Why Israel-Palestine remains a priority for Tony Blair
Toby Greene
—As Israelis and Palestinians resume negotiations over the terms for a two-state solution, it is clear that this conflict, and its relationship with wider regional challenges, continues to divide the left.
In this context, Tony Blair’s role as Quartet envoy remains the subject of fascination, controversy and, for some, bemusement. As prime minister, Blair’s policies towards the Israeli-Palestinian arena were among his most controversial and politically damaging. According to his own account, his refusal to insist on an immediate ceasefire during the second Lebanon war, ‘showed how far I had swung from … my own people’.
What led Blair so far out on a limb? It was not, as is often implied, slavish adherence to the policies of the Bush administration. As I explore in my new book, based on extensive interviews and previously unpublished documents, Blair’s decisions were rooted in his own world view that hardened in the years following 9/11.
A popular view on the left sees Israel as a western-backed colonial enterprise and the Palestinians as oppressed victims. The root cause of the conflict is Israel’s occupation. End that and you end the conflict. For many who take this view, Islamic anger at the west is rooted in justified grievances at western policies, including support for Israel. Addressing such root causes must include addressing the injustices of our own policies, and seeking common ground with Islamists that are willing to engage.
With increasing determination after 9/11, Blair rejected most elements of this view. Though he saw the Palestinian demand for a state as just, he supported Israel as a liberal democracy in a region of autocracies. He did not believe the conflict was just about occupation, but saw Israel as having legitimate security claims that must be met by the Palestinians, and he rejected the idea that the anti-western bent of radical Islam was driven by legitimate grievances. Rather, he identified the source of the problem as a dangerous ideological strain within the Islamic world, which exploited the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to garner legitimacy. Instead of seeking to address the imagined grievances of anti-western forces in the region, Blair believed those forces must be confronted.
But if he did not believe the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was one of the root causes of Islamic anger against the west, why did Blair describe it in office as the world’s most pressing challenge? Why is he still ploughing personal energy into it, long after others have given up?
For Blair the unresolved conflict provides a powerful tool for anti-western forces to rally the region to their cause. Find an equitable end to the conflict, he believes, and you deal a blow to the extremists by undercutting their narrative.
As Quartet envoy, Blair has mainly been focused on the state-building efforts of Palestinian moderates under Mahmoud Abbas. This is partly to create a viable and secure neighbour that Israel can make peace with, and partly to empower Palestinian moderates against their radical anti-western rivals, Hamas.
In a rapidly changing Middle East, the extent to which we confront or accommodate radical actors is becoming more complex. Should Britain withdraw support from the Egyptian army if it displaces Islamists who were democratically elected, even if the Islamists pursued anti-liberal policies? Should we seek to isolate or reach out to Hamas and Hezbollah? Should we try to shape the outcome of the Syrian civil war and back moderate elements among the rebels?
Agree or disagree with Blair, you know where he stands. A key challenge for Labour is to work out how it will navigate these dilemmas should it return to power in two years’ time.
—————————————————————————————
Toby Greene is director of research for BICOM and author of Blair, Labour and Palestine: Conflicting Views on Middle East Peace After 9/11
—————————————————————————————