Blair on Bush payroll ?

[Fullyplumped]

I didn't say that it was doomed to failure or would never work. I just linked to a relevant article that pointed out Brown has appointed his own envoy.

Excellent. I don't imagine they'll be in competition.

And that Blair is currently apparently being paid by the US, not all 4.

Which is no secret. I keep saying that it's not a contest of personal morality.

 

[rekil]

Tony Blair, working with lots of other people but he brought it together, proved that he had the ability to persuade the brainy people up front of the hoods in Ireland to see the point and value of ending the killing and extortion, and helped them to persuade the hoods doing the kiling and extortion of the value of not killing their leaders but going along with it.

Blair had a hand in the 1994 IRA ceasefire did he? Unlike Major before him, he had a whopping majority, the total support of his party, capable credible negotiators like Mo Mowlam and he wasn't dependent on unionist support. It would have taken a monumental effort to fuck it up. He has proven to be weak, stubborn, vain, and criminally dishonest and his level of gangsterism makes the shenanigans in NI look strictly toytown.

 

[Fullyplumped]

Blair had a hand in the 1994 IRA ceasefire did he? Unlike Major before him, he had a whopping majority, the total support of his party, capable credible negotiators like Mo Mowlam and he wasn't dependent on unionist support. It would have taken a monumental effort to fuck it up. He has proven to be weak, stubborn, vain, and criminally dishonest and his level of gangsterism makes the shenanigans in NI look strictly toytown.

Yes. Since you put it that way, I really don't know what all the fuss was about.






Oh, wait.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Gosh, that's what they said in Ireland. Look what happened.<snip>

Well, if you claim that the situation is analogous, what would the equivalent negotiation points be?

Security reform, cross-community decision making and all that stuff.

In effect, a credible roadmap for a single state solution as I said above.

 

[Fullyplumped]

Well, if you claim that the situation is analogous, what would the equivalent negotiation points be? Security reform, cross-community decision making and all that stuff. In effect, a credible roadmap for a single state solution as I said above.

No idea. Not a scooby. That's their job.

Probably better to do it from Jerusalem than anywhere else, though.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Sure, but you keep posting that Paisley/McGuinness pic like it's meant to mean something. If it means anything, it means that there is in your mind some analogy with Northern Ireland. I'm therefore suggesting that we explore that analogy and see what it might imply in the context of Middle East peace.

If Major, Mowlam and Blair had not been able to offer a credible roadmap to a 'single state solution' do you think that they would have made any progress?

 

[Fullyplumped]

Sure, but you keep posting that Paisley/McGuinness pic like it's meant to mean something. If it means anything, it means that there is in your mind some analogy with Northern Ireland.

I see what you mean, but it isn't specifically about Ireland.

No, the analogy is that all the time and energy and raw bloody optimism and harrowing, heart breaking compromise turned a seemingly impossible impasse into a picture of two impossible-to-reconcile leaders grinning their faces off as they began to work together in a single government. Quite what people had to give up to get there, and the personal and political risks they took, are specific to the case, but the point is it happened and Tony Blair is widely credited with getting people to make the essential final steps to come together.

Who would have thought it possible? But it happened.

And it is a lovely picture! Ooh that cheeky wee face!

 

[nino_savatte]

I think these comments are tremendously revealing.

Tony Blair won't "make peace". He doesn't have the power to do so. Only Hamas, Fatah, Hezbollah, Iran, and all the other combatants can do so.

Tony Blair, working with lots of other people but he brought it together, proved that he had the ability to persuade the brainy people up front of the hoods in Ireland to see the point and value of ending the killing and extortion, and helped them to persuade the hoods doing the kiling and extortion of the value of not killing their leaders but going along with it.

This was the end result.

On the one hand, the zealots are even more zealous than in NI, but on the other hand they've seen that it's worked in NI.

God knows if it will work, but Mr Blair seems to have all his skill and charisma intact and there are few better than him to do it. Bit you're right - he is no Gandhi. Nobody is asking anyone to admire or like him for his attitudes.

And for those who don't really want the combatants to stop their killing and destruction if the alternative is a "sell-out" - a few years' considered silence would be helpful. It isn't you who have to do the dying because a bunch of politicians and clerics in a country far away can't see the point of making compromises.

NI was a "different kettle of fish". Because of the NI peace process and its positive outcome, Blair was seen by Washington as having "magical powers"; and, as I said earlier, he kept schtum when the bombs were raining down on Beirut, while other leaders criticised Israel for its actions. On that basis alone, his role as special envoy is a questionable one. How can he, for example, engage with the many and complex problems in an ostensibly impartial fashion when he has shown a patent lack of impartiality?

