Archive for September, 2011

Debunking Peter Oborne, C4 Dispatches & rest of the Tony Blair Debunkers

September 26, 2011

Comment at end

Or –

26th September 2011

Before dissecting Mr Oborne – sorry – Mr Oborne’s dissection of Mr Blair, I have a few questions for the makers of the Dispatches programme, to be broadcast tonight on – wait for it – drumroll for objective, non-biased broadcastingThe Great, The Above Reproach, The Tenacious, Trooffinders United  aka – Channel (you got it)… 4.

(applause, applause — ‘no, please don’t… don’t.  No… Don’t.  Stop’)

  • Q1 Did you refer to Mr Blair or his Office for comment on the charges you make against him, before broadcasting?
  • Q2 Did he provide you with any information to confirm or disprove your accusations?
  • Q3 Does Channel 4, as a politically fairly left-wing outlet find it natural to accept the words and ‘proof’ of such an organ of the right as Peter Oborne – Mail and Telegraph writer?
  • Q4 Has C4 got it in for Tony Blair personally as much as politically? For instance would they ever consider broadcasting  a bit of far-fetched fiction/faction about a former PM called, say, Tony Blair who is supposedly on the run from the Police for murder?
  • Q5 Are the answers to any of the above “NO”?  Come on, C4. You can tell me. I won’t tell anyone. Honest. Have I ever lied to you? Fingers crossed and hope to work for C4 one day. When I’m troof-full enough.

PETER OBORNE & CHANNEL 4′s DISPATCHES – NO MORE THAN A PROPAGANDA EXERCISE

This is the same Peter Oborne, who in February 2007 insisted on knowing something that the Police had said was  not to be broadcast publicly – Almighty Row at PM’s press call  It’s fairly lengthy, so to save you the bother here is a brief synopsis – jump here, then jump back, if you’re not too jumpy by then.

You back already?

Gimme strength.  Where was I? Oh yes …

FACTS

Firstly, let’s be clear what this programme is: it is just a re-hash of old Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday cuttings presented by Peter Oborne – someone who is an obsessive and dedicated Blair opponent. It is not remotely a piece of objective journalism. It is a propaganda exercise. Each of the claims of so-called conflicts of interest was debunked when first made.

The two examples the press have picked up on from the programme, both previously published in the Mail on Sunday and later rubbished – show Peter Oborne’s conspiracy theories gone mad.

WATINAYA & GAZA GAS FIELD

He argues that Tony Blair’s support for the Palestinian mobile company Wataniya and for a gas field development off Gaza was somehow to do with his role with JP Morgan.

This is simply not true. The facts are Tony Blair has advocated for the both the Wataniya project and the Gaza gas development at the direct request of the Palestinians.

It is his responsibility as Quartet Representative to work to build the Palestinian economy and the Wataniya project represented the single largest foreign direct investment there has been into the Palestinian Authority.

That is good news for the Palestinians. The fact that Mr Blair has been doing so is hardly a revelation: it is listed on his website. Both were long-standing demands of the international community.

In neither case was Mr Blair even aware JP Morgan had a connection with the company.

He never discussed it with them. They never raised it with him. A fact the company also told the programme. But given the fact, as I understand it, that the trailer for the programme was running before Channel 4 had even had replies to their questions, perhaps we know what to expect tonight from Troofhunters Unlimited – Truth Unrecognised.

No doubt there will be various figures thrown around tonight about how much money Tony Blair has made from various projects. Given the presenter’s known bias, and the fact that his source material is the Daily Mail, it will come as no surprise to anyone that every figure the programme put to Mr Blair’s office in advance was wrong, as I understand it.  In one case WRONG by a factor of more than ten!

Of course the Dispatches programme will add to their programme tonight, one can be sure (!) all the information as to his achievements as Quartet Representative.  I should imagine that if there was any communication between them – (surely even C4 would afford the accused this courtesy) – such a list is likely to have been sent to the programme-makers.

LIBYA

It’s been said a thousand times before -  OK, I exaggerate several hundred times – the decision to release Megrahi was taken by the SNP-led Scottish Executive, two years after Tony Blair stood down as Prime Minister, and on compassionate grounds on an illness that hadn’t even been diagnosed while Mr Blair was still in office. Tony Blair played no role in the decisions whatsoever. The idea that he could have phoned up Alex Salmond and have intervened in some way is clearly absurd, especially since they are not quite “best pals” for one reason or another.

