As much as el UK ex-Presidente would like us to believe that he is the right choice to be (yet another) Middle East peace envoy, or as much as the States would like us to, as a matter of fact, somehow I don’t think that he will succeed.
Reputations precede, you see. And his is not much to go by – as far as the Middle East is concerned that is.
Well, it seems that the Peace Process is still a few years away.
Comments
What is so fascinating about the movie “The Queen” (2006, http://imdb.com/title/tt0436697/ ) starring Helen Mirren is just how much of a reminder Tony Blair was on track to be remembered as quite a progressive force for Britain before his legacy was inexorably linked to the Iraq War. There is a conclusory scene between the characters of Blair and the Queen in the movie which forshadows this collapse that has a pronounced gravity, inadvertant or intentional, upon repeated viewing.
Of course he won’t succeed, but then no one ever has. He succeeded in Northern Ireland but the situation there was always rather more hopeful.
My personal view is that only Israel and Palestine can resolve the conflict. Possibly, as happened in Northern Ireland, weariness of all the violence and chaos will achieve critical mass and the conflict will collapse due to lack of interest. Then again, it might not. Either way, outside mediators have consistently failed to solve the ongoing crisis and I don’t see that changing anytime soon.
Mahmood, if you want Jimmy Carter, all you gotta do is ask! He’s available, you know!
Maybe you can appoint him chief of police. Then you’ll have a nice new Islamist sate in no time.
Tony Blair is no Jimmy Carter. Blair is Bush’s lapdog and that’s about it. As for Mideast Peace, I’ve given up all hope. To me it’s just a lost cause.
I don’t trust Princess Tony any further than I could throw him. This role is merely to pander to his already over-inflated (totally undeserved)ego.
His ill-judged amateur involvement in the Iraq chaos doesn’t give him any credible credentials for the job.
His contribution to the M.E. peace process will be about as helpful as Hammas.
“He succeeded in Northern Ireland but the situation there was always rather more hopeful.”____The difference is that Catholic terrorists used to phone a warning before setting off a bomb. Muslim terrorists don’t.
Okay for some strange reason I like Tony Blair for his down to earthness. Until recently I lived in the UK for several years. He was good for the people (big changes from years of Tory bulldozing) but an international negotiater he is not.
Ireland was a much smaller scale problem.
But in life you always have to remain hopeful.
Doesn’t Tony want to spend some time with his family after 10 years of being away and busy?
Living in the US now, I cannot wait to get rid of Bush. I pray that he goes and hides under some rock in Texas when his term is over and doesn’t try and fix anything else. 😯
I’m a bit puzzled by this post. It sounds like you are unhappy that Blair is no Carter.
But if Carter was all that great, shouldn’t all your problems already have been solved? After all, Carter was U.S. President for four long years.
Sounds to me like “Blair is no Carter” should be a sign of hope, not despair.
I like Jimmy Carter…. he’s a smart man.
Too bad Blair isn’t …..
great pic 😈
Dan,
Jimmy Carter was instrumental in bringing about the Camp David accords that made Israel give back Egyptian land (the Sinai) that they had unsurprisingly invaded and occupied. Jimmy Carter gave back Arab land.
What has Blair done to Arab land? Wait. Nevermind. Dont answer that. 🙂
-Ibn
I liked
tony Blair in his appearance on “The Simpsons” a couple of years ago. The jet pack was pretty cool; who knew he could fly one? 😆
Israel unsurprising invaded and occupied the Sinai? Let me see… how did that come about?
Oh, I remember now — The Six Day Wars: Egypt and Syria and Jordan belligerently massed troops along Israel’s borders to attack them. And after Israel kicked their collective butts they kept the Sinai as a buffer against future Egyptian attacks.
And Jimmy Carter didn’t
give back Arab lands — how do you come up with this stuff? — Israel agreed to return the captured land to Egypt in return for normal diplomatic relations, guarantees Israel’s ships could pass through the Suez Canal and the Straits of Tiran, and a promise from Egypt they would restrict the size of future forces and guarantee a permanent cease fire along their mutual border.
It was a treaty — a negotiated settlement. What the U.S. did give Egypt, and Israel, was a guarantee of billions of dollars a year in US aid — which U.S. taxpayers are still shelling out to both countries, 30 years down the road
Jay, Please stop confusing things with facts, Ok?
🙂
Of course he didnt personally do it, and it was a trade of sorts. However Jimmy Carter was instrumental in acting as a broker between the two parties, for-the-end-goal of returning stolen Arab land back to the Arabs that Israel consfiscated, because of insert_your_excuse_here.
