"The British paper Daily Mail has charged former British Prime Minister Tony Blair with exploiting the cause of Middle East peace in order to line his pockets. A recent deal involving a Palestinian Authority telephone network, in which Blair was involved as an international envoy, saved a bank which pays Blair's salary from taking a loss.
Blair was heavily involved in getting Israeli leaders to sign over frequencies to a new PA cell phone company, Watania. Israel had held back on allowing Watania to use the frequencies, which IDF commanders said they needed for military communications."
"Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair was met by angry anti-Iraq war demonstrators and pro-Palestinians when heading to a book-signing in the Irish capital Dublin.
Around two hundred participants assembled for the event waving Palestinian flags and banners describing Blair as a liar and war criminal, and hurling objects such as plastic water bottles, shoes, and eggs at his convoy.
Police created a security cordon around protestors and shut down roads leading to Blair’s book signing. Around ten activists were arrested in the incident.
This was Blair’s first official appearance to sign his memoirs released this week in his best-selling book, Journey, in which Blair defended the decision to wage war on Iraq.
Blair reiterated in his memoirs that the choice to invade Iraq was correct despite the human and material losses in the US-led invasion.
According to the data we had, Blair said, I remain convinced that leaving the (Iraqi President) Saddam Hussein in power was much more dangerous for our security.
Blair, who currently serves as special envoy of the Mideast Peace Quartet, said: Although the losses were heavy, the fact is that leaving Saddam and his sons in power in Iraq would have been much worse." (source)
"Former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair has described radical Islam as the greatest threat facing the world today.
He made the remark in a BBC interview marking the publication of his memoirs.
Mr Blair said radical Islamists believed that whatever was done in the name of their cause was justified - including the use of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.
Mr Blair, who led Britain into war in Afghanistan and Iraq, denied that his own policies had fuelled radicalism.
Asked about the argument that Chechens, Kashmiris, Palestinians, Iraqis and Afghans were resisting foreign occupation, he said Western polices were designed to confront radical Islamists because they were 'regressive, wicked and backward-looking'.
The aim of al-Qaeda in Iraq was 'not to get American troops out of Baghdad [but] to destabilise a government the people of Iraq have voted for', he told the BBC's Owen Bennett Jones in a World Service interview.
'Stronger will'
The former British leader - who now acts as the Middle East envoy for the international Quartet - said that Iran was one of the biggest state sponsors of radical Islam, and it was necessary to prevent it by any means from developing a nuclear weapon.
'We need to give a message to Iran that is very clear - that they cannot have nuclear weapons capability, and we will stop them,' he said.
Mr Blair said he was not advocating military action, but simply saying no option could be taken off the table.
Iran denies pursuing a nuclear weapons programme, and insists its atomic work is for civilian purposes.
Mr Blair told the BBC his view of foreign policy had changed as a result of the 9/11 attacks: 'After 11 September, rightly or wrongly, I felt the calculus of risk had changed.'
'There is the most enormous threat from the combination of this radical extreme movement and the fact that, if they could, they would use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons.'
'You can't take a risk with that happening.'
Mr Blair said he agonised over how to respond to radical Islam and still had doubts that he was right.
These are really difficult issues, he said, but added: 'This extremism is so deep that in the end they have to know that they're facing a stronger will than theirs.'
Mr Blair has also expressed optimism about the prospect of peace in the Middle East. Direct talks between the Israelis and the Palestinians began in Washington on Thursday.
Speaking in Dublin, on the prime-time entertainment programme The Late Late Show, Mr Blair said he believed the Middle East peace process was similar to Northern Ireland - and would be successful.
He said: 'I feel it can be settled. You just have to carry on.'
There was a small anti-war protest outside the Dublin studio where the interview took place.
Mr Blair also told the Late Late Show that his successor as prime minister, Gordon Brown, remained a friend.
In his autobiography, Mr Blair said Mr Brown was 'maddening', had 'zero' emotional intelligence and sought to frustrate key reforms.
However, Mr Blair said there were many things he admired about Mr Brown and would 'probably' still go for a drink with him." (source)
"Former prime minister says it is wholly unacceptable for Tehran to seek nuclear weapons capability.
The west should use force against Iran if it 'continues to develop nuclear weapons', Tony Blair said today, aligning himself with US hawks who have called for strikes against Iranian nuclear sites.
The former prime minister made his comments in a BBC interview to publicise his memoirs, A Journey, which are published today.
Blair said it was 'wholly unacceptable' for Tehran to seek a nuclear weapons capability and insisted there could be 'no alternative' to military force 'if they continue to develop nuclear weapons'.
