The limits of Blair's mission

Maher Othmann. Al-Ayat. 13/07/07. Blair's failure in finding a two-state solution to this conflict can also be traced to other important underlying reasons: his inability to separate his views from the US policies in this matter, despite his efforts to do so, making his country a partner in the US war on Iraq, appointing Lord Michael Levy, a Zionist reputed for his biased position towards Israel as his special envoy to the Middle East, Israel's disinclination to reach a peaceful settlement with Palestinians and the western support it enjoys, financially, militarily and politically, especially from the US. In addition to this, Bush destroyed his "vision" for a two-state solution by sending a letter to the former Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon, in which he considered the big settlements that Israel built in the occupied West Bank as Israeli housing communities that should be taken into consideration as such in any final settlement. He also stressed that Israel is a Jewish state and upheld its opposition to apply the Palestinian refugees' right of return, backed by UN resolution 194.First, he needs to persuade Israelis of withdrawing their army from the cities, towns and villages of the West Bank, lifting military roadblocks, halting the expansion of settlements and removing the separation wall. Could he manage this?

While heading the British cabinet, Tony Blair failed to achieve any progress towards finding a solution for the Arab-Israeli conflict, despite his many speeches and declarations at yearly conventions of the Labor party and other occasions, in which he said he would exert all efforts necessary to contribute to finding a two-state solution to this conflict: an independent, viable Palestine thriving peacefully alongside its neighbor Israel, a vision also announced by the American president George Bush.

Blair's failure in this respect can also be traced to other important underlying reasons: his inability to separate his views from the US policies in this matter, despite his efforts to do so, making his country a partner in the US war on Iraq, appointing Lord Michael Levy, a Zionist reputed for his biased position towards Israel as his special envoy to the Middle East, Israel's disinclination to reach a peaceful settlement with Palestinians and the western support it enjoys, financially, militarily and politically, especially from the US.

In addition to this, Bush destroyed his "vision" for a two-state solution by sending a letter to the former Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon, in which he considered the big settlements that Israel built in the occupied West Bank as Israeli housing communities that should be taken into consideration as such in any final settlement. He also stressed that Israel is a Jewish state and upheld its opposition to apply the Palestinian refugees' right of return, backed by UN resolution 194.

These defining elements surrounding the conflict remain unchanged, but since June 14, a new catastrophic twist has been added to them, and that is the division of Palestinian territories in two parts: the Gaza Strip, militarily controlled by Hamas by force, and the occupied West Bank, where the Palestinian authority and the current emergency cabinet has no real sovereignty or power over anything, save for some municipal rights, and where the IDF, with its hundreds of roadblocks, controls Palestinians' lives.

Hamas' coup divided the Palestinian people's voice, which made it easier for the Israeli government to weasel out of negotiating with the PA, on the pretext that a qualified negotiating partner is absent.
As for the Quartet, whose next envoy is Blair, its role has weakened, judging by the prominent Russian politician Yevgeny Primakov, who added that the international body has been unable to secure any progress because it was established amid circumstances that put the US' role in settling the Mideast conflict in trouble. The Quartet has indeed become an impediment to any advancement on the issue as soon as it imposed conditions whose outcome was a financial and political siege on Palestinians, instead of seriously working on facilitating negotiations between the Palestinian and Israeli players.
Blair has successfully pieced together a settlement for the Northern Ireland issue through perseverance, during 10 years, and continuous efforts to follow in the line of his predecessor, Prime Minister John Major to end the Irish conflict. However, perseverance alone will not be enough if Blair wants to take part in ending the Mideast conflict. First, he needs to persuade Israelis of withdrawing their army from the cities, towns and villages of the West Bank, lifting military roadblocks, halting the expansion of settlements and removing the separation wall. Could he manage this?

Blair may be able to draw a lesson from the words of France's former chief Rabbi Rene Sirat, who announced in an interview published by the Israeli newspaper Haaretz yesterday that the Jewish people will have no future, should he not make peace with the Arab and Muslim world. Sirat denounced the omission of this issue from a recent conference organized in Jerusalem on the future of the Jewish people. He wondered whether peace has become a foul word, and how the future of the Jewish people could be planned without dealing with the peace issue.

Palestinians surely wish for Blair to succeed, but unless objective circumstances change for the best, they could waste his efforts, rendering them useless.

http://english.daralhayat.com/opinion/commentators/07-2007/Article-20070713-bfd8c029-c0a8-10ed-0169-5e99704fd003/story.html