Blow to Blair mission as Palestinian PM vows never to recognise Israel
Pastor Dale Morgan
Blow to Blair mission as Palestinian PM vows never to recognise Israel*
The British prime minister plans final peace push but few believe he
will succeed
Ewen MacAskill and Julian Borger in Washington, Rory McCarthy in Jerusalem
Saturday December 9, 2006
The Guardian
Tony Blair's hopes of securing a Middle East peace settlement in his
final days as prime minister were dealt a blow yesterday when the senior
Hamas leader, Ismail Haniyeh, vowed in Iran that he would never
recognise Israel and would fight on until Jerusalem was liberated.
Mr Blair is due to visit Israel, the Palestinian territories and another
Arab country before Christmas in pursuit of his ambition of a peace
conference.
In Washington on Thursday, he said he hoped to find a way of resolving
the deadlock caused by the refusal of Hamas - the militant Islamic group
that won this year's Palestinian elections - to recognise Israel's right
to exist. The Israelis, backed by the United States and the European
Union, have refused to deal with Hamas, and all have stopped funding to
the Hamas-led government.
Mr Haniyeh, the Palestinian prime minister, speaking at Friday prayers
at the University of Tehran, said: "The world arrogance [a reference to
the US] and Zionists ... want us to recognise the usurpation of the
Palestinian lands and stop jihad and resistance and accept the
agreements reached with the Zionist enemies in the past." Ignoring US
and British calls to recognise Israel, Mr Haniyeh said: "We will never
recognise the usurper Zionist government and will continue our
jihad-like movement until the liberation of Jerusalem."
The fact that he delivered his comments in Tehran, which Israel regards
as its biggest threat, will further diminish the already slim chances of
meaningful negotiations.
On Thursday, Mr Blair and President George Bush called on Hamas to
accept the three principles set out by the Quartet grouping on the
Middle East - the United Nations, US, EU and Russia - that it should
recognise Israel, renounce violence and accept past Palestinian
treaties. Mr Blair hinted at a compromise when he said that if Hamas
would not accept the principles, he would look for a different way
forward. But he stressed that recognition of israel was non-negotiable.
Mr Blair, who also remains close to Bill Clinton, is conscious of how
the former US president in his last few months in office managed to
bring together the Israelis and Palestinians for a summit at Camp David
in 2000 that came close to securing peace.
The Foreign Office, which has been given the job of trying to fulfil Mr
Blair's ambition, is privately dubious about the chances of making an
impact in the prime minister's last few months in office, although the
foreign secretary, Margaret Beckett, who recently returned from Jordan,
argues that conditions are more conducive to peace than is generally
believed.
However, Hanan Ashrawi, a prominent Palestinian politician and former
peace negotiator, said of Mr Blair's visit: "People have learned not to
raise their expectations for such events. It has been tried before
repeatedly." She added: "People are rather realistic, and they are not
expecting a deus ex machina to descend from London. But everybody wants
to give any initiative a chance."
Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator, welcomed Mr Blair's visit
and hoped he could break the deadlock on negotiations. He said: "He will
have an impact. Nobody can force anyone, but I think people should try."
The idea of a comprehensive Middle East settlement received a boost this
week when it was promoted by the Iraq Study Group, led by the former US
secretary of state, James Baker. Like Mr Blair, he favours dialogue with
Iran and Syria.
Mr Blair recognises the limitations of British involvement in the Middle
East, and the necessity of US influence for peace in the region. But
there is little evidence that the US is ready for a return to the "grand
bargain" approach to Middle East peacemaking, exemplified by the 1991
Madrid conference. Although the Iraq Study Group proposed just such a
solution, the US political right reacted viciously yesterday towards the
group. Rupert Murdoch's New York Post doctored a photograph to show
James Baker and the study group's co-chairman, Lee Hamilton, in furry
suits and called them "Surrender Monkeys".
Such sentiments are believed to reflect the views of the vice-president,
Dick Cheney, who is now isolated but still in a powerful position.
However, even among administration moderates, such as Condoleezza Rice,
the secretary of state, there is not much enthusiasm for the big
conference approach. Her state department analysts reportedly believe
that Syria is no longer focused on recovering the Golan Heights, but on
restoring influence in Lebanon. She says she favours "deepening" Syria's
influence and using Sunni Arab fear of Iran to help build a fence around
Tehran.
Mr Blair's interest in Israel-Palestine may be partly with a view to the
future. Mr Clinton, on retirement, set up his foundation, focused on
Africa, and Mr Blair may see himself as a Middle East intermediary after
leaving office.
Chris Doyle, of the London-based Council for Arab-British Understanding,
was blunt about the prospects of Mr Blair's visit, saying: "I do not
think he has much support among Arabs, and the Israelis look to the US,
not Britain."
The great Middle East jigsaw
Pieces of the puzzle that no statesman has cracked
Israel
Influence: Many, including Tony Blair and the Iraq Study Group, say the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict is at the core not only of most of the
Middle East's problems but the world's. The Israeli government, and many
Israelis, dispute this.