Only Hamas, Fatah, Hezbollah, Iran, and all the other combatants can do so.

And the rest...Israel for example.

It would also seem that the State Department is his main financial sponsor - questions need to be asked.

 

[moono]

And God knows Blair owes a debt to try to make things better in the ME if he possibly can.

He could blow himself up in the middle of Manhattan and he still wouldn't have paid off half of it.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I see what you mean, but it isn't specifically about Ireland.

No, the analogy is that all the time and energy and raw bloody optimism and harrowing, heart breaking compromise turned a seemingly impossible impasse into a picture of two impossible-to-reconcile leaders grinning their faces off as they began to work together in a single government. Quite what people had to give up to get there, and the personal and political risks they took, are specific to the case, but the point is it happened and Tony Blair is widely credited with getting people to make the essential final steps to come together.<snip>

... and the specifics that were negotiated don't matter? Only the emotional content? If it were so, then a PR guy like Blair might indeed get somewhere. My bet though is that the specifics matter.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

You see, I don't think that the IRA could have been persuaded to adopt a ceasefire without a credible promise of security reform, nor do I think that the political process would have gone any further than that without a credible roadmap to various reforms and power-sharing arrangements that would be more or less the equivalent of a single-state solution to the Palestine-Israel problem.

 

[rhys gethin]

That's the kind of thinking that Tony Blair will need to overcome. Hopefully the actual people runnung the combatant organisations aren't as hard of thinking as this. They live there, right enough, which probably makes a difference.

You mean that 'leaders' can be bought, especially if they live there and can be threatened. We know that.

There was no great profit for the English boss-class in the Six counties, and the fighting had reached a stalemate. Zionist land-colonialism, backed by the US oil-colonialism, is still extremely aggressive and wants more and more land, more and more dominance. The two situations are obviously totally unlike: a shoddy twicer like Blair can make a deal between those who are already inclined to compromise, but not between gangsters and their victims, surely? The only deal the former will make is to give the latter back some tiny proportion of what they've pinched, with the certain proviso that they will pinch it back again later if it suits them. What's in it for the colonised?

 

[London_Calling]

Did the people paying Blair's salary matter to Gerry Adams, Martin McGuinness and the rest - it's about the deal, it's always about the deal; if politicians worried about the 'credentials' of the people they have to deal with they'd never get anywhere.

Really don't understand this pre-occupation with Blair's antecedents, this is real politics folks with real adults – realpolitik – not some playground best-friend test.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I think Blair's credibility (or lack of it anywhere outside the US and maybe Israel) is potentially relevant, in the context of a workable set of proposals.

Assuming for the moment that a workable set of proposals could be agreed and that he was going to front them, then his credibility would become relevant, just as the credibility of Major's offer of progress on security reforms in return for a ceasefire was relevant at the start of the peace process and as the building of credibility for the overall roadmap towards power-sharing and further reform was crucial in getting the NI peace process past the initial, often faltering, steps towards the ceasefire.

In practice, even assuming some workable proposals were forthcoming, his negative credibility in the region would be another problem for the process to overcome.

Of course, if one starts from an assumption that no workable set of proposals (ie ones which Hamas, Hezbollah etc could sign up to) will be forthcoming, then Blair's PR skills and remaining international credibility, especially in the US, might still have a role to play in presenting the illusion that credible efforts were being made towards Middle East peace.

 

[rocketman]

Tony Blair, working with lots of other people but he brought it together, proved that he had the ability to persuade the brainy people up front of the hoods in Ireland to see the point and value of ending the killing and extortion, and helped them to persuade the hoods doing the kiling and extortion of the value of not killing their leaders but going along with it.

No. Peace in Ireland only happened after the Yanks stopped financing the troubles. The US just moved it's causing trouble budget to the middle east. That's the only reason there's peace.

Blair remains a warmonger with blood on his hands.

 

[RhymnRzn]

... and the specifics that were negotiated don't matter? Only the emotional content? If it were so, then a PR guy like Blair might indeed get somewhere. My bet though is that the specifics matter.

is it a proper tetrarchy in NI? i hope they work it out to bring in a year of release for all of us lowly types......or will it be more of the same: work, fight, build, destroy, sow, reap, etc.?

oh dear, nothing so equal in this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6920988.stm

Evidently, according to the visions of these, there will no peace in the land but by the edge of their sword.

