Tony Blair is not widely renowned as a master of understatement. But it is with magnificent restraint that he acknowledges the price he has paid for taking sensible positions on combating terrorism, radical dictatorship and Islamic extremism. "I ended up in a situation where I was in profound disagreement with a large part of [British] public opinion on it, yeah," he notes briskly in the course of a fascinating interview. Then he adds, simply and wryly, "Which is tough."
Tony Blair speaks to The Jerusalem Post during a visit to Jerusalem.
Photo: Ariel Jerozolimski
Tough indeed. In fact his support for President Bush in Iraq and the wider struggle against terror was arguably the most significant factor in his transformation from the immensely popular, fresh-faced leader of a new, fair-minded, confident Britain to a prime minister reviled by his own party, not to mention much of the British media, clergy, academia and other opinion-shapers, to the extent that he was forced to resign last year.
No sooner had he moved away from 10 Downing Street, however, than Blair plunged himself into problem-solving in our neighborhood - whether out of a workaholic compulsion, or encouraged by his successes in Northern Ireland, or born of a determination to lead by example in thwarting extremism and fostering moderation, or, most likely, all three.
And so it is that Blair has taken up intermittent residence in a top floor suite at Jerusalem's seamline American Colony hotel - a leafy rooftop oasis whose calm he would hope to spread to the troubled lands that spread out beneath him.
In our conversation, conducted at breakneck speed, Blair displays considerable clear-sightedness about the complexities of his latest mission and maintains his traditional empathy for Israel's worries. "I get your security situation completely," he says tellingly near the end of the interview. "If I was you, I would not yield on security at all. That's not my point. My point is a different one, which is if a Palestinian state is ultimately in your long-term interest for reasons of security, you should try and make it happen - on the right terms, but make it happen - not just be indifferent to whether it happens."
He is also witheringly, indignantly critical of international tolerance for Islamist extremism, and the readiness he perceives to appease its various murderous tentacles. "The trouble with a large part of the Western world is that we're in a state of semi-apology the whole time and that's an absolutely hopeless position from which to take this thing on," he storms. "A large part of public opinion in the West is basically saying, 'We have caused this. It's our fault they're like this.' I just think that's nonsense."
Blair is a fluent interviewee, clearly deeply committed to his envoy's role, though evidently less than certain that he can crown it with success. Only a few months into the job, indeed, there is frustration, and you get the sense that he is starting to wonder whether all the players directly involved are quite as intent on resolving this conflict as he is...
Israel marks its 60th anniversary in May. Do you think it's still going to be here in 60 years' time? Or more to the point, what does it need to do to guarantee its survival?
Will Israel be here in 60 years' time? Absolutely. Yes. To guarantee its long-term security I believe it needs a viable Palestinian state. That is the key to making peace in the region with its neighbors; it's also better than the alternative, which is living with a disgruntled, unhappy group of people with terrorists operating amongst them.
The absolutely fundamental question is how do we make sure that such a Palestinian state is viable - not just in terms of its territory, which is the normal way that that term is used, but in terms of its governance. Looking at this purely in terms of "land for peace" is actually a rather old-fashioned idea. Actually, the fundamental question for Israel is not so much "How do you negotiate the individual bit of the territory?" because, give or take, that can be done. It's actually "How do we know that if we permit statehood for the Palestinians on our border, that state is going to be a serious partner for peace in the long term?" ...
You've been slightly optimistic about Annapolis making a difference. What's the source of your optimism?
Because, in the end, it is in Israel's interest to have a Palestinian state and, in the end, for the Palestinians there's nowhere else to go. They have a different leadership now. They've got a president who's well-intentioned and a prime minister who's got real executive capability.
Now, they're going to have to make big changes on the Palestinian side for this to happen. But in my view the sensible thing for Israel to do is to help them do that.
Do you think that Abbas is ready, at any stage, to renounce the right of return?
It's not for me to negotiate for Abbas, but I think Abbas knows exactly what he needs to do to have a proper final status negotiation. It's for him to decide the tactics of that, the strategy of that, but I think everybody knows there's got to be an Israeli state which is confident about its security and a Palestinian state. Now once you accept a two-state solution, once you actually internalize that, the consequences in terms of the ultimate negotiation are fairly clear.
Abbas may be well-intentioned, but he hasn't been able to reform Fatah, lost parliamentary control and lost Gaza now to Hamas. What practically gives you optimism, or what mechanisms are you trying to put in place that would enable him and the current leadership to function effectively?
What people say is, "Over the past few years, things have gone backwards because he's lost Gaza and there have been even greater restrictions on movement and access on the West Bank and so on and so forth." My answer to that is to go back to first principles. You go back and ask the question: Is it necessary that they achieve statehood? And if it is, you've got to put in place the mechanisms that allow them to get there.