What the west wants: Israel to establish a Palestinian state.
What Israel wants: Guaranteed security and recognition by all Arab
states, including a peace treaty with Syria; the Palestinian Islamist
group Hamas to recognise Israel; return of a soldier held by
Palestinians since June; the Lebanese-based militia group Hizbullah to
be disarmed; Iran to abandon its alleged nuclear weapons programme; and
Jerusalem recognised as Israel's capital.
Realistic outcome: Little prospect of peace in the near future. Israel
is more focused now on Lebanon and Iran than on the Palestinians.
Blair's chances of making an impact are close to zero: Israel listens
only to the US.
Palestinians
Influence: Huge emotional impact on the Arab world.
What the west wants: The Palestinians to have their own state, partly in
the hope this will remove some of the resentment between the west and
Islamic countries.
What Palestinians want: The end of a US-European aid boycott of the West
Bank and Gaza because of Hamas refusal to recognise Israel; Jewish
settlers to leave the West Bank; Jerusalem as their capital; and a
solution to the millions of Palestinian refugees living in camps in
Lebanon, Syria and elsewhere.
Realistic outcome: Little sign of a Palestinian state in the near
future. Israelis are suspicious, with some justification, that if they
give Palestinians a state they will start working towards retaking
Israel. Blair would like a comprehensive Middle East peace settlement
but immediate ambitions are more limited: negotiating the release of the
Israeli soldier, the creation of a Palestinian national unity government
and the end of the boycott. Even these limited aims will probably be
beyond him in the time left to him as prime minister.
Syria
Influence: Syria is a transit point for fighters going into Iraq.
Although its army has formally left Lebanon, its intelligence agents
remain in place and there are many business ties. It is one of the
sponsors of Hizbullah. Damascus is the HQ of Hamas abroad and home to
one of its most intransigent leaders, Khaled Meshaal.
What the west wants: Syria, still formally at war with Israel, to agree
a peace treaty with Israel, shut Hamas's office, cut links with
Hizbullah and close the border with Iraq to insurgents.
What Syria wants: A peace deal in which Israel returns the Golan Heights
captured in the 1967 war and the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee.
Realistic outcome The Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad, is considering
a deal with the west, but is constrained by domestic forces. Blair has
tried to woo Syria over the past seven years, but so far without
success. The Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, said on Thursday the
time was not right for a Syrian peace deal.
Iran
Influence: Iran has expanded rapidly since the US invasions of Iraq and
Afghanistan removed its two biggest threats. Enjoying a dominance not
seen since the fall of the Persian empire, Iran has established a strong
presence in Iraq because many Shias who were in exile in Tehran are now
in government. It also has strong ties with Shia militia and is the main
backer, financially and militarily, of Hizbullah, though Tehran
routinely denies the link. It is also capable of stirring up trouble
among Shias in Afghanistan, the Gulf states and Saudi Arabia.
What the west wants: Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment programme,
which could lead to the creation of a nuclear weapon; support for
Hizbullah to end; and an end to alleged Iranian-backed militia attacks
on US and British troops. One of the central proposals of the Iraq Study
Group is for US dialogue with Iran.
What Iran wants: The United Nations security council to lift the threat
of sanctions over its nuclear programme; the US to drop its declared
goal of regime change and provide a security guarantee; trade agreements
with the European Union and membership of international trade and
financial organisations.
Realistic outcome: Britain, unlike the US, has an embassy in Tehran but
its contacts with the Iranian leadership are limited. The chances of
stopping Iran securing a nuclear weapon are almost nil. Given Iran's
present strength, there is little pressure on Tehran to negotiate. And
George Bush on Thursday ruled out dialogue with Iran until it suspended
its uranium enrichment programme.
Iraq
Influence: Destablising the region. It has left the US weakened and is a
training ground for militants from the region.
What the west wants: A relatively stable, democratic Iraq.
What Iraq wants: Different things. Shias, the majority, want to retain
control over the country. Sunnis, dominant under Saddam, want to regain
control. Kurds are moving towards breaking away.
Realistic outcome: Iraq's future is out of Blair's hands. The south,
where the British are based, is relatively quiet compared with the
centre, north and west, where most of the fighting is taking place.
Civil war is well under way in the country. A continuing crisis for
years to come.
Lebanon
Influence: The weakness of Lebanon for the past three decades has left
it at the mercy of various governments and factions in the Middle East.
Hizbullah, which is a better disciplined force than the Lebanese army,
increased its hold there, and in the wider Arab world, by beating off
the Israeli offensive this summer.
What the west wants: A pro-western democratic government, free of Syrian
and Iranian influence.
What Lebanon wants: Factions and religious groupings have different
objectives.
Realistic outcome: Blair had little influence in Lebanon before the
Israeli offensive and has even less now because of his repeated failure
to call for an immediate ceasefire, a mistake that alienated not only
the Lebanese but also many in the Arab world.