 

[ZAMB]

Sending Blair to the Middle East on the assumption that Northern Ireland shows him to be a proven peacemaker is madness.

He was manipulated throughout the peace process by parties - Sinn Féin and the DUP - which had a vested interest in prolonging it. These parties settled terms in the end only when they had overtaken their own political rivals and when it was clear that the Blair era had expired. They faced the prospect that Gordon Brown as prime minister would not be as biddable as Blair had been.

It wasn't Blair's process, it was theirs, and they played it as extended conflict by political means to their own advantage. Blair was never able to force the pace on key issues such as the decommissioning of IRA weapons.

He committed himself for the first half of the process to shoring up the Ulster Unionist leader David Trimble, though it is now clear that Sinn Féin had no intention of helping Trimble. It was prepared to destroy him and take its chances with Paisley, who was much less compromising but would carry the whole Unionist community with him.

Unlike this writer, I think the people of NI should get a lot of the credit for putting pressure on their lousy politicians for peace, not smirking Tony.

The violent conflict in Northern Ireland ended because it had burnt itself out and achieved nothing. Blair would have made no more impact before it reached that point than Whitelaw did in 1972 when Adams was still a fanatic who thought he could burn his way to a united Ireland. Hamas, however, is still in the ascendant

I think his first step should be to acknowledge he was wrong and accept Hamas as the elected government in Palestine - that would put some pressure on the US and Israel to do likewise. At least that would show that he wasn't just there as a US puppet. It'll never happen though.

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/malachi_odoherty/2007/06/blairs_flaky_credentials.html

 

[CyberRose]

That is hardly convincing evidence of Blair's credentials as 'peacemaker'. He tacitly supported Israel's indiscriminate bombing of Lebanon - hardly the sort of thing a peacemaker would do.

Depends which way you look at it. If, like I would assume, you place the entire blame on Israel for the problems in the Israel-Palestine conflict, then I would also assume you believe Israel is the actor that needs to change what they are doing. If the Quartet share similar views then will their job be harder or easier if they win the trust of Israel?

 

[nino_savatte]

Depends which way you look at it. If, like I would assume, you place the entire blame on Israel for the problems in the Israel-Palestine conflict, then I would also assume you believe Israel is the actor that needs to change what they are doing. If the Quartet share similar views then will their job be harder or easier if they win the trust of Israel?

If you want to look at it purely from an entirely Zionist perspective, then Blair did a bang up job by keeping schtum. I don't think anyone outside of Israel or the US would think of him as having the correct credentials to broker peace deals in the Middle East.

you place the entire blame on Israel for the problems in the Israel-Palestine conflict, then I would also assume you believe Israel is the actor that needs to change what they are doing

How many times have I heard this whenever either Israel or the US...or in this case, Blair is criticised for his unwillingness to condemn the wanton violence that Israel meted out to the Lebanese people en masse. Or did you forget how the entire Lebanese nation was punished?

You also overlooked the fact that the IDF had been making incursions into Lebanon prior to the all out assault that was visited on the Lebanese people.

Blair is in the pay of the US State Department. He is hardly impartial, though I am sure you would like to think that he is.

 

[CyberRose]

If you want to look at it purely from an entirely Zionist perspective, then Blair did a bang up job by keeping schtum. I don't think anyone outside of Israel or the US would think of him as having the correct credentials to broker peace deals in the Middle East.

My point was that in order to broker peace, you need to win favour with Israel. As hard as you will find that to swallow, no peace will ever happen unless somehow you can get Israel to agree to it as well. I think Hamas will come around to a two state solution but first Israel must change its ways, and hence, for peace to happen, somebody has to convince Israel to stop what it's doing and nobody who alienates Israel will be able to do that (that's why it's been so hard for the EU to influence Israel because of how Israelis view the EU)

How many times have I heard this whenever either Israel or the US...or in this case, Blair is criticised for his unwillingness to condemn the wanton violence that Israel meted out to the Lebanese people en masse. Or did you forget how the entire Lebanese nation was punished?

You also overlooked the fact that the IDF had been making incursions into Lebanon prior to the all out assault that was visited on the Lebanese people.

Blair is in the pay of the US State Department. He is hardly impartial, though I am sure you would like to think that he is.

Eh? What are you on about?! All I said was I assume you place all the blame on Israel, and I think every last word above proves me right, so what on Earth are you arguing for??