I have a feeling Mahmood would not appreciate yet another thread on why we arent great fans of Israel, its been discussed ad nauseum here… plus it would be slightly off topic.
So going back to topic, the fact remains that Jimmy Carter facillitated the rightful return of Arab land from those cute Zionist colonialists who call themselves Israelis, whereas it is inconveible that Tony Blair today is going to do something half way as decent. Its no secret he is strongly pro-Israeli to begin with, something that he even admits to himself.
I personally am finding a hard time figuring out just why Blair is accepting this position to begin with – whats in it for him?
If anything, a facillitator of ‘peace’, (if that is even possible with Israel) must be neutral towards all parties. Blair isnt. Can anyone honestly see Blair lobby for the right of return of Palestinians to their former homes in what is today known as Israel? Can anyone honestly see Blair lobby for the human rights abuses the Palestinians endure at the hand of the ‘free and democratic’ Israel? And can anyone honestly see him tackling Zionism? Eh. The chances are better than he will become the next member of the Spice girls.
So thanks but no thanks Mr Blair! Put a leash around your neck and head towards the whitehouse! Good dog! Good doggie!
-Ibn
Blair – will be useful for the zionists
to maintain and expand into Palestinian
territories. American Congress will do
what AIPAC wants.
Blair – will be useless for Peace for Palestinians and the rest of the region.
Tony Blair had a huge success in North Ireland. He played big parts in bringing democracy and stability to Serlion and Kosovo. Hel palyed a big role in removing Saddam the mass murderor. Surely he is more qualfied than most for a role in Palestine. The only sad thing is that he will not be a peace envoy between the Palestenians and the Isrealis for for sure he would have made much success. His role would be limited to help the Palestinians build their future state. They only seem to be good now in fighting each other and stashing international aid money into sectretive and private Swiss banks accounts. That has to change.
Regards,
“So going back to topic, the fact remains that Jimmy Carter facillitated the rightful return of Arab land from those cute Zionist colonialists who call themselves Israelis, whereas it is inconveible that Tony Blair today is going to do something half way as decent.”
Fess up, Ibn — you want all those cute Zionist colonialists to return ALL the land they’re living on — i.e. Israel itself. Come on, say it… you’ll feel better if you let it out.
Of course I do. When have I said anything less? You must be new here.
-Ibn
Now we are getting to the root of the love of Jimmy Carter.
Ibn wants Israel (Jews?) destroyed.
Jimmy Carter wants Israel (Jews?) destroyed.
Mahmood? Are you in love with Carter for that same reason? (I am a sporadic reader of your blog, so it is possible you’ve already covered that. If so, forgive the redundancy.)
Well I shan’t spoil the surprise and would ask you to stick around, I promise your time here will be interesting.
Ibn
Can anyone honestly see Blair lobby for the right of return of Palestinians to their former homes in what is today known as Israel?
Why should he?
How is it that all of the millions of refugees created during the wars of last century, only the Palestinins have a right to return to their former land? And here they are mostly the descendants of the original refugees.
The Europeans sure didn’t keep all the World War 2 refugees in squalid camps for 60 years just so they could be used for propaganda. They resettled them in new countries and gave them and their decendants citizenship.
Even the Bosnia refugees, who overwhelmingly, could not return to their villages, were resettled with European assistance.
Maybe the Arab countries need to give up on their symbols and practice some real compassion toward the Palestinians. Blair would be quite useful if he said so as bluntly as possible.
Carter has already failed. He is also not well-respected by Israelis because he is not brightest cookie in the jar.
Tony Blair is well-respected in Israel and feared by the terrorists.
The only way there can be peace is if somebody stops the terrorists. Israel WILL NOT stop defending herself against attack, hence the attacks have to stop. But no Jimmy Carter can stop the terrorists, precisely because he is too popular among the terrorists’ clientele. The terrorists will see Carter’s reasoning simply as confirmation that their strategy is working, and on the war goes.
It doesn’t matter how unpopular Tony Blair is among the supporters of the terrorists. What matters most is that the terrorists will facce someone who does NOT condone their tactics or their goals.
As long as one side of the conflict demands the destruction of the other, there can be no compromise (3 million dead Jews instead of all of Israel is NOT acceptable).
If anybody can do this, Tony Blair can.
(Why do Arab refugees want to return to Israel? I thought they hated the place? I know that Jewish refugees from Arab countries do not want to return. They know what would happen to them if they did.)
Ibn
Have a look at
to remind yourself of how grateful the people of Iraq were for the overthrow of the dictator who had tyrannised them for 3 decades. The author talks of the 6000 people who would be killed per month in Baghdad alone under Saddam’s regime. He called his blog “Iraq the Model” because of his confidence in what Iraq could build when freed from dictatorship.
