As a friend I would say to him Tony you are a very talented and capable politician, do you feel you have the time do you feel you have the tools to really make a difference in this arena and if you do then what are you going to do and how are you going to go about it and what is your role precisely going to be –and if there is not satisfaction and ticks in all those boxes then I would say why don’t you now allow those that do have the time, do have the tools, to carry out the role on behalf of the quartet, but if the boxes are ticked I would encourage him to try and play a role, but that role would very much be subsidiary to the Secretary of State the American Secretary of State Clinton and of course to the American presidential envoy George Mitchell.
Levy's main point seems to be that Blair isn't devoting the time needed to his work in the Middle East and should therefore let someone else have a go. Or could it be that having visited Gaza last week, Levy feels Blair is beginning to show too much sympathy with the Palestinian cause?
18 comments:
"Tony you are a very talented and capable politician,"
Ergo falsifyer of truth, warmonger, glory seeker, wealth and fame seeker, the list is endless. Ghastly creature.
I thought sour grapes. Levy served a purpose and not very well. A visit to www.zipit.com may improve his reputation.
oldrightie@ -i think you let him down lightly !
It's interesting isn;t it. Blair was very much invisible for more than a year in his ME role, which in itself was rather a black eye for him I think, and a bit of a letdown for people like me who thought he might bring some serious energy and capability to the position. When you get up close to the Is/Pal situation it becomes unavoidable to see that Israel is really screwing the Pals - perhaps this has put the Tonester in a tricky position given his pronouncements in the past on the overall situation. The leaked EU report in today's Guardian on Israel's actions in East Jerusalem contains exactly the kind of dispassionate observations you never hear from western politicians. Perhaps Blair is torn between his historical position on Is/Pal and what he can see with his own eyes, both in terms of what is really going on and how limited his ability to have any kind of impact is. Perhaps, as you say, Levy is worried he will go with his conscience.
By cutting loose from his role as peacemaker, he strengthens his chances of becoming European Pres - this is a ploy from levy. Emigrate now...................
Obviously strings that were once firm and solid are showing signs of fraying
Maybe the Labour Friends of Israel should invite him on all expenses paid jolly to Israel eh, Iain?
I reckon Levy is right.
'Levy's main point seems to be that Blair isn't devoting the time needed to his work in the Middle East and should therefore let someone else have a go.'
2 Years in the job before he decides to visit Israel/Gaza. Then he it's shocked at the level of destruction. Well, Tony, see, this is what happens in a war zone. Kinda like Afghanistan/Iraq.
I am afraid you are quoting out of context - I heard the interview as well. He was pushed two or three times to say what that Blair should step down - and he pointedly did not urge Blair to stand down. His main point was that the role of any 4 powers envoy was now peripheral to that of Clinton/Mitchell and that there wasn't much for Blair to do at present - he didn't say that he should devote more time.
You may want to read between the lines - but that is what you are doing.
Levy's basic point is that the US is the only power that can really start to clean up this mess is the main point - and fortunately they now appear to be doing something.
It's taken Lord Levy two years to realise that Blair is useless. Not the sharpest tool in the box.
Tory boys, I heard the interview too. The clear implication was that Blair should stand down. There was no other way of interpreting it.
No, actually it seems a strange coincidence that Blair visits Gaza for the first time, says the Israeli destruction is unacceptable, and then gets a request from Lord Levy to step down!
I think the advice is to audit the situation, and re-position if he is to continue, not "to step down".
And DtP may be right about those sour grapes from the Johnny Rotten of ME politics. Which would explain (a) the tone of voice you heard Iain (I missed it); and (b) the more balanced text that finds its way to the page.
And what's more Peter S is right that Levy is a shockingly un fair minded individual on this issue.
Any danger that Blair could contribute to a just solution for Palestine (i) try to bounce him out or (ii) if fail make him subservient to more likely Zionists
Blair can bring all his verbal skills, both political and also his training as a barrister to bear on the assembled company. He can make the best speech of his life against the folly of war. He could make the best speech anyone has ever made in the whole of human history about the folly of war. But in the end, both sides can just look him in the eye and say:
"Oh yeah? And what about Iraq?"
after being responsible for killing hundreds of thousands of them his use as a peace envoy is just taking the piss.
Maybe its interfering with his free loading?
Unbelievable. He's been given a poisoned chalice with prospects of success invisible to the naked eye and for no money and you still want to dump on him. Tough room.
If all western politicians stepped down from trying to solve the middle east virtually everybody would be better off. I include ordinary people of Gaza who have as much opportunity to run a succesful economy as the people of Hong Kong did when they got 1 1/2 million refugees dumped on them in 1948. They didn't get endless money simply to kep them as refugees & to fund a kleptocracy set over them by western "aid" they simply got free trade, free enterprise & the rule of law.
“By cutting loose from his role as peacemaker, he strengthens his chances of becoming European Pres”
Have any of you Euro-conspiracists stopped to asked yourselves whether and why the rest of Europe might want war-monger Blair as European President? Because he’s a catholic? I don’t think so.
Iain - there is a lot of difference between an implication and urging someone to do something.
Levy however certainly didn't say Blair was not spending enough time - the more interesting point he was making that the US is the only player that can make things happen and that the G4 role is peripheral to that. You and the BBC interviewer were trying to make this into a Levy vs Blair thing - while actually it is a lot more important than that.
If you look at what Levy has siad in the past on the whole matter - I don't think that he will be ojecting too much if at long last the US shows some moral leadership and drags Israel kicking and screaming to a two state solution.
Post a Comment