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.

😂is the most appropriate answer to that.

Hamas who are the controlling government in Gaza will not be negotiating what they want. Their leadership changes so often and lots in other countries and are in the midst of war with Israel after a massive terrorist attack on their neighbour Israel, and since they are losing the conflict a surrender and bugger off has been sought by all others.

In case you hadn't noticed Arab nations have been negotiating with the US and Israel and have come up with a peace plan which also involves Hamas bugger off. The plan is supported by a large number of Arab nations, the US, the EU and many countries in and out of the EU and is on the table. Hamas need to agree to disarm and bugger off (granted amnesty as well) oh and that matter of releasing the hostages should they know where they are since many appear to be held by 'innocent Palestinians' or maybe they just work for Hamas since they appear to control the health ministry and various other ministries being the governing body. A losing terrorist organisation at the end of a conflict don't tend to hold many cards and really shouldn't be making demands.

Hamas have lost a war in a decisive way. Period.

I think there is a lot of sadness amongst these threads that the 'resistance' of a genius terrorist group has ended. After WW2 the Nazis weren't exactly invited to stay in power so why the hell should Hamas?

the refusal of Hamas to surrender will prolong this war with no benefit to the Palestinians who are begging Hamas to lay down arms.

💯
Why so sad.

I think you are reinforcing what i am saying - that third parties can be important in relation to negotiations, but that it is the parties to the conflict which need to be the primary negotiators. Clinton and southern Ireland were not appointed to be in charge (ie as being proposed in relation to Blair) - this was the distinction I was making. Can you see how international pressure could positively affect achieving a real two state solution?

Bear in mind also that it was Netanyahu who was the initial and primary driving force behind the attacks in Iraq around wmd, in relation to which presumably Blair followed Netanyahu's directive? This affects dynamics and perception too.

Obviously third parties are essential to negotiations. All the main ME deals have been involved third parties, the Americans, Egyptians, more recemtly Qataris etc. You said the GFA was ' a civil situation and so the negotiators weren't third parties' but the negotiators included third parties. Plus the fact that the usual pattern is that negotiations are initially carried out by intermediaries before the big cheeses on each side meet at all.

Sorry I find your posts very hard to follow and have no clue what your second paragraph is about.

In your entire post here, you are saying exactly what I said except that I hadn't made presumptions about what was going on behind the scenes exactly - I said "In relation to Hamas' involvement I don't know, that would be one of the preliminary things to sort out in relation to negotiation" - that is in terms of effect the same thing you said. They are sorting out preliminary things prior to negotiation. I don't know what the situation is exactly and nor do you,though, nor of what discussions have taken place between Arab states and various groups.

If my posts are unclear I will set it out for you:

1. A poster said that Blair et al had succeeded in NI so why can't he succeed in ME
2. I said Blair was a party to the NI conflict, he isn't a party to the ME conflict, but that he could be a go between (your word is intermediary - it means the same thing) or he could represent Israel. I said international pressure would be needed to get Israel to agree to a 2 state solution because they have said they aren't keen (you said third parties were involved in NI so effectively saying the same thing that third parties can be important). I said that Palestinians and their chosen reps should be primary negotiators.
3. Poster said she knew all about the GFA
4. You then added a few bits but then said you didn't understand my posts

I hope the above is clear now. It sounds like we have agreed about some things so I don't think you need to worry too much.

I don't know why you don't understand what I said about Netanyahu's involvement in Iraq though - what do you not understand?

@nogitanoblair it is so obvious that Blair's role as Prime Minister of the UK in the GFA is different to any role that he may have in relation to a country that he is not Prime Minister that I'm not sure what to say. Either role, however, requires the possession of negotiating skills which is a transferable skillset It therefore means that he potentially has skills required in another conflict. It doesn't automatically mean he's the right person for the job.

The idea that Blair was following Netanyahu's 'directive' in the Iraq war smacks of conspiracy thinking and I can't see its relevance here anyway. That Blair is a controversial figure in the ME is not any sort of revelation. He also has connections with leaders in the ME other than Netanyahu.

You said

"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."

Which Palestinian leaders or should I say which members of Hamas can handle negotiations. We've all seen their grandiose parading in military uniforms (not worn when fighting naturally) when handing back the bodies of dead babies - not sure anyone wants that at the table. Arab leaders are already and should be involved, not in dispute. Perhaps someone in the PA might have a name that could take over the running of the place. If not, a independent group will need to take it on to help to try and avoid a return to the missile firing and terrorism.

Well the grown ups are doing the negotiations and Hamas can frankly bugger off out of Gaza and let people that actually WANT to improve things for the Palestinian people get on with it.

