publicly declare his support for a "two state solution".
The last time he was in Israel - in 2004 - the then Prime Minister Ariel Sharon used a joint press conference to declare that withdrawal from Gaza was his first step and not his last.
"So what?" many will reply, with Gaza facing a humanitarian crisis and counting its dead; Israeli citizens frightened to live in large parts of Israel, and Lebanon still counting its dead and measuring the cost of destruction.
His answer will be to try to use his influence with George Bush and the credit he now has with the Israelis to argue - as he did in his recent speech in LA - that solving the Palestinian problem should be their top priority. The prime minister's aims for this trip are modest - to persuade both sides of the need to start to talk again. He will also use his experience in Northern Ireland to insist that this issue needs constant high-level engagement.
There's one intriguing thought which that parallel throws up. Peace in Northern Ireland required the British government to talk to terrorists. It's intriguing to note that Gerry Adams was here last week. Perhaps he's advising Hamas on how he persuaded the British government to talk to Sinn Fein before the IRA disarmed. The Israelis, with British support, currently refuse to engage with the Hamas government and Mr Blair will have no meetings with them here. I'm told that Tony Blair understands that one day politicians like him and later the Israelis will have to engage with those they now refuse to speak to.
I'm 
Comments
Re your Blairforce quip (such an oldie it must refer to a biplane!),
consult Roget on 'Brownout'...
" darkness, shadows, uncertainty" ...
Americans use it when there's a power cut and the lights dim!
Love your comments! Happy sailing!
Mike C.
Never mind Blair going any chance you going the most inept shallow and illinformed Political Editor the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú in years...Marr was bad enough but this.Guess TB is going to offer a job as his factotum after he leaves
isnt that your job now ? Go now with us wanting more (sic)
I have never doubted Mr Blair's sincerity or purpose. I doubt Mr Blair has been humbled sufficiently to realise he is misguided in his actions and deluded if he thinks he has the power to influence or persuade Middle East matters to his view of the right way forward.
Indeed it seems more a token 'Grandstand' opportunity and no doubt Mr Bush will be up to something as well with mid terms on his mind.
What a fiasco, lets go to the Middle East thinks Blair. Of the questions he may be asked there, they are less damaging than the ones he has here at home. Or are they? Iraq and Afgahnistan are unravelling spectacularly, he sanctioned the Lebanon tragedy and philibustered and blustered till it was laid waste. And now drops in to Israel. Goodness me, the gall the man has!
And he still believes he has the right way forward? No doubt God is guiding him in his actions, as Blair suggests God is the only one he feels can judge him. So what chance have we? Come on New Labour rid us of this turbulent PM!
Blair can acheive a lot in the year he has left as Prime Minister. But only if people like you, Nick, are willing to allow him the space to do it.
I'm interested to note you don't believe peace has not been the first priority of Israeli PMs since 1948, or that after all the work with Arafat that you think they are unwilling in principle to negotiate with armed and active terrorists. Perhaps you could expand on the reasons why Israel consider Hamas to be different?
Talks are better than bombs, but are only a path to a solution if there is common ground for compromise. A lot of people have asked that they start talks, but nobody I've seen has made any constructive suggestions as to what they should say.
Just watched Blair being fulsomely praised by Olmert: a revolting spectacle.
But I do not blame Olmert for showing his gratitude. Blair's lack of moral courage really sickened me. Not even a iota of critique concerning Olmert's policies.
No wonder the Palestinians (with whose elected Government he will not exchange one word) hate our revered Prime Minister.
Blair may lack friends in the UK, but they are found in abundance in Israel!
Sitting on your backside in London does not give you the right to dictate our future. Europeans managed to murder in cold blood 6,000,000 of my brothers & sisters in case you have forgotten whilst the world stayed silent over 65 years ago.
It was your country who userped the Jews, borrowed their money and when it came to paying back the loans, refused and expelled them in 1290- we have never received any compensation.
If there was not oil in the ME your country would not be interested just like Darfur, Sierra Leone etc.
You and your ilk foster Anti Semitism in the UK by constant over emphasis on the ME as if it was the be all and end all - just open your eyes!
While I applaud Blair's determination to obtain a solution in Palestine, and the UK after the Balfour Letter has surely an overwhelming responsibility to the indigenous peoples and their descendants, the comparison with N. Ireland is partial and maybe misleading. The Irish have their own State (Eire) and the IRA wanted to add N. Ireland. The Israelis have Israel and certain politically powerful want to add part or all of the West Bank (without Palestinians); indeed settlements are being built illegally to that end.