 

[nino_savatte]

My point was that in order to broker peace, you need to win favour with Israel. As hard as you will find that to swallow, no peace will ever happen unless somehow you can get Israel to agree to it as well. I think Hamas will come around to a two state solution but first Israel must change its ways, and hence, for peace to happen, somebody has to convince Israel to stop what it's doing and nobody who alienates Israel will be able to do that (that's why it's been so hard for the EU to influence Israel because of how Israelis view the EU)


Eh? What are you on about?! All I said was I assume you place all the blame on Israel, and I think every last word above proves me right, so what on Earth are you arguing for??

For you this is all about "winning favour with Israel", never mind the Palestinian people - eh? You also ignored my point about Blair and his unwillingness to condemn the IDF's indiscriminate bombing of Lebanon. Why?

All I said was I assume you place all the blame on Israel, and I think every last word above proves me right,

This sentence betrays you. It is quite clear that you see this from one perspective: that of Israel and the US. Oh and you can '"assume" all you like, you do it often enough as it is.

I think Hamas will come around to a two state solution

Nice bit of wishful thinking there. The two state 'solution' is an idea that has been put forward by the US, Israel and its allies. It would seem that you can only view this conflict from the side of Israel.

What is so difficult to understand here?

How many times have I heard this whenever either Israel or the US...or in this case, Blair is criticised for his unwillingness to condemn the wanton violence that Israel meted out to the Lebanese people en masse. Or did you forget how the entire Lebanese nation was punished?

You also overlooked the fact that the IDF had been making incursions into Lebanon prior to the all out assault that was visited on the Lebanese people.

Blair is in the pay of the US State Department. He is hardly impartial, though I am sure you would like to think that he is.

You have this tendency to ignore uncomfortable truths and you have done everything possible to avoid my point about Blair and his tacit refusal to condemn the collective punishment meted out to the Lebanese people. How do you think the people in the ME see Blair? If you answered "International statesman and peacemaker", you'd be wrong.

Just in case you'd forgotten, this is the title of the thread.

Blair on Bush payroll?

 

[CyberRose]

For you this is all about "winning favour with Israel", never mind the Palestinian people - eh? You also ignored my point about Blair and his unwillingness to condemn the IDF's indiscriminate bombing of Lebanon. Why?

When you said Blair supported the bombing of Israel by not criticising Israel, I made comments to the effect that in order to achieve any kind of peace in the region, you will get nowhere if Israel views you as hostile (hence why the EU has never gotten anywhere)

This sentence betrays you. It is quite clear that you see this from one perspective: that of Israel and the US. Oh and you can '"assume" all you like, you do it often enough as it is.

Either you have completely missed my point or you have completely lost the plot. Are you trying to tell me that you place an equal amount of blame on the Palestinians as the Israelis? Or do you entirely blame the Palestinians, or do you blame them just a little bit. Lets clear this confusion up once and for all - which actors in the Middle East do you place blame for the Israel-Palestine conflict?

Nice bit of wishful thinking there. The two state 'solution' is an idea that has been put forward by the US, Israel and its allies. It would seem that you can only view this conflict from the side of Israel.

And you have the nerve to call me patronising? Not only that, somebody who has never in their life been able to see the conflict from any other postition than a rabidly anti-Israel/America position has no right to be lecturing others about seeing things from one side or the other (especially when you are this far away from the truth as you are when you accuse me of being pro-Israel and only pro-Israel)

FWIW, I believed that Hamas and Fatah were close to agreeing to recognise Israel so some hard liners kidnapped that soldier in Gaza to provoke a response from Israel that would ensure that agreement was never made. If Israel can be convinced to halt its actions in the Occupied Territories and sit down with Hamas then I believe that deal can still be reached (enter Tony Blair hopefully)

You have this tendency to ignore uncomfortable truths and you have done everything possible to avoid my point about Blair and his tacit refusal to condemn the collective punishment meted out to the Lebanese people. How do you think the people in the ME see Blair? If you answered "International statesman and peacemaker", you're wrong.

I expect another patronising reply from you.

The people probably hold him in as much stead as the British people do! But he is fucking good at what he does, whether you agree with him or not. And yes, he was wrong not to criticise Israel's bombing of Lebanon, but then, even the Lebanese are caught between whether to blame Israel or Hizballah, so perhaps Tony Blair's views on the matter are slightly less of a worry for them?

 

[nino_savatte]

When you said Blair supported the bombing of Israel by not criticising Israel,

He didn't condemn it, like other world leaders - did he? AFAIC, his credentials as a peacemaker are in the khazi.