Speaking to Andrew Marr in a BBC interview to be broadcast tonight, Blair says: 'I am saying that I think it is wholly unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapons capability and I think we have got to be prepared to confront them, if necessary militarily. I think there is no alternative to that if they continue to develop nuclear weapons. They need to get that message loud and clear.'
Iran is enriching uranium at its main, internationally-monitored plant at Natanz and is building a second enrichment facility run by the Revolutionary Guards inside a mountain at Fordo, near Qom, southwest of Tehran. Enriched uranium can be used as fuel to power nuclear reactors as well as to make the fissile core of an atom bomb.
Tehran insists its nuclear activities are purely peaceful and argues that as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) it has the right to peaceful nuclear technology. But the UN last month imposed a fourth round of sanctions on Iran because of fears it may be secretly developing nuclear weapons.
The US and Israel – an undeclared nuclear power outside the NPT – have both refused to rule out military action against Iran.
In his exclusive interview with the Guardian, Blair elaborates on why it is unacceptable for Iran to have nuclear weapons, linking this to the 9/11 attacks on the US. The former prime minister wishes he had seen earlier that 9/11 had 'far deeper roots' than he thought at the time.
'The reason for that, let me explain it, is that in my view what was shocking about September 11 was that it was 3,000 people killed in one day but it would have been 300,000 if they could have done it,' Blair said, appearing to equate al-Qaida with Iran. 'That's the point ... I decided at that point that you cannot take a risk on this. This is why I am afraid, in relation to Iran, that I would not take a risk of them getting nuclear weapons capability. I wouldn't take it.'
'Now other people may say: 'Come on, the consequences of taking them on are too great, you've got to be so very careful, you'll simply upset everybody, you'll destabilise it.' I understand all of those arguments. But I wouldn't take the risk of Iran with a nuclear weapon.'
In the postscript to his book, Blair writes: 'Iran with a nuclear bomb would mean others in the region acquiring the same capability; it would dramatically alter the balance of power in the region, but also within Islam.'
Blair's approach to Iran aligns him with US hawks such as John Bolton, the former American ambassador to the UN, who believes that Israel should have attacked Iran before it started loading fuel into its first nuclear power plant in the southern port city of Bushehr on 21 August, although nuclear experts say Bushehr has no link with Iran's secretive uranium enrichment programme, seen as the main 'weaponisation' threat, at other installations." (source)
Tony Blair: "There are two forms of de-legitimisation. One is traditional, obvious and from the quarters it emanates, expected. It is easier to deal with. This is attack from those who openly question Israel’s right to exist. It is easier to deal with, because it is so clear. When the President of Iran says he wants Israel wiped off the face of the map, we all know where we are. This is not to minimise the threat of course. It remains and is profound. It is just to say that were this the only form of de-legitimisation, it wouldn’t warrant a conference of analysis; simply a course of action.
The other form is more insidious, harder to spot, harder to anticipate and harder to deal with, because many of those engaging in it, will fiercely deny they are doing so. It is this form that is in danger of growing, and whose impact is potentially highly threatening, in part because it isn’t obvious.
I would define in it this way: it is a conscious or often unconscious resistance, sometimes bordering on refusal, to accept Israel has a legitimate point of view. Note that I say refusal to accept Israel has a legitimate point of view. I’m not saying refusal to agree with it. People are perfectly entitled to agree or not; but rather an unwillingness to listen to the other side, to acknowledge that Israel has a point, to embrace the notion that this is a complex matter that requires understanding of the other way of looking at it.
The challenge is that this often does not come from ill-intentioned people; but well-intentioned. They would dispute vigorously such a characterisation of their mindset. They would point to the injustice of Palestinian suffering, acts of the Israeli Government or army which are unjustifiable and they would say, rightly, that you cannot say that to criticise Israel is to de-legitimise it. Such minds are often to be found in the west. They will say they advocate a two state solution and they will point to that as proof positive that they accept Israel’s existence fully.
The problem is that though this is true in theory, in practice they wear Nelson’s eye patch when they lift the telescope of scrutiny to the Israeli case. In a very real sense, they don’t see it.
So, for example, on Gaza they won’t accept that Israel might have a right to search vessels bringing cargo into Gaza, given that even this year over 100 rockets have been fired from that territory into Israel Leave aside the multiple investigations relating to the flotilla, upon which there will naturally be heated debate. I mean a refusal to accept that, however handled, no Israeli government could be indifferent to the possibility of weapons and missiles being brought into Gaza.