Whether the setback with Lebanon and the unravelling of the Bush Presidency for reasons in which the Israelis are intricably involved will frighten Israel to settle with concessions to the Palestinians (Hamas) is faintly possible; but only if they realise that Hamas will be recognised by the UK & EU countries whether they like it or not.
Gerry Admas is likely to recommend take the 1967 based two state solution and go for more & reparations later, I would.
Like the IRA, Hamas have demographics on their side.
But why do we insist on not investing in renewable energies in a meaningful way and continuing to focus on the Middle East and its endless troubles? Are we forever to be chained to the triple-headed Cerberus of the "three book religions"? The British media and our politicians are obsessed by the region (compare the time spent on South America, a region with, incideantally, far more potential both for human development success stories and, sadly, negative global environmental impact).
Many of the British electoarte want to turn their backs on the despotic regimes Middle East in all their hues until they join an acceptable level of humanism. Our policies on energy should reflect this.
It would be very cruel in the extreme, if this visit turned out to be just a photo-opportunity, without change of policy to force the government of Israel to engage in real negotiation to create a viable Palestinian state.
Can Israel really live with a hostile EU, even with full American backing? The EU is Israel's near neighbour and can make life really difficult by simply stopping co-operating in all aspects of the civil society.
Pardon me for being cynical. Were we not here before? A politician in trouble at home, promising a 2-state solution in the Middle East? Pity someone has forgotten to tell the Israeli government.
It would be great if the UK stopped selling weapons to Isreal, during the assault on Lebanon the UK refused to support a ceasefire. The war has created more pressure for conflict. So who gains, easy, Lockheed and other US arms manufactures who fund both Bush and the Democrats, with British corporations getting a smaller slice of the action.
Will Brown support Blair's neo-con politics? I suspect so.
What can Blair achieve?
Other than hoping to steer journalists like you Nick away from his domestic problems, absolutely nothing. The middle east problem revolves around the Arab world, Isreal and the vested interests in the USA.
But its the thought that counts, isn't it?
Nick,
It is ironic that at this time, with Tony Blair’s unpopularity being lower than ever, he should visit Israel, the state that has arguably contributed to his impending downfall. Or is it a case of him just paying a visit to the puppet master to be given the adoration that he craves but cannot find in his own country?
Forget WMD, oil, democracy etc., Both Blair and Bush have been used by Israel to get rid of Saddam because of his support for the Palestinians, consider this:-
"Every time we do something you [Shimon Peres] tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it."
- Ariel Sharon, Israeli Prime Minister,
Knesset, Tel Aviv, October 3, 2001.
Nick, I just watched your report from the Olmert/Blair joint news conference in the Middle East.
In circumstances like those, your interjection with a question about Gordon Brown was worse than irrelevant, it was a profoundly cheap and tacky piece of journalistic opportunism unworthy of any Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú reporter, let alone one as senior as yourself.
The Prime Minister is there in an attempt to get the Road Map back on the table and thus save lives - if you'd rather he didn't come out of it smelling of roses then tough, why not swallow it for once? - for the greater good.
This was neither the time nor the place for Punch and Judy journalism.
Well it was a colourfull read. Lets talk about plane loads of bombs. At some point, especially considering the furore that it caused, the pm would have been called and asked permission for these planes to land, re-fuel and then go to Isreal. The planes went, so I can only deduce one thing. It didn't look like peace was that important to him, not from where I was viewing anyway.
"Influence with Bush..." thats just taking the proverbial, he has no real influence with Bush: name me one thing he has persuaded GW Bush to do that GW Bush didn't want to do. Big fat zero. Plenty of effluence but no influence.
With all the local difficulties they have in Palestine and Israel, it was dissappointing to hear Nick, on a Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú (our) funded junket this weekend, try to import Tony Blair's own difficulties from domestic party politics. Nick, you wasted a space in the Prime Ministers' Q&A in Jerusalem that Jeremy Bowen would have made more appropriate use of.
A pity, as you are better than that.
I still feel the Middle East thing is just a way of Blair running from his problems at home, just to get talks going is so wishy washy.