As regards visiting Libya, it is true that Mr Blair has visited Libya since leaving office. It was a good thing to persuade Gaddafi to give up his chemical and nuclear weapons programme, and to stop sponsoring terrorism. That was a change in Gaddafi’s  external policy that was in Britain’s national interest.  Sadly, that external change was not matched by internal change, which is why it was right for the international community to act in the way it did when Gaddafi turned his guns on his own people earlier this year.

As has been made clear before thousands – oh all right – hundreds of times – Tony Blair has never done any business for or with Libya. He has never had any commercial, advisory or business relationship with any Libyan company or entity. Despite what Saif Gaddafi may have said, Tony Blair has never had any role, either formal or informal, paid or unpaid, with the Libyan Investment Authority or the Government of Libya.

Got it? Good.

As for the Sunday Telegraph story trying to link Tony Blair to some Russian aluminium deal, neither Mr Blair nor any of his staff raised any issue to do with a Russian aluminium company, as JP Morgan’s own quotes also show.

__________

RELATED

My dear friend Julie also wrote on Peter Oborne’s Web of Lies and late on Monday added to her blog with this on Tony Blair’s Achievements as Middle East Peace Envoy

You might also wish to visit the website of the Quartet Representative  Well, why not. No-one else does.

__________

ETCETERA

These etceteras listed all got their information, presumably, from the worthy Dispatches programme-makers. Well, share and share alike the spoils of war against Blair, as it were. All below except the last one telling us that Hillary Clinton ASKED Mr Cameron to ASK Mr Blair how to deal with foreign affairs, especially Libya. Can’t imagine WHY she thought David Cameron could do with Mr Blair’s advice. Can you?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/tony-blair/8784596/On-the-desert-trail-of-Tony-Blairs-millions.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/tony-blair/8787053/Tony-Blairs-Byzantine-world-of-advisers-and-lucrative-deals.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/tony-blair/8787049/Tony-Blair-linked-to-Libyan-deal-with-Russian-oligarch.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2041832/Tony-Blair-pushed-deals-worth-billions-investment-bank-JP-Morgan.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2039412/Camerons-secret-meetings-Tony-Blair-advice-foreign-affairs.html

______

OBORNE- ROW AT No 10, Feb 2007

You can read it all here, if you can be bothered – Almighty Row at PM’s press call  If not, to save you time, here is a brief synopsis:

Oborne, as self-appointed Blair-hunter-in-chief, was annoyed with the PM’s Press Officer over the Police oversight to tell him and cited in his argument’s support that it was not made public knowledge that Tony Blair had had an earlier (recurring) heart condition.  With sleight of hand and questionable moral rectitude, this supposed failure to inform him and the rest of us about Mr Blair’s private health matters Oborne  melded it all into the likelihood that Mr Blair was also covering up his questioning by the Police ( in the waste of money & resources failed Honours Police investigation.) Oborne seemed to feel that even IF the Police had instructed secrecy on a recent questioning of the PM, that wasn’t good enough! We the people had to know. And the ‘fact’ that we did not know before 2004 that Blair may had a heart condition was proof if proof were ever needed by Oborne that Tony Blair was a liar.  Point proven. Oborne suggested.  Except it wasn’t. From that day on, and probably from years earlier Oborne has been on a quest to return to giving Mr Blair a re-recurring heart condition, with love, of course.  Jump back to start of section

Back to top

Click to Buy Tony Blair’s ‘A Journey’

_______________

Sign the Ban Blair-Baiting petition here

Recent comments:

I am staggered by all the hate directed towards our former Prime Minister. I believe that Tony Blair made the Iraq decision in good faith and is most certainly NOT a war criminal. If anyone should be tried at the Hague it should be those in the media for totally misrepresenting the information and facts. The media are to blame for fuelling this hatred as it is purely driven by them. (UK)

__________
The greatest and most successful leader the Labour Party has ever had with the courage to fight the Islamist terrorists who really would like to kill us all, and you never hear a good word about him. The herd of independent minds, commentators, activists etc who have never had to make a difficult decision in their lives drown out all debate with their inane chants of war crimes and blood on his hands. Defend him at every chance. I just wish more people would do it. (Glasgow, UK)
__________
Blair was the greatest Labour Prime Minister. It is a disgrace that the party has turned away from his legacy. Shame on Ed Miliband and his so-called ‘new generation’.