So you did understand what I wrote, so that is good.
No conspiracies, don't be so ridiculous - what I said that was that the relationship means that Blair is better suited to be acting for Israel as there is clear synergy there.
Bottom line - for long lasting peace, Palestinians and their chosen reps need to be the primary negotiators and handing the negotiations, and choosing when to use intermediaries like Blair, is what I am saying. For lasting peace.

Hamas aren't the only palestinians who could represent Palestine, there are many, so I am not sure why you are talking about Hamas so much? I don't know what the position is. What I have said is that it should be Palesinians and their chosen reps who lead their side.

Like who? Obviously not Hamas.

I think you are muddling up the different levels of people in negotiating teams, to be honest and I think that's why your point is hard to follow. Im not sure you have much knowledge of how negotiating at this level & complexity works so lets leave it there.

I just want to comment here that I really don't understand what you are saying about sadness or about anyone winning or losing a war. The war has gone on since 1917, since the Balfour Agreement. In terms of winning or losing we should be focusing on a win-win solution for the Israeli people and Palestinian people now by facilitating a two state agreement which both sides accept and abide by.

No I haven't misunderstood at all. As have you. I think I am probably a bit more straightforward and direct than you are, in terms of style, that is the only difference.

I'd be totally on board with Ahmed Fouad Alkhatib running Gaza

But if every primary negotiator was Palestinian or chosen by Palestinians then that wouldn’t be seen as fair to Israel would it? There has to be a mix of people running Gaza post war and that is what this plan seems to suggest.

Tony Blair may not be the best choice I don’t know, but I can’t think of anyone that both sides would consider completely neutral, can you?

The Arab nations have not been negotiating with the US and Israel to come up with this plan. This plan was cooked up by the US and Israel with no real input by anyone else in the negotiations and others have agreed to it, because ultimately with the way things are this is as good as it gets. The plan thrashed out by both Arab nations and western nations was the New York Declaration.

@nogitanoblair is completely right. This plan isn’t a recipe for lasting peace. But at the very least hopefully it will stop the killing, facilitate aid deliveries and release the hostages. In the short term it will save lives.

It’s the only option on the table. If you read the statements from many countries they are cautiously backing the plan. They say that they “agree with the principles” or other such language.

Everyone knows that this plan won’t bring lasting peace because it hasn’t been drawn up in a way that achieve that.

Anyone with any sense knows the plan is not detailed enough to bring lasting peace, for a start. Its very obviously just a starting point. Lasting peace will only come from a long, complex process.

I was talking about negotiations for a two state solution. You would have Israel and its chosen reps on one side, and Palestine and its chosen reps on the other side. And international third parties bringing appropriate pressure to bear.

It’s not a mix. It’s just the US and Tony Blair, both of which are Israel’s “friends”, The PA haven’t even been involved in negotiations, and will have to jump through many hoops proposed by, ultimately Israel, who are against the idea of a Palestinian state.

I don’t know enough about global politics to suggest a solution but you’d need some kind of co-ordinated governance that contains a set of people that Israel trust and a set that the Palestinians could trust. If you were actually looking for lasting peace which Israel is not. The US’s main interest is trying to make money out of the situation. It’s not a recipe for peace.

There are going to be a large number of Palestinians who have suitable expertise and experience. It really is for them to decide who.

This idea that the Palestinian people are uneducated, unskilled, all terrorists is wrong.

It is because of this wrong thinking - even if well intentioned - that the latest plan has been tabled by the west. Anyone who understands properly what has gone on and what is going on can see this. But it puts the Arab people between a rock and a hard place. They say "err this is not going to work and is not the best thing for the Palestinian people by a long stretch of the imagination" and people scream "oh you are terrorists you just want to keep fighting"

As I have just indicated, it is the wrong start, and yes it will be a long complex process but what has been suggested is completely the wrong starting point. Hopefully western leaders who do want a lasting peace will see this and make adjustments.

Tony Blair is a twat.

Considering the leadership of Gaza don't recognise the state of Israel, negotiations between the two are extremely unlikely, especially as it's in Hamas' charter that they're committed to the destruction of Israel, so a third party becomes necessary

And as the whole political world has been very clear, there will be no place for Hamas in a future Palestinian state

Why are you treating a terrorist organisation, that even terrorises its own population, as a legitimate government who should be given a seat at the table?

As for your other claims, you're clearly ignorant of what's going to happen. Other Arab countries, with Palestinian representatives, will be part of the team navigating and negotiating a post-Hamas Gaza. Blair won't be controlling anything, just using his experience to guide and lead