Tony Blair's new Anthem for himself- U2's "With or without You" And another question Nick, has Gordon Brown become, "The Blair Witch Project?" as the press are full of stuff about betrayals and mistrust this morning (Sunday, or should it be Sunday, Bloody Sunday). Or is this just Tony, destroying anything he built, a man on a mission to leave whatever legacy he may, even the destruction of everything he has built on sand? Silly, silly man. A burn out case?
Is peace in the Middle East in Mr. Blair's interest ? An attack on Iran would prove to be one of the circumstances by which he could delay his departure from office.
Blair doesn't have the international profile anymore that makes him an acceptable middle man or negotiator. His presence in the Middle East is unlikely to do anything but remind the world that he is still there.
Someone who has built up a good international profile in the last few years and who could in the future be a genuine peace-broker is actually Gordon Brown.
Gordon Brown as a P.M. could genuinely take to the World Stage to really get peace talks going in the Middle East in a way the supposed other Labour leadership contenders simply couldn't.
Gordon Brown can be perceived as an international honest broker in a way that Blair simply cannot.
It's a bit sad, to be frank, seeing Blair trying to strut the world's stage after the haemorrhaging of political authority this week.
Britain could have a real role in assisting the peace process if Brown became P.M. sooner rather than later.
Given the current mood of the country, he must feel safer in the middle of a war zone than anywhere in the UK. Seriously, though, the difference between Hamas and the IRA is that Hamas was democratically elected by the people in an election Blair and Bush themselves endorsed and then to all intents and purposes rejected when the 'wrong' party won.
When it comes to the "Palestinians", the following quote says it all:
"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism. For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa. While as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."
(PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein, March 31, 1977, interview with the Dutch newspaper Trouw.)"
"that solving the Palestinian problem should be their top priority"
I think one needs to remember that everytime he mentions the palestinian issue, there is always another underlying factor for his gain. As with the war on Iraq, just before WMD and the reasons for going to war, as a sweetner, he mentions the palestinian cause.
Whenever, there is a problem, as a sweetner, he mentions he is there to try to resolve the palestinian issue. There are WMD in Iraq, yet he will try to resolve the palestinian issue. There is a problem in lebanon, yet he will try to resolve the palestinian crisis.
Now there is a leadership problem, yet he will try to resolve the palestinian crisis.
Don't be fooled, because this is a topic he has talked about whenever there is a problem with foreigh policy. It is a sweetner.
TB does talk very passionatly in many speechs. One of the most passionate was on going to war with Iraq on WMD, when he clearly knew there were no WMD. His passionate speechs mean nothing as he is a liar and a hypocrite.
Tom
Mr Blair's visit to the Middle East comes far too late. The damage is done. His inability to break away from George Bush and his blind following of the USA's pro-Israeli policy has irrepairably damaged British interests in the Middle East. I should know, I live out here and our Prime Minister is universally loathed for his lack of judgement and slow reaction over the Israeli-Lebanon crisis. British standing in this region is at an all time low and it is typical of Blair that he makes this gesture now - here it is viewed as opportunist rather than constructive. And let's not forget that it was in fact John Major who started the peace process in Northern Ireland - our Tone just jumped on the band waggon and got all the credit.
Looking beyond law, policy, and resources, many issues at personal, corporate, and international level are driven by ego. Developing the character to work around ego issues and work towards a positive consensus is very important on all sides. Here, I’m supportive of the positive and open approach the Prime Minister has taken, and enthusiastic for the idea that the British Government is prepared to include people it defines as terrorists within the process. If terrorist action isn’t, merely, criminal or insane but a genuine expression of political failure, excluding terrorists removes an opportunity for getting everyone to own a process of developing common goals.
I’m hoping the character of the Prime Ministers approach will help set a lead within Parliament, business, and society in Britain. As this past week has shown, bad character leads to bad results. By taking a respectful and responsible attitude towards the problems and each other, we can all actively participate in a process that works towards a better Britain, as we hope those in the poor troubled parts of the world will overcome their issues. Indeed, if you swap terrorism for antisocial behaviour, what separates ‘us’ from ‘them’ disappears like the illusion it is. When we stop being prisoners of our own minds quality of outcome will naturally rise.
I'm sad to have to agree with the last paragraph. It seems that the policy of "We don't negotiate with Terrorists" begins with everybody, and a few years later ends with a couple of organisations/states refusing to negotiate with the Terrorists, and being accused of stopping progress for it.