Full Netanyahu Speech at UN

September 25, 2011

Comment at end

Or –

25th September 2011

In case you can’t find it in the British mainstream press -

Full Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu UN address to General Assembly Sept 23 2011

It’s hard to know where to start with Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech at the UN.  His theater of the absurd jibe at the UN itself? His hand of peace. Here are a few excerpts:

But most especially, I extend my hand to the Palestinian people, with whom we seek a just and lasting peace.

[Israel is] singled out for condemnation more often than all the nations of the world combined. Twenty-one out of the 27 General Assembly resolutions condemn Israel — the one true democracy in the Middle East.

[UN]- It’s the — the theater of the absurd. It doesn’t only cast Israel as the villain; it often casts real villains in leading roles: Gadhafi’s Libya chaired the UN Commission on Human Rights; Saddam’s Iraq headed the UN Committee on Disarmament.

Today I hope that the light of truth will shine, if only for a few minutes, in a hall that for too long has been a place of darkness for my country. So as Israel’s prime minister, I didn’t come here to win applause. I came here to speak the truth. (Cheers, applause.) The truth is — the truth is that Israel wants peace. The truth is that I want peace. The truth is that in the Middle East at all times, but especially during these turbulent days, peace must be anchored in security. The truth is that we cannot achieve peace through UN resolutions, but only through direct negotiations between the parties. The truth is that so far the Palestinians have refused to negotiate. The truth is that Israel wants peace with a Palestinian state, but the Palestinians want a state without peace. And the truth is you shouldn’t let that happen.

After all, it was here in 1975 that the age-old yearning of my people to restore our national life in our ancient biblical homeland — it was then that this was braided — branded, rather — shamefully, as racism. And it was here in 1980, right here, that the historic peace agreement between Israel and Egypt wasn’t praised; it was denounced! And it’s here year after year that Israel is unjustly singled out for condemnation. It’s singled out for condemnation more often than all the nations of the world combined. Twenty-one out of the 27 General Assembly resolutions condemn Israel — the one true democracy in the Middle East.

Yet a malignancy is now growing between East and West that threatens the peace of all. It seeks not to liberate, but to enslave, not to build, but to destroy. That malignancy is militant Islam. It cloaks itself in the mantle of a great faith, yet it murders Jews, Christians and Muslims alike with unforgiving impartiality.

You might say: That’s the past. Well, here’s what’s happening now — right now, today. Hezbollah-controlled Lebanon now presides over the UN Security Council. This means, in effect, that a terror organization presides over the body entrusted with guaranteeing the world’s security.

You couldn’t make this thing up.

So here in the UN, automatic majorities can decide anything. They can decide that the sun sets in the west or rises in the west. I think the first has already been pre-ordained. But they can also decide — they have decided that the Western Wall in Jerusalem, Judaism’s holiest place, is occupied Palestinian territory.

And yet even here in the General Assembly, the truth can sometimes break through. In 1984 when I was appointed Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations, I visited the great rabbi of Lubavich. He said to me — and ladies and gentlemen, I don’t want any of you to be offended because from personal experience of serving here, I know there are many honorable men and women, many capable and decent people serving their nations here. But here’s what the rebbe said to me. He said to me, you’ll be serving in a house of many lies. And then he said, remember that even in the darkest place, the light of a single candle can be seen far and wide.

Full transcript of Netanyahu’s speech

__________

Mahmoud Abbas’ speech at the UN [part 1/3] (rest at YouTube)

9:31

Full transcript of Abbas’s speech

The sharp of understanding among you may have noticed that Abbas deems himself to be speaking on behalf of ALL the Palestinians in the region – presumably in Gaza too. Yet Hamas, which is another political party ruling over part of the future state of Palestine,  is not even considered in his speech.  It is the Ghost at the party. Neither is its existence,  its refusal to EVER recognise Israel, or its Charter’s intent to destroy Israel even alluded to by those applauding loudly Abbas’s proposal.  Gaza, however, is mentioned by Abbas three times.  An interesting inclusion/omission.