Either you have completely missed my point or you have completely lost the plot. Are you trying to tell me that you place an equal amount of blame on the Palestinians as the Israelis? Or do you entirely blame the Palestinians, or do you blame them just a little bit. Lets clear this confusion up once and for all - which actors in the Middle East do you place blame for the Israel-Palestine conflict?

No, it's you who has "lost the plot". You paint a rather one-sided picture where Israel is the injured party who can never do wrong. When you are pressed on this, you chuck out replies like the one above.

And you have the nerve to call me patronising? Not only that, somebody who has never in their life been able to see the conflict from any other postition than a rabidly anti-Israel/America position has no right to be lecturing others about seeing things from one side or the other (especially when you are this far away from the truth as you are when you accuse me of being pro-Israel and only pro-Israel)

You put forward the Zionist/US line. I have seen nothing to suggest the contrary.

The people probably hold him in as much stead as the British people do! But he is fucking good at what he does, whether you agree with him or not. And yes, he was wrong not to criticise Israel's bombing of Lebanon, but then, even the Lebanese are caught between whether to blame Israel or Hizballah, so perhaps Tony Blair's views on the matter are slightly less of a worry for them?

You appear to labour under the illusion that Blair is universally popular in the ME. He is only respected in Israel and possibly Jordan. His stock went down when he refused to condemn the Israeli bombing of Lebanon.

What I find amusing is the way you say Blair is "fucking good at what he does". Would you mind telling me what it is that he "does"? He's good at PR and spin. He's good at soundbites too.

Originally Posted by T. Blair
This is not a day for soundbites but I feel the hand of history on our shoulders

He's telegenic and he's photogenic but like the two dimensional image of the photograph, he's all surface and no substance.

 

[CyberRose]

He didn't condemn it, like other world leaders - did he? AFAIC, his credentials as a peacemaker are in the khazi.

One might just as easily say that those that did criticise Israel have no credentials to be a peacemaker yes?

No, it's you who has "lost the plot". You paint a rather one-sided picture where Israel is the injured party who can never do wrong. When you are pressed on this, you chuck out replies like the one above.

Where have I said Israel is the injured party that can do no wrong? If you had enough intelligence to understand what I've been trying to say to you in the last few points is that it is Israel that is causing most of the problems with the Palestinians, and therefore, the road to peace is to get Israel to STOP. Now you tell me, who would be in a better position to achieve that? Tony Blair or someone who rabidly criticises everything Israel does (as you seem to be suggesting that this person will have more success in bringing peace to the Middle East)

You put forward the Zionist/US line. I have seen nothing to suggest the contrary.

No I don't. You see someone who DARES to look at both sides to the argument as only being pro-Israel. You are only pro-Palestinian and anyone else who disagrees, whether they are only pro-Israel, or like me, see blame in both sides, you follow them round the boards calling them Zionists because you think this is a valid replacement for a sensible argument - well Mr, IT ISN'T

You appear to labour under the illusion that Blair is universally popular in the ME. He is only respected in Israel and possibly Jordan. His stock went down when he refused to condemn the Israeli bombing of Lebanon.

Where did I say Blair was popular in the Middle East? FYI I think he will be very popular in governments, and not popular amongst populations

What I find amusing is the way you say Blair is "fucking good at what he does". Would you mind telling me what it is that he "does"? He's good at PR and spin. He's good at soundbites too.

He's telegenic and he's photogenic but like the two dimensional image of the photograph, he's all surface and no substance.

What he did was successfully (hell, the MOST successful) run a country for 10 years. He is extremely charasmatic and has the ability to win people over (and THAT is what he is fucking good at and THAT is why I think he is a good choice for Mid East envoy)

 

[CyberRose]

Actually, let me simplify things:

There is a conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. Altho I feel both must share their burden of blame, I believe, and always have believed, that Israel is the actor that can bring about peace by altering or halting their actions/policies. However, they must be pursuaded to do that. The EU has tried and failed because it is viewed by Israel as being anti-Israel and pro-Palestine. America, due to domestic constraints, is unable to pressure Israel apart from in the smallest possible sense.

The actor that will successfully convince Israel to change its ways will not be anyone who Israel sees as hostile, nor will it be someone unable to exert influence. You will say Blair would be happy to allow Israel to do anything they want - I disagree. I think he wants peace and a two-state solution, and he is in a great position to bend Israel round to his way of thinking (ie the EU's) whilst not being viewed by Israel as hostile (like the EU is)

On the issue over Lebanon, well, world leaders had three choices - condemn, support, or remain silent. Now if you want to be seen as a neutral in the region, which one do you chose? Personally I think what Israel did was wrong so I would have criticised Israel, but then I'm not an international leader who has to think about diplomacy, I'm just some irrelevant guy sat behind a computer. If Blair wanted to have any influence over Israel, then all that would have vanished if he had strongly criticised Israel as people on this forum would have liked to see happen.