I certainly hope that refusals to negotiate and work with Hizbollah will continue, because I fear that if Hizbollah do make progress, then other organisations will arise because of it.
Of course, the difference between the IRA and other organisations is that the IRA feels it's doing what's neccecary, but their muslim counterparts seem to feel they're doing what is right. People who think it's neccecary, though dangerous, can ultimatley see reason. Those who will kill the innocent for the sake of what they believe is good are truly evil.
I'm pleased to read Howard and Peter's contributions (msgs 14 & 16) about the shallowness of the questioning - I posted almost simultaneously in another thread saying the same thing.
More important is the number of similarly shallow people who are so obsessed with one event here that they transfer their own limited thinking into a completely disconnected sphere.
It may surprise people to know that the rest of the world is still turning, with the Roadmap a vitally important component to help resolve the situation between Israel and Lebanon. The Prime Minister clearly doesn't forget that, even if the small minds like that of Mr Robinson and many here can't let it go for just one hour.
Get your priorities right.
I thought Nick Robinson was really scraping the barrel in throwing the PM, while overseas, the question on the Brown incident. There is a time and place for everything and this certainly was not the place or time to sink so low.Having listened to him on the PMQs programe with some reservations,I now know where he is coming from.Not a nice guy. P Mason.
Glad your happy Harry. Just imagine if we all said exactly what you wanted to hear, you could live in a state of ecstacy. Or you could get your butt back down on the sphere the rest of us live on.
His stance on Israel's war in the Lebanon poured petrol on to the burning embers of resentment at the Iraq war.
No. On anger at the PM's incomprehensible support of Israeli and American arrogance and aggression.
...soon after 9/11 when he declared that "the kaleidoscope had been shaken" and that the world should be "re-made", starting with bringing justice to the people of Gaza.
Which has not happened at all. Instead the "re-making" turns out to mean that anything not totally in line with Israeli and US republican intentions is supposed to be seen as "terror".
I travelled to Israel and to Gaza with him then and Mr Blair displayed his characteristic optimism by insisting that there was a real chance of peace.
Our PM has turned out to be big on promises, and weak on delivery. And intolerant of reminders of that.
Many in George Bush's administration credit him with selling the "roadmap" for peace to the president and persuading him to publicly declare his support for a "two state solution".
They would, wouldn't they. The roadmap and the concept of the states that the Israeli government decided to go with (and Bush accepted without question) were quite another thing though.
Ariel Sharon used a joint press conference to declare that withdrawal from Gaza was his first step and not his last.
A first step that created the world's largest prison, complete with instant "justice" by rocket fire.
"So what?" many will reply, with Gaza facing a humanitarian crisis and counting its dead; Israeli citizens frightened to live in large parts of Israel, and Lebanon still counting its dead and measuring the cost of destruction.
Not to mention Israel being completely unrestrained and fully armed to attack any of its neighbours again, with full US and UK backing, at any time, still building a walled border though other people's land, still refusing to delimit the full extent of its own borders despite ceaseless demands that others recognise them as a precondition to anything, still ignoring numerous UN resolutions, still being a nuclear military power contrary to all international agreements, still keeping millions of people in conquered land in limbo without rights, based on race and religion, still utterly ignoring international law except when it suits them - rejecting out of hand the obligation to investigate and prosecute the appalling war crimes it committed in Lebanon. And then there's it holding tens of thousands of abducted Muslim hostages, including those randomly seized during the raid on Baalbeck that the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú investigated so well. And now Israel is pushing for aggression against Iran.
Rather more issues than it is comfortable to remember as one enjoys Israeli hospitality, no doubt, Nick.
...solving the Palestinian problem should be their top priority.
Solving the Israel problem would be a more balanced view.
Peace in Northern Ireland required the British government to talk to terrorists.
That's the UK government spin on it, but if you wish to really bring the NI experience to play elsewhere it needs also to be remembered that the UK government also had to reduce its actively favouring the protestant side there, at least make a good show of stopping its own forces being one-sided against its Catholic citizens, pour in a great deal of money, and bring in some fairly heavyweight international "honest brokers" to indicate some good faith, and create some internationally guaranteed rights.
Israeli policy couldn't be more opposite to that. It is impossible to imagine a state entirely based on a religion adopting the NI solution. The solution to apartheid South Africa seems the only possible model. It too involved "talking to terrorists", but first the UK and US had to withdraw support for the apartheid regime.