But then, Ibn, no doubt you will blame Tony Blair for all the Sunni versus Shiite internecine killing since then. Never ever blame the killers themselves
The link that seems not to have shown up in my previous post was to the November 03 archive (ie earliest archive) of the “Iraq the Model” blog on http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/
The full link was http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/2003_11_01_iraqthemodel_archive.html
…Thats where I tuned you out.
Perhaps you dont already know this, but the Iraqi author of ITM is more neo-conservative than the current US adminstration. Now I dont think that he is an ‘American agent’ or any such nonsense – I think the Americans are well capable of planting their own propaganda in Iraq without the need of soliciting local help. (http://ics.leeds.ac.uk/papers/vp01.cfm?outfit=pmt&folder=2053&paper=2546)
But I sidetrack. Lets see, here are handfull of the big wig Iraqi blogs out there:
http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/
http://www.healingiraq.blogspot.com/
http://afamilyinbaghdad.blogspot.com/
http://nabilsblog.blogspot.com/
http://hammorabi.blogspot.com/
http://raedinthemiddle.blogspot.com/
http://dear_raed.blogspot.com/
http://secretsinbaghdad.blogspot.com/
http://glimpseofiraq.blogspot.com/
http://baghdadgirl.blogspot.com/
And out of all those ten or so Iraqi blogs more or less espousing the opposite of what you are claiming regarding comparing Saddam and the present, you pick the one blog, (Iraq the model) who just so happens to be an Iraqi neo-conservative clone.
So much for fairness Brian! Ha!
So please. Quit with the “but.. but.. life under Saddam sucked MORE didnt it?…”. Saddam was a brutal evil dictator. Your country and the US supported this brutal evil dictator – when it suited them. Then they back pedelled and here we are today. Talk about a messy breakup.
Only 70 years ago your country England was busy bombing Iraqi tribes and brutally suppressing local Iraqis who dared speak out against the King and leaders YOUR country placed as puppets in this country whose borders were drawn in some foreign office on downing street. And what do you think those divide-and-conquer British Imperialists had in mind when drawing the borders of Iraq? Fencing in people who had common interests in abstract art? It was fencing together and even formenting civil strife for some perverted geo-political reasons. But they did it nonetheless.
So yes Brian, I blame the uber-criminal who pulls the trigger in today’s Iraq, adding innocent Iraqi lives to the needless heap-pile of ethnic strife. But rememeber Mr Brian, who formented or added to their twisted ideology back in the day, (when it suited them), and who removed all order and left a power vacuum in today’s Iraq allowing the worst of the worst to come out of the woodwork. (When it suited them).
A foreign army invades your home town and lets all criminals out of prison. A prisoner burglarises you. Who do you blame? The prisoner, or the foreign army who released him and invaded on false pretenses anyway? Here’s a better question: Is the previous question that black and white? If it is Brian, than whose side am I on? Bush? Or the terrorists?
-Ibn
No body has reacted to my earlier comment so I presume all are either in agreement or the truth is so clear that no one dares to deny it. Tony Blair had huge success in a number of fronts. I am sure he would have similar success here only if his brief is wider. It is not.
As for Iraq it is not the fault of Tony Blair that it is failing. It is the people of Iraq themselves who hate each other. A group of them would rather die than be ruled by another. The fact that they did not kill each other before is easy to answer; you had a government who was doing the killing and there was no need for car bombs and so forth.
Abdulkarim, please email me: ajbrehm@gmail.com.
Brian: good point!
I always wondered why it is America’s/Britain’s fault when Sunnis and Shiites kill each other, specifically since they have done so since before America or modern Britain even existed as countries.
I sometimes think that the entire conflict between Sunnis and Shiites could have ended 1300 years ago if only then there had been American troops to withdraw since apparently an American withdrawal is the magic potion that will create peace on earth. (Never mind that the regions without American troops are usually far more violent than those with.)
Ibn
Yes, you are right. I remember the scenes of bitter wailing in Iraq when Saddam was overthrown.
The people were heartbroken – we all remember the reverence which was paid to all images and statues of Saddam.
How the people mourned his downfall! Tony Blair certainly did nothing for Arab lands by removing Saddam.
What does it take to overlook the images of the mass graves and conclude that Tony Blair was the bad guy in this?
It reminds me of the left-wing reaction to the invasion. They would happily claim that George Bush was Hitler reborn, even though the other guy was a dictator with a moustache who was chiefly famous for gasing people, invading neighbouring countries, and his anti-Semitism.