 

[nino_savatte]

One might just as easily say that those that did criticise Israel have no credentials to be a peacemaker yes?


Where have I said Israel is the injured party that can do no wrong? If you had enough intelligence to understand what I've been trying to say to you in the last few points is that it is Israel that is causing most of the problems with the Palestinians, and therefore, the road to peace is to get Israel to STOP. Now you tell me, who would be in a better position to achieve that? Tony Blair or someone who rabidly criticises everything Israel does (as you seem to be suggesting that this person will have more success in bringing peace to the Middle East)


No I don't. You see someone who DARES to look at both sides to the argument as only being pro-Israel. You are only pro-Palestinian and anyone else who disagrees, whether they are only pro-Israel, or like me, see blame in both sides, you follow them round the boards calling them Zionists because you think this is a valid replacement for a sensible argument - well Mr, IT ISN'T


Where did I say Blair was popular in the Middle East? FYI I think he will be very popular in governments, and not popular amongst populations


What he did was successfully (hell, the MOST successful) run a country for 10 years. He is extremely charasmatic and has the ability to win people over (and THAT is what he is fucking good at and THAT is why I think he is a good choice for Mid East envoy)

Oh please, your memory is either letting you down or you're trying to play fast and loose with the actualities.

For instance, what do you mean here?

Where did I say Blair was popular in the Middle East? FYI I think he will be very popular in governments, and not popular amongst populations

1. Did I suggest that you said "Blair was popular in the ME"? No, I did not.
2. What do you mean by the phrase "popular in governments"?
3. Why did you suggest that Blair was the ideal candidate for the job? You indicated this here:

But he is fucking good at what he does, whether you agree with him or not.

So what does "good at what he does" mean, if not "good at peacemaking"?

You see someone who DARES to look at both sides to the argument as only being pro-Israel.

No, I see someone who takes an position that is influenced by the noble sounding rhetoric that comes from Washington; a liberal line that is reinforced by the oft-used phrase "They're as bad as each other".

What he did was successfully (hell, the MOST successful) run a country for 10 years. He is extremely charasmatic and has the ability to win people over (and THAT is what he is fucking good at and THAT is why I think he is a good choice for Mid East envoy)

That is a very Nu Labour way to look at Blair's tenure. Charisma is useless when you've been chucked into a pool full of sharks. Spo who wanted Blair to become special envoy? Bush, that's who. The US line on the Palestinian issue has been the same since the 1967 Arab-Israeli war; there is nothing to suggest that this will change.

 

[CyberRose]

1. Did I suggest that you said "Blair was popular in the ME"? No, I did not.

You said: "You appear to labour under the illusion that Blair is universally popular in the ME."

2. What do you mean by the phrase "popular in governments"?

Exactly that. I think he will be popular in the governments (ie the rulers) of the Middle Eastern countries.

3. Why did you suggest that Blair was the ideal candidate for the job?

See my post above.

So what does "good at what he does" mean, if not "good at peacemaking"?

It means his ability to make friends and influence people. A trait that has served him well as British PM, as Northern Ireland peace broker and, I believe, will serve him well in the future as Middle East envoy

No, I see someone who takes an position that is influenced by the noble sounding rhetoric that comes from Washington; a liberal line that is reinforced by the oft-used phrase "They're as bad as each other".

You have no right to tell me where I get my opinion from, or what my opinion on anything is. I come to my own conclusions based on what I've found out for myself. And yes, both sides have done stuff that is unexcusable and has not helped the peace process one bit. The fact that you are so blind or arrogant to even acknowledge that suggests that it is actually you who is the one who base their opinions on idiotic left wing propaganda. Time to get your head out of the clouds and smell the roses I think.

That is a very Nu Labour way to look at Blair's tenure. Charisma is useless when you've been chucked into a pool full of sharks. Spo who wanted Blair to become special envoy? Bush, that's who. The US line on the Palestinian issue has been the same since the 1967 Arab-Israeli war; there is nothing to suggest that this will change.