I often have a conversation about the West Bank which goes like this. Someone says: Israel must lift the occupation. I reply: I agree but it has to be sure that when it does so, there will be security and a Palestinian force capable of preventing terrorism. They say: so you’re supporting occupation. I say: I’m not: I’m simply pointing out that if Hamas, with an unchanged position on Israel, were running the West Bank, Israel would have a perfectly legitimate right to be concerned about it’s security.
A constant conversation I have with some, by no means all, of my European colleagues is to argue to them: don’t apply rules to the Government of Israel that you would never dream of applying to your own country. In any of our nations, if there were people firing rockets, committing acts of terrorism and living next door to us, our public opinion would go crazy. And any political leader who took the line that we shouldn’t get too excited about it, wouldn’t last long as a political leader. This is a democracy. Israel lost 1000 citizens to terrorism in the intifada. That equates in UK population terms to 10,000. I remember the bomb attacks from Republican terrorism in the 1970’s. There weren’t many arguing for a policy of phlegmatic calm.
So the issue of de-legitimisation is not simply about an overt denial of the State of Israel. It is the application of prejudice in not allowing that Israel has a point of view that should be listened to.
One thing I state repeatedly in interviews about Gaza – despite disagreeing with the previous policy on it – is to say to western media outlets: just at least comprehend why Israel feels as it does. In 2005 it got out of Gaza i.e. ceased occupying it, took over 7000 settlers with it and in return got rockets and terror attacks. Now I know all the counter-arguments about the unilateral nature of the withdrawal, the 2005 Access and Movement agreement and the closure of the crossings. But the fact remains: there is another point of view and you can’t describe it as illegitimate.
This is then hugely heightened by the way things are reported. Here the televisual images – whether in Lebanon, Gaza or indeed any field of conflict – in Afghanistan for example, are so shocking that they tend to overwhelm debate about how or why conflict began. Because Israel – like the US or the UK – has superior force and because in such situations the horrible tragedy is that the innocent die – these images arouse anger, sympathy and a disgust that at one level is completely understandable but at another obscures the difficult choices nations like ours face, when they come under attack.
The combination of all of this is curious disjunction of perception. I spend large amounts of time in Israel, and outside of it in different parts of the world. To those outside, Israel is regularly perceived as arrogant, overbearing and aggressive. To Israelis, there is a sense that the world is isolating it unfairly and perversely refusing to see they too have a right to have their voice heard. Hence this conference.
The issue is how to respond. First, there is a clear and vital principle that needs to be established: to criticise is not per se to de-legitimise. The fact is there are plenty of Israeli and Jewish voices that passionately disagree with Israeli policy. I am a friend of Israel and openly avow it. I have plenty of criticisms. De-legitimisation is qualitatively different. It can seem the same sometimes. But it isn’t. The one is valid. The other is not. Friends of Israel should be the first to make the distinction.
Having done that, however, we should highlight the fact that de-legitimisation is happening, and be vigilant and vigorous about identifying and countering the instances of it. This needn’t be done stridently. But it should be done insistently. The aim: not to make people agree necessarily with Israel’s point of view; but to insist they listen to it and persuade them at least to the position of understanding. Where there is incitement, expose it. Where there is a one-sided account, argue the other side. Always have a voice out there – and not just the politicians – but the voices of the people. And do it systematically and with unity.
Second, Israel should always be a staunch and unremitting advocate and actor for peace. What I mean by this is not that it should simply be for peace; it should advocate it and act to achieve it. Tzipi Livni’s and Ehud Olmert’s negotiations under the previous Israeli Government and previous US administration, were an immensely important part of showing to the world that whatever else they might say, they had to accept that the Government of Israel was genuinely trying to bring about peace. The re-start of the direct negotiations to be launched next week is important in itself; important because it shows that PM Netanyahu on behalf of the new Government of Israel is an advocate for peace; important because, with a l year time frame being indicated, it shows that there is a sincere yearning on the part of the people of Israel to live in an enduring and honourable peace with their Palestinian neighbours. I know some are cynical. I know some say it’s all for show. I reject that view. I think if Israel can receive real and effective guarantees about its security, then it is willing and ready to include a negotiation for a viable, independent Palestinian state. This is a brave decision by the PM and the right one.
Third, there will be no successful negotiation unless all the final status issues are on the table. I’m not going to try to negotiate solutions here and now. That is for later. We can think creatively and constructively. Indeed we must do so. But proposals on these issues will be a litmus test of seriousness.