Ibn;
The coalition made big mistakes in Iraq to be sure, but the people who are making Iraq miserable were not created by Tony Blair, or the US, or even the new Iraqi government. They are sourced in a society where tribal feuding, religious xenophobia, and preservation of honor to the point of murder are the daily code of conduct.
Iraqis need to look deep inside their hearts and ask themselves why there is so much savagery there.
and who removed all order and left a power vacuum in today’s Iraq allowing the worst of the worst to come out of the woodwork
That old chestnut about Arabs never being responsibible for their actions …
(sigh)
“and who removed all order and left a power vacuum in today’s Iraq allowing the worst of the worst to come out of the woodwork”
Depending on how the order is enforced, a removal of such order can be a good or a bad thing. Iraq certainly seems less violent today, if you count Saddam’s murders.
But as Anonymous said, people are still responsible for their actions, even Arabs in Iraq.
Just because mummy leaves the room is no excuse for murdering your brother, especially not if you are 18 and mummy is not legally responsible for your actions any more.
“Iraqis need to look deep inside their hearts and ask themselves why there is so much savagery there.”
Most Iraqis won’t know because they don’t understand the terrorists either.
Iraqi society is not violent per se. What we can blame Iraqi society for is that it fails to give up old hatred in the face of a new enemy.
Make peace with Israel and let Israel help you. They are in the same situation and have dealt with the crap for 60 years. The Kurds learn from Israel, why don’t the Arabs?
in this country whose borders were drawn in some foreign office
So what? Most of us are living in countries whose borders weren’t drawn up by us. That’s no excuse to run hither and yon slaughtering your fellow citizens in extremis.
Ibn
Actually, “fencing in” (though please supply a picture of the fence) people who had common interests in Islam, the ‘religion of peace’ (at least, we are always told that Islam means ‘peace’ and certainly not ‘submission’)
It does sound a bit odd that putting a few dozen million adherents of the religion of peace into a country the size of Iraq would obviously result in civil war.
As early as 1950 or a mere 5 years following their complete destruction the world started talking about the German and Japanese economic miracles. It is fast approaching 5 years since the defeat of Iraq but has anyone heard of anyone anywhere talking about an Iraqi miracle? No way!
The people of Germany and Japan put up the mightiest of fights yet they lost. They were left with countries that were completely destroyed yet they put their trusts in the democracies that defeated them and started to rebuild. A mere 25 years later or so Japan became the 2nd richest country on earth. Germany became the 3rd richest. Yet you find people who say America is bad. Britain is bad. What a joke!
The people of Iraq put in the most miniature of fights. Their armies fled and their leaders run for the nearest holes to hide. Now the creatures of the night have come out of their hideouts and started their murderous and hideous so called resistance. They have put a halt to any form of rebuilding. A shame that will last for 1000 years!
Such is the difference between the people of Germany and Japan and the people of Iraq.
The Arab and Muslim world should kneel in front of leaders like George Bush and Tony Blair. They put an end to one of the most murderous tyrannies of the modern age that was of Saddam the mass murderer. The US and the UK saved the Muslims of Kosovo and elsewhere in former Yugoslavia from genocide. Their one billion fellow Muslims brothers stood still. They could not care less as if these people were not fellow humans let alone fellow Muslims. Yet one of the readers here had the guts to dig into history to come up with faults in these two countries. Well nobody has said they were faultless. They I think would be the first to admit that. However, one has to put things into prospective. No one is perfect and no nation is perfect but who has the least imperfections? No Arab or Muslim country would even remotely come close.
Half of the Arab world rejoiced at the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. The other half went dump that is it until America came to the rescue. The Arab world repeats its shameless behaviour right now as we speak. They are turning a blind eye to the genocide in Darfour. The people there mean nothing to them. They are non Arab mosquitoes who must perish. It does not matter they happen to be fellow Muslims. Another shame that will last for a 1000 year.
Other than the pre-packaged answer “Abdulkarim”, do you have anything germane to contribute to this discussion?
Mahmood,
What is wrong with Abdulkarim’s post? Dare I say it, you do not seem to have put up a reasoned argument against him.
I got the impression (read the thread above) that he was ITCHING to get a person to respond to his original comment so that he can cut and paste the later response!
I have no problem with his argument, Muslims need to respond to other human beings tragic circumstances, and not just to those which befall “their brother Muslims.”
I am always touched and am in awe of how “Western” people just get up and go to help their fellow human beings without the motivation to “convert” people or “show them the light” or any of that crap. Most just go into conflict zones to just help.
We are lethargic in that sense and just leave things to fate. “Allah willed it, so why should we even bother” king of attitude which should change.
