Blair’s concern is to protect Israeli colonialism

Middle East Quartet envoy Tony Blair has made a series of spurious comments on Gaza following his visit to the besieged enclave. “The last conflict left Gaza devastated and its people worn down and impoverished,” he wrote on his website. “Twenty years after Oslo we need a new approach to Gaza and a new approach to peace.”

The article was quoted selectively by the Jerusalem Post, in a manner that disassociated history from Gaza’s current reality. Despite allegedly advocating in favour of a new approach to a “successful peace process”, Blair simply rephrased previous diktats enforced upon Palestine by the international community; the result was the entrenchment of the two-state compromise as being imperative to the illusion of “peace”.

According to Blair, the “peace process” necessitates improvement in the lives of Palestinians, with unified Palestinian politics acquiescing to the two-state rhetoric to safeguard Israel’s existence, and “an enhanced role for the region” which must succumb to the interests of the international community.

Furthermore, Blair embarked upon the division of Gaza from Hamas by questioning the resistance movement’s priorities within the political context of Palestinian reconciliation. “For reconciliation to happen, we need unity to be on a basis which supports peace,” he insisted. The premise upon which Hamas is being scrutinised by Blair reflects not only the enforced oblivion which the international community is competent in applying with regard to Gaza, but also the ambiguities, especially with regard to reconciliation and reconstruction.

Reversing Blair’s discourse would shed light upon the fact that, rather than Hamas being in some way responsible for the discrepancies concerning Gaza, reconstruction and reconciliation, it is the international community, together with Israel, that is responsible for the consequences of colonisation in Palestine.

In the aftermath of Operation Protective Edge, Hamas has been marginalised from the negotiations and reconstruction process that has been stalled intentionally by bureaucratic means and the absence of the funding promised during the Cairo Conference. Blair’s puerile recommendations for supporting the international community’s perception of peace include “credible guarantees” for Egypt’s security, despite the fact that Egypt collaborated with Israel in destroying the tunnels utilised by Hamas for importing much-needed goods blocked by the Israeli-led siege. Additionally, Blair insists upon the international community’s “need” of clarity from Hamas. The statement is followed by a series of questions the answers to which can be researched easily, as opposed to manufacturing assumptions in an attempt to discredit the legality of armed resistance and the anti-colonial struggle. However, as with other imperialist rhetoric, the aim is to portray Hamas in a manner that disassociates the resistance movement from the dynamics of resistance by imposing international political expectations.

In turn, according to Blair, the unnecessary dissection of Hamas and resistance, together with allowing Egypt more autonomy in deciding negotiations with regard to Gaza, would pave the way for resuming “a proper negotiation for the resolution of the peace process”. Ultimately, Blair is not seeking an innovative approach. Rather, his statements reinforce the concepts of compliance and colonisation to which Palestinians are expected to adhere, as part of the wider strategy to ensure Israel’s expansion. As usual, Blair isn’t really interested in peace for the sake of the Palestinians; his concern is to protect Israeli colonialism.