Which brings me to a fourth point. A crucial response to de-legitimisation is to deal with the legitimate criticism. What is it? Let me answer based on my experience. It is that we can and should do more and more quickly to improve the daily lives of Palestinians. Now there has been real progress here in the past year. We should deepen it. I am a convinced persuader for the bottom up approach – I continue to believe that no top-down negotiation will work without it. I also think we have visible empirical evidence to support it: the improvements in Jenin and the opening of the Jalameh crossing to Israeli Arabs; changes to A & M in response to the hugely improved capability of the PA on security; the very successful PIC in Bethlehem that yielded hundreds of millions of dollars of investment; the modus operandi with the new department under DPM Shalom that has resulted in significant gains; and I hope in time a new approach to tourism and to development for Palestinians in Area C.
Such change does not only lead to improvements to Palestinian lives. It also deals with what is the most potent fuel – especially in Arab media – of hatred against Israel. That is the idea that Palestinians suffer not injustice alone; but a form of humiliation. Dignity is a very important concept. Consistent with security, Israel should be constantly looking for ways to compensate for the indignity which inevitably results from the security measures taken and should seek to avoid any unnecessary indignities.
I was pleased and heartened when the Government changed policy on Gaza. The truth is you can justify restrictions in Gaza taken for reasons of security. But with a Gazan population, half of whom is under the age of 18 and 300,000 of whom are under the age of 4, security is the only arguable basis upon which to put such restrictions. Of course Gilad Shalit should be released immediately. His detention is a profound denial of human rights, as is the way he is being treated. But a policy based on threats to Israel’s security is the only one its friends can defend.
This leads me to my final point. It is our collective duty – yours and mine – to argue vigorously against the de-legitimisation of Israel. It is also our collective duty to arm ourselves with an argument and a narrative we can defend and with which we can answer the case against Israel, with pride and confidence.
Let me tell you why I am a passionate believer in Israel. This is a democracy. It’s Parliament is vibrant. Its politics is, well, not notably restrained, let’s say. Its press is free. Its people have rights and they are enforced. I had an argument with a friend about Israel. I said to them: ‘ok let’s assume you are charged with a crime you didn’t commit and the penalty is 20 years in prison. And you’re a critic of the Government. Tell me: under which country’s legal system, in this region, would you prefer to be tried?’ He struggled for a bit and then said: ‘that’s not the point.’ ‘But it is’ I replied.
Look around the world about what we admire about the Jewish people: their contribution to art, culture, literature, music, business and philanthropy. It’s a spirit that is identifiable, open and rather wonderful. Whatever bigotry is, it is the opposite of it. It is a free spirit. On holiday I read the new biography of Einstein. Having in early life taken not much interest in the issue, he became an ardent supporter of Israel. But look at the character of the Israel he supported: like Einstein himself – a free thinker, a rebellious thinker even, but one supremely attuned to the future.
That is the Israel people like me support. So guard it; keep it. I am a religious person myself. But the society I want to live in, is one that treats me no better as a result; makes my view one amongst many; and pursues science, technology and progress with vigour and without prejudice. The best answer to the de-legitimisation of Israel lies in the character of Israel itself and in the openness, fair-mindedness and creativity of ordinary Israelis. That character and those people built the State of Israel. They remain it’s guardians. They are why to de-legitimise Israel is not only an affront to Israelis but to all who share the values of a free human spirit.
"Quartet envoy says relaunch of direct talks shows the world Netanyahu is 'advocate of peace.'
To delegitimize Israel is an affront not only to Israelis, but to those 'everywhere, in every part of humanity, who share the values of a free and independent human spirit,' Quartet envoy Tony Blair said on Tuesday, in an exceptionally warm speech at the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya.
Blair, the keynote speaker at a conference on the delegitimization of Israel, said the best answer to those who sought to delegitimize the Jewish state 'lies in the character of Israel itself, in the openness, fairmindedness and creativity of the Israelis.'"
"Quartet envoy asks Lebanese Gaza-bound ships to reconsider journey.
Quartet Representative Tony Blair Friday urged the Lebanese flotilla intent on heading towards Gaza this weekend to reconsider its journey.
'I urge the Lebanese aid ship to reconsider its intention to set sail to the Gaza shores to deliver aid to the people. As the UN Under-Secretary General said yesterday, such convoys are not helpful, do not resolve the economic difficulties in Gaza and carry the risk of escalation needlessly', said Blair."
"Quartet envoy to Middle East visits Kerem Shalom crossing to inspect change in Israeli policy after government decides to ease siege on Strip. Soldier kidnapped by Hamas should be released as soon as possible and without preconditions, he says."
"Former British prime minister: The plan will allow us to keep weapons and weapon materials out of Gaza, but on the other hand help the Palestinian population there."
"Terrorists in the de facto Hamas government continue to smuggle weapons into Gaza, and possess 5,000 medium-range rockets with a range of 25 miles, including several that can bomb Tel Aviv, security chief Yuval Diskin said Tuesday."
