Trump trusts Blair, others don’t | UK News

As prime minister of the UK for more than 10 years, Sir Tony Blair was a master of political compromise.

He was seen as a deft negotiator of the centre ground, triangulating his way out of the straitjacket of traditional left-right politics.

But if there were peace in Gaza and he were summoned to help govern what was left, would even Teflon Tony – as he was once known – have the political wiles to keep all sides happy and the guns silent?

His putative role is still not clear. Donald Trump’s 20-point peace plan envisages an international transitional body that would oversee the governance of post-war Gaza.

The US president would chair this so-called “Board of Peace” and Sir Tony, aged 72, would be a member. He’s a “good man, very good man”, Trump told reporters.

Sir Tony’s presence on this hypothetical body would come as no surprise.

The former prime minister has been closely involved in drawing up Gaza peace proposals for months. He has been working with Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law, and Ron Dermer, a key adviser to Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.

In August, Sir Tony attended a high-level meeting with Trump at the White House to discuss a post-war strategy for the Strip.

A month earlier he also held talks with Steve Witkoff, the president’s chief envoy, at the White House.

In a statement, Sir Tony not unsurprisingly lavished praise on the Trump plan, describing it as “bold and intelligent” and “the best chance of ending two years of war, misery and suffering”.

He said the proposals created the possibility not only “of Israelis and Palestinians finding a path to peace” but also “a broader regional and global alliance to counter the forces of extremism and promote peace and prosperity between nations”.

And that is the key point: this is what Sir Tony has been pushing for decades in different roles.

As prime minister from 1997, he supported the Clinton administration’s efforts to find peace in the region.

On the very day he left office in June 2007, he was appointed special envoy for a so-called Quartet – representing the US, Russia, the EU and UN – designed to coordinate peace efforts, a role he held until 2015.

Since then his business and other interests – including his Tony Blair Institute for Global Change – have kept him firmly plugged into the region.

Diplomats say this is what makes Sir Tony unique; he is trusted by the Trump administration, he has an unparalleled network in the Middle East, and he has long experience of dealing with both Israeli and Palestinian leaderships.

Nick Hopton, director general of the Middle East Association, said the former UK PM was the only western leader one could imagine taking the role. “He’s got the credibility and experience having been embroiled in the Middle East for 24 years,” he said.

“But it will work only if he is able to have the confidence of Donald Trump and also if he is not seen as being manipulated by Benjamin Netanyahu. He also needs to demonstrate he has the confidence of the Palestinian Authority leadership.”

But – and it is a big but – Sir Tony would come to the role with much baggage.

To some he is a divisive figure, to others worse.

His role in joining the 2003 invasion of Iraq – based on incorrect reports about the country’s weapons of mass destruction – still tarnishes his reputation in the region and has led some to accuse him of war crimes.

Francesca Albanese, UN special rapporteur on rights in the occupied Palestinian territories, was blunt. “Tony Blair? Hell no. Hands off Palestine,” she posted on social media. “Shall we meet in The Hague perhaps?”, a reference to the location of the International Criminal Court.

Sir Simon Fraser, former head of the UK Foreign Office, said Sir Tony had shown genuine interest in the Palestinian issue and was trusted in Washington, Israel and the Gulf. “But the Arab street has not forgotten Iraq,” he said.

“The future oversight of Gaza needs a broader base and cannot look like an American/British enterprise.”

Hamas, for one, did not seem keen. Husam Badran, a member of the group’s political bureau, said this week Sir Tony should be on trial for the US invasion of Iraq, not administering Gaza. “Any plan linked to Blair is an ill omen,” he said.

Some Palestinians and others also see Sir Tony as historically always being too close to Israeli and US positions. Nomi Bar-Yaacov, a former international peace negotiator, said: “I don’t think the Palestinians trust him at all. I think they view him as a colossal failure during the time that he was the Quartet envoy.”

Even UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, who used his Labour conference speech on Tuesday to praise the Trump peace plan, chose to make no mention of the key role his predecessor might play.

As Middle East peace envoy for eight long years, Sir Tony was supposed to help build up the Palestinian Authority so that one day it would be in a fit state to run a Palestinian state. But few would argue that this is where the PA is today.

Palestinians also argue he did not do enough to push back against illegal settlements and settler violence. Some have claimed he should have made a stronger case for Palestinian statehood, focusing instead on economic development.

The interesting question is why Sir Tony still feels the need to be involved in trying to find an end to the fighting in the Middle East. He has long seen himself as a peace-maker, after his success negotiating the Good Friday Agreement that helped reduce conflict in Northern Ireland.

But as a political correspondent throughout the 1990s and 2000s, and thus a close observer of the Blair years of power, I was always struck by his dogged refusal to accept that he might have failed to persuade someone of his point of view. It niggled at him. To that extent, the Middle East may be seen by Sir Tony as unfinished business.

Health Secretary Wes Streeting told PA Media Sir Tony’s role would “raise eyebrows” because of the Iraq war and said he had an “incredible legacy” in Northern Ireland of building peace that lasted. “If he can bring that skill set to bear in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with the support of Israelis, Palestinians and other regional powers, then so much the better,” Mr Streeting said.

In truth, the role of Blair is a second order issue. He will have a job to do only if this peace plan succeeds and survives, and there is no guarantee of that. Far more important are the differences between both sides and details that are as yet unresolved by the framework outlined by the White House.

Sanam Vakil, Middle East programme director at the Chatham House think tank, said: “The focus on Tony Blair and his legacy of western intervention in Iraq masks the real challenges of this peace framework that lacks details, timelines and deliverables – and does not yet have Palestinian or Israeli buy-in, let alone leadership.

“Without significant work to move beyond 20 points on a piece of paper, this plan will be another version of cosmetic diplomacy that embeds structural injustice and deprives Palestinians of agency and sovereignty.”

So maybe what really matters is not perhaps the psychodrama of Sir Tony Blair and the controversial opinions people hold about him. A more relevant question may be more what role any transitional authority in Gaza might play and whether Sir Tony has the right skills and experience to play a significant role.

If his job would be to coordinate with Gulf leaders and the White House, that is one thing. But if he were being asked effectively to govern Gaza, overseeing the reconstruction, the security and economic development of the Strip, that is quite another. “Viceroy Blair?” one diplomat texted me. “That will never wash.”