“Jimmy Carter was instrumental in bringing about the Camp David accords that made Israel give back Egyptian land (the Sinai) that they had unsurprisingly invaded and occupied. Jimmy Carter gave back Arab land.”
Of course it was “unsurprisingly”. When you bring your armies in position and shout “Kill all the Jews” loud enough, there is bound to be a reaction.
As for giving back land, it was the Israelis who gave back the land, not Carter. If you want to thank somebody, thank the Israelis.
Well, Jimmy’s credibility in the ME didn’t do much for the hostages in Tehran, and then there were those 23% interest rates. 😥
Blair is just as capable as anyone else, and saying he has no credibility in the ME is just a cop out. This has been going on for decades and decades with MANY others who also were not able to accomplish anything. I know it comes down to the money and power just as in Iraq now, but it’s too bad all parties don’t take the process seriously for the good of their peoples and the world.
If I remember correctly Israel offered peace when it was founded, again after the first war, then again after the 1967 war (when the Knesset voted to give back lands occupied), and the other side rejected the offers and screamed death to the Jews again.
Israel seems to take the “death to the Jews” bit quite seriously, perhaps too seriously.
If all Arab countries plus the PLO and Hamas decided not to attack Israel any more, wouldn’t there be peace?
Mahmood,
Your comments are hurting and not fair. There were no pre packaged answers and no cut and paste. Not from somebody else anyway. Instead of tackling my points you tackled me!
You were surprised that I somehow was itching for somebody to respond. That may have been the case but then is this not the purpose of sites like yours? Forums for debates? Well you managed to kill that off here!
Many thanks to Emma who came to my defence. She has even managed to make you concede!!
Speaking of “Jimmy’s credibility in the middle east”…
Can anybody give an example of a symptom of that credibility?
I mean, can Carter say something and see it believed that other people cannot say and see it believed?
Many people confuse credibility with likability. Carter is obviously well-liked among pan-Arabism supporters, terrorists, and Muslim heretics (i.e. those who call themselves Muslims but support terror). But that is not credibility
Tony Blair, on the other hand, has REAL credibility, although he is not well liked among the crowd that likes Carter.
When Tony Blair implied that being suspect of owning WMDs will lead to being overthrown, as happened to Saddam Hussein, Libya’s dictator did in fact give up his WMD program. He _believed_ Tony Blair, IOW Tony Blair has credibility among his enemies.
(Of course Iran later tried that out with British sailors and it turns out that Tony Blair’s government has lost some of its credibility since it started retreating from Iraq.)
The leaders with the most credibility in the middle east are Ariel Sharon, Tony Blair, George Bush; in that order.
Anybody else is probably more likable, but those three are the ones whose words are BELIEVED.
Ariel Sharon is currently not functioning and also a representative of one of the sides in the conflict in question. Hence Tony Blair is the obvious candidate.
Jimmy Carter’s words are believed as long as he keeps saying what his audience wants to hear.
Tony Blair’s words are believed by those who dislike him, are his enemies, and would rather see him be wrong.
That’s the difference.
The “difference” Andrew is that you – like a lot of your ilk – speak in our voice when no one asked you to and no one needs you to.
So get off that high horse of yours and stop be patronising. If you want to listen to what we have to say, simply ask, don’t put your words in our mouths and then believe that you are right.
That is very clearly incorrect.
That’s the difference.
Mahmood,
What are you talking about? Maybe I wasn’t clear enough, but I am really surprised now. I didn’t put any words in your mouth, I wasn’t even thinking about or referring to you or the people you would refer to as “we”. I certainly didn’t associate you with the Libyan dictator or Saddam Hussein; neither did I think of you as an Arab nationalist, a terrorist, or a heretic.
I was talking about credibility, not your opinions. I have seen that Tony Blair has credibility among his enemies, and that’s what I said. It has nothing to do with you and I didn’t speak in your voice or for you or anything like that and neither did I want to or try to.
If you don’t need me to say what I said and are not interested in what I have to say, yet tell me that I should listen to you, that’s fine. But do not think that I let you misrepresent what I said if I can help it.
I think that Tony Blair would be ideal here because people accept that what he implies he will do can actually happen. That makes him far more suitable than Carter. That is my opinion and I do not claim that it is yours, so please refrain from accusing me of putting words in your mouth.
My ilk might or might not see it the same way.
No matter who it is from the West, no westerner
is going to have any luck sorting out all the
dynamics of the Middle East.
It’s up to each country to decide it’s
future and place in the world. First off,
each country needs to control it’s borders
and schools, to weed out the extremists.
So much underlying religious strife, tribal
loyalties, greed, and coruption – it will take
nothing less than a miracle for peace to happen.
But miracles do happen, don’t they?