Domestic constraints mean that ANY US President is powerless to do anything to pressure Israel - even if they would like to (which I imagine they all do). No one would EVER get elected if they were even the slightest bit against-what-Israel-was-doing. And if they showed that in their term, they would be voted back out. Hence - get Blair to do it!!

 

[nino_savatte]

You said: "You appear to labour under the illusion that Blair is universally popular in the ME."


Exactly that. I think he will be popular in the governments (ie the rulers) of the Middle Eastern countries.


See my post above.


It means his ability to make friends and influence people.


You have no right to tell me where I get my opinion from, or what my opinion on anything is. I come to my own conclusions based on what I've found out for myself. And yes, both sides have done stuff that is unexcusable and has A trait that has served him well as British PM, as Northern Ireland peace broker and, I believe, will serve him well in the future as Middle East envoynot helped the peace process one bit. The fact that you are so blind or arrogant to even acknowledge that suggests that it is actually you who is the one who base their opinions on idiotic left wing propaganda. Time to get your head out of the clouds and smell the roses I think.


Domestic constraints mean that ANY US President is powerless to do anything to pressure Israel - even if they would like to (which I imagine they all do). No one would EVER get elected if they were even the slightest bit against-what-Israel-was-doing. And if they showed that in their term, they would be voted back out. Hence - get Blair to do it!!

So, I said, "You appear to labour under the illusion that Blair is universally popular in the ME." Tbh, I do think that and there is nothing that you've said that convinces me otherwise. You appeared to suggest that Blair has the requisite qualities to be a broker for peace in the ME:

But he is fucking good at what he does, whether you agree with him or not.

"Good at what he does"? I don't think you made clear what it is that he does that is so good.

Or are you sayig that here?

It means his ability to make friends and influence people

Hmmm, like who, for example? He has imagined powers

A trait that has served him well as British PM, as Northern Ireland peace broker and, I believe, will serve him well in the future as Middle East envoy

I think he's dealing with a different set of circumstances here. While there are similarities between the two situations there are also plenty of differences. Blair doesn't come from an ideologically neutral position either; he is, for all intents and purposes, on the side of Israel and was fully supportive of Bush's ill-fated "roadmap".

Just to repeat myself: Blair has only found favour with the pro-Israeli side of the argument as is evidenced by his reluctance to condemn the Israeli bombing of Lebanon. That is an inescapable fact, whether or not you personally support him, his decision to remain silent, or the action itself. He has only a small circle of friends in the ME imo.

The fact that you are so blind or arrogant to even acknowledge that suggests that it is actually you who is base their opinions on idiotic left wing propaganda. Time to get your head out of the clouds and smell the roses I think.

LOL!!! That's what they all say when their positions are challenged. I base my opinions on "idiotic left wing propagada"? What "idiotic left wing propaganda" might that be? Should I be basing my opinions on "right wing propaganda" instead or should I just adopt your position and accept that Blair is the right man for the job, in spite of the fact that he was quiet over the bombing of Lebanon? So, why shoud Blair's reticence stand him in good stead with the Palestinians and non-Israelis? This is a question that you have been evading since the beginning.

"Smell the roses"? It's "smell the coffee", you berk!

Domestic constraints mean that ANY US President is powerless to do anything to pressure Israel - even if they would like to (which I imagine they all do). No one would EVER get elected if they were even the slightest bit against-what-Israel-was-doing. And if they showed that in their term, they would be voted back out. Hence - get Blair to do it!!

I'm not sure what you're saying here. You appear to be suggesting that Bush had no other choice than to hire Blair as his 'gunslinger' in the ME because he has "domestic" issues? That has never stopped a US president from selecting some retired Senator (i.e. George Mitchell) or whatnot, to act as the US's gun-for-hire abroad. Blair was chosen by Blair because a) he's his chum, b) he was perceived by some to have 'magical powers' because of the NI peace process; and c) because he was out of a job.

 

[CyberRose]

"Good at what he does"? I don't think you made clear what it is that he does that is so good.

He is a top class diplomat, one of the best in the world, evidented by his work in the UK, Northern Ireland, Europe and further afield.

I think he's dealing with a different set of circumstances here. While there are similarities between the two situations there are also plenty of differences. Blair doesn't come from an ideologically neutral position either; he is, for all intents and purposes, on the side of Israel and was fully supportive of Bush's ill-fated "roadmap".

Of course they are different, but the strengths he brought to other areas he has had success in can be useful in the Middle East. That's why he got the job, and that's why I think we should at least give him the chance to have a go.

