Can Tony Blair Pull it Off?

By Raphael Israeli

 

No sooner had Tony Blair announced his  impending resignation from his prime ministerial post where he is no longer as welcome as he was a decade ago, than he insinuated his desire to  put his skills and personal charm at the service of the Middle Eastern conflict, or more precisely at the thorny part thereof that concerns the Israelis and the Palestinians, which he and others wrongly consider as the "core of the problem".

 

But even before he made his first step in the new venture, in which he is sure to be turned away by the Arabs and other Muslims who will not forgive him his role at Bush's side in Iraq and Afghanistan,  he already announced his faith in the "international community", whatever that means; he declared that "the "only solution" was the one he prescribed; and  that was "two states for two nations". Capitalizing on  the immense credit he honestly earned in mediating between the foes in Ireland, he has probably been looking at himself, and so do others regard him, as ideally fitting for the job.

 

In Ireland he dealt with two parties that were equally civilized, respected the rule of law,  spoke the same language, understood the workings of democracy and drew their notions and experiences from the same Western  sources, something that can hardly be said about the Middle East. This conceptual diversity grows even more complicated when Blair pretends to reflect and replicate the "will of the international community". Who is that community? The UN? The members of the Security Council? Has there ever been any consensus about anything among them? Iran has become a critical international issue and the Russians and the Chinese have been recalcitrant in pursuing their own interests. Where is the international community that Blair wants us to believe he will be representing?

 

One should always be wary of negotiators who state  from the outset that "the only way" is so and so. That means that not only their  mind is made up and no fact or development can change it, but a  vain pretension is implied that any other suggestion, idea or concept that may come up on the part of others, including the parties to the conflict themselves, are mere thin air that cannot be even considered. Namely, the conclusion was reached before negotiations started, because the "only solution" is the one that was conceived by the smart mediator  and therefore must be enforced regardless of what those other  idiots, who may have a different ideas or think differently,  have to say about it.

 

Has Blair thought through what does the formula "two states to two nations" mean? The Israeli party is  easier , because it is crystallized around the idea of a Jewish-Zionist state in Palestine, give and take  negotiation over its boundaries. But the Palestinians? They are a nation of 9 million, half of them in what id called Jordan in the eastern part of Palestine, another 3 and half in the West Bank and Gaza,  and more than a million in Israel. What Palestinians does he wish to create a state for? These days, the legitimate and democratically elected Hamas government has taken over in Gaza and been conducting itself as a government, certainly more organized and more able to enforce peace and order domestically than its corrupt predecessor.  Is that not a state? Do the Palestinians need , or deserve, more than one state, in addition to East Jordan where they already constitute a majority?  Then who are the Palestinians who are included in this evasive formula?

 

The situation is extremely intricate and needs patience, insight and an extraordinary comprehension of the cultural and historical  make-up of the two rivals in the conflict. Vague platitudes, repetitions of old and  stale slogans and ruminations over formulas that never worked before, are not the best way to start off in the venture that well-intentioned Blair has volunteered to undertake.  The Nobel Prize for peace in the middle east, which was granted to other politicians before,  is still awaiting a worthy recipient. If Blair covets it, he better rethinks his way.

 

Raphael Israeli

The author is a professor of Middle East and Islam at the Hebrew University, Jerusalem.

 

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.