Sir Tony Blair's loves a challenge.....

[mids2019]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/sep/25/washington-backing-plan-for-tony-blair-to-head-transitional-gaza-authority

From New Labour to New Gaza.

Just wondering what sort of pad he would set up in Gaza city. But of a contrast to Downing St.

I guess Sir Tony would have to have a few Palestinian flags around him but this may be a really positive step and a different leadership to a terrorist organisation. It would be a real challenge though to commit to diplomacy with Israel while having to understand the Palestinian culture and organise resconstruction.

Fair play to having something to do in your retirement years.....most people choose a bit of gardening.

Not so much by the families of all the many people he had killed on the back of a massive lie.

I'm sure that if one of his loved ones were sentenced to the death penalty by a judge who laughed about 'sexing up' the false 'evidence' that made them appear guilty, he wouldn't be quite so blasé about it.

I'm just an ordinary, insignificant person and, hands up, I've never resolved and brought any wars to an end; but then I've also never started any either.

Many people still regard Blair as a war criminal.

And many don't. Lets judge him on what he achieves, or not,now. Not many would put themselves forward for a job where being universally criticised is baked in.

I am sure he is a nice person, but he is not independent, and is therefore the wrong person for the job. If it is going to be a two state solution as you say upthread, then it would be appropriate for Blair to negotiation on behalf of Israel, perhaps - that is perhaps the right role for him. On the part of Palestine it needs to be someone who has been involved on their side -it is a bit shocking that this even needs to be pointed out. Their backers in the Arab world voted for a two state solution and it should be Palestinians and representatives from those countries who need to be involved to ensure that there is full agreement across those countries.

But he is not independent and he is not a leader of a ME state. It should be leaders of ME states who have supported Palestine who should be negotiating on behalf of Palestine. Can you point to some quotes which show that he is known, liked and respected etc, by the way?

Who the hell is independent?

Well, exactly! On the basis that Israel will have proposed or sanctioned Blair, and he has special knowledge, it would be appropriate for him to act as Israel's representative or go between perhaps.

We have two distinct sides here, the only possibility of stopping attacks from both sides in the future is for the people of both sides to be completely on board - that will happen if one of Palestine's backers together with a representative of Palestine negotiate for Palestinian interests. That is the way effective negotiation works. It would need to be a proper negotiation, working out what would be fair, reasonable, lasting, workable, facilitated and supported by other world leaders.

If Blair is to be titular at the helm only, then perhaps a joint appointment of such with one of Palestine's backers might be more diplomatic.

I think your view that this is all to do with getting a genuine two state solution is somewhat naive, but let's hope. I think you are underestimating just how appalling most people think the wmd disaster was, and Blair was not only in the centre of it, but has come out with polarised statements on world affairs since. So a curious choice.

We get to repeat the words of Ask Sarkar “was Satan not available?”

Ash Sarkar is infantile so that doesn't surprise me.

Totally agree with @SharonEllis
Ash Sarkar is a Jew-hating, Corbyn-loving, antisemitic, Hamas excusing, usefully idiotic, infantile poo-poo pants.

In case you missed it.

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/tony-blair-relationship-middle-east-leaving-office

Well they don't seem to be able to pick anyone else and Hamas are still there and need to go. Who.needs another Islamic terrorist organisation running things.

I’m a Zionist and I’m against it.

TB comes with too much baggage.

Are you suggesting that the only choice was to appoint a Westerner or an Islamic terrorist organisation?

And a Westerner who is considered by many to be a war criminal at that?

Has anyone got any actual suggestions of this 'independent' person who could take this on? Like actual names?

No, but I don't suppose a bunch of parents predominantly based in the UK are necessarily going to have the relevant networks.

Well the Middle Eastern countries don't appear to have come up with other alternatives. The latest peace deal is backed by them, the US and Israel but Hamas might prefer to continue the conflict despite whats best for its people. Tony Blair was involved in the Good Friday agreement and for its faults has worked reasonably wewell.He has experience that many others don't.

Health Secretary Wes Streeting has backed Sir Tony Blair’s role in an interim authority in Gaza under Donald Trump’s peace plan.

He told Times Radio: “Now I know there will be people who will raise eyebrows about Tony Blair in particular, and will think critically about that because of his role in the Iraq War.

“All I would say is that someone who also marched against the Iraq War, and opposed the Iraq War as I did, I also remember his legacy in Northern Ireland, and if he can bring that considerable skill set to bear of being able to broker peace between enemies, sworn enemies, then so much the better.”

Well Gary Lineker or Dawn French are obvious candidates, maybe a little partisan though. I guess it will just have to be a collection of world leaders with representation from the middle east, hamas and the wider islamic world.

I can't say I have positive feelings re Blair at all and initially I felt oh come on, but really if they can get this plan through then do it.

I never thought the IRA leaders would sit down with Blair, Mo Mowlen, Berty Ahern etc but they did.

Peace is needed. An end to the suffering is needed. Why not try the plan, at least. The alternative, which sadly a number of posters appear to want is ongoing conflict.

The IRA sat down with the people they had to negotiate with, though, because the UK were a party to the conflict, so there is no comparison with that situation. To explain further, what is being proposed here is that a third party is involved and it won't work because the negotiation has to be between the parties to the conflict, together with helpers of their choosing. Does that explain it better?

The alternative is not more fighting, no. The alternative is very clearly that we have a bit of respect for Palestinians and allow them to decide who they want at the negotiating table, and proceed with good faith. It should be Arab partners liaising with the PLA and Palestinian reps to decide who this should be.

There is no hope in hell that Netanyahu will agree to a real, fair and reasonable, equal two state solution without significant international pressure, we know this because he has set out his stall. That is the key thing we should be trying to find solutions for. There is no possibility that Blair will be able to exert pressure on Israel, it is more likely that he will try to convince the Arab world to agree to a very limited and controlled situation in favour of Israel and this will cause more conflict and then Blair et al will say "we tried".

So for a real 2 state solution, the only thing which would bring lasting peace, it has to be a real negotiation between the parties to the conflict, with international pressure brought to bear to ensure that it is a fair and reasonable and equal solution. The Arab world have agreed to a 2 state solution and they will already know what they think is a good starting point for a fair and equal solution, so let them liaise with Palestinians and set out their stall, and let that be the starting point. They do not need Blair. International leaders will be needed to facilitate.

Blair could however represent Israel is that is what Israel wants.

I know perfectly well how the Good Friday Agreement came about.

The Palestinians don't appear to have anyone to negotiate any suggested names per chance? Someone needs to take hold of the situation for them though. Hamas leaders appear to be intent on fighting not talking. Or chilling in Qarar whilst their people suffer, jolly cowardly of them. Arab nations have been involved in the negotiations though.

In relation to the Good Friday Agreement I was just pointing out that that was a UK civil situation and so the negotiators weren't third parties.

Palestinian leaders and Arab nations will have already have thought about what a two state solution should look like and have a starting point for negotiations, and most certainly have people who could handle negotiations. I am really surprised you would think otherwise.

In relation to Hamas' involvement I don't know, that would be one of the preliminary things to sort out in relation to negotiation.

Actually a third party, the Americans, was critical to the GFA, alongside the Irish (The Republic is a separate country to the UK). Clinton & his appointed special envoy George Mitchell worked on it for nearly 5 years & the 'Mitchell Principles' guided the negotiations.