Just to repeat myself: Blair has only found favour with the pro-Israeli side of the argument as is evidenced by his reluctance to condemn the Israeli bombing of Lebanon. That is an inescapable fact, whether or not you personally support him, his decision to remain silent, or the action itself. He has only a small circle of friends in the ME imo.

So what you're saying is that it is infact the Palestinians that need to be reined in, not the Israelis? Hmmm, I could have sworn I got the impression you blamed Israel for the conflict. Oh well, it gives me great pleasure to declare you a ZIONIST PIG!

I'm not sure what you're saying here. You appear to be suggesting that Bush had no other choice than to hire Blair as his 'gunslinger' in the ME because he has "domestic" issues? That has never stopped a US president from selecting some retired Senator (i.e. George Mitchell) or whatnot, to act as the US's gun-for-hire abroad. Blair was chosen by Blair because a) he's his chum, b) he was perceived by some to have 'magical power' because of the NI peace process; and c) because he was out of a job.

What I am saying is that a basic understanding of the domestic pressures faced by a US President should give you enough explanation as to why they are powerless (and therefore in the eyes of people like you "unwilling") to do anything about Israel. Which is why someone like Blair, who is not effected by those constraints, but enjoys influence in Israel, should be in a better position to help matters.

LOL!!! That's what they all say when their positions are challenged. I base my opinions on "idiotic left wing propagada"? What "idiotic left wing propaganda" might that be? Should I be basing my opinions on "right wing propaganda" instead or should I just adopt your position and accept that Blair is the right man for the job, in spite of the fact that he was quiet over the bombing of Lebanon? So, why shoud Blair's reticence stand him in good stead with the Palestinians and non-Israelis? This is a question that you have been evading since the beginning.

"Smell the roses"? It's "smell the coffee", you berk!

That's what "they" all say is it? Well I've noticed time and time again that what you wrote above is the type of thing YOU always say to slander people instead of being able to think of a sensible argument. When you're stuck for valid arguments, you ALWAYS call people rightwing, or pro-Israel, or a neocon poodle, etc, etc. Everyone knows you do it and it fools no-one. I have said plenty on this forum for people to know my views on this matter and if you had read any of them you would know I do not blame the Palestinians for everything and I have in fact been as critical of Israel as anyone else on here (but perhaps you won't have read what I have written on this forum, seeing as you have had me on ignore for a number of months because you don't like someone who stands up to you and doesn't take any shit of you and, hey, is quite frankly a lot better at putting their arguments across than you)

 

[nino_savatte]

He is a top class diplomat, one of the best in the world, evidented by his work in the UK, Northern Ireland, Europe and further afield.


Of course they are different, but the strengths he brought to other areas he has had success in can be useful in the Middle East. That's why he got the job, and that's why I think we should at least give him the chance to have a go.


So what you're saying is that it is infact the Palestinians that need to be reined in, not the Israelis? Hmmm, I could have sworn I got the impression you blamed Israel for the conflict. Oh well, it gives me great pleasure to declare you a ZIONIST PIG!


What I am saying is that a basic understanding of the domestic pressures faced by a US President should give you enough explanation as to why they are powerless (and therefore in the eyes of people like you "unwilling") to do anything about Israel. Which is why someone like Blair, who is not effected by those constraints, but enjoys influence in Israel, should be in a better position to help matters.


That's what "they" all say is it? Well I've noticed time and time again that what you wrote above is the type of thing YOU always say to slander people instead of being able to think of a sensible argument. When you're stuck for valid arguments, you ALWAYS call people rightwing, or pro-Israel, or a neocon poodle, etc, etc. Everyone knows you do it and it fools no-one. I have said plenty on this forum for people to know my views on this matter and if you had read any of them you would know I do not blame the Palestinians for everything and I have in fact been as critical of Israel as anyone else on here (but perhaps you won't have read what I have written on this forum, seeing as you have had me on ignore for a number of months because you don't like someone who stands up to you and doesn't take any shit of you and, hey, is quite frankly a lot better at putting their arguments across than you)

Blair is not and never has been a "diplomat".

When you're stuck for valid arguments, you ALWAYS call people rightwing, or pro-Israel, or a neocon poodle, etc, etc. Everyone knows you do it and it fools no-one.

Rubbish. You're no great debater either, chum; you're evasive, vague and slippery.

I shall put this question to you once more: how does Blair's reluctance to condemn Israel's bombing of Lebanon stand him in good stead with the Palestinians? Furthermore, how can it be seen as anything less than tacit support for Israel's collective punishment of the Lebanese people?

In your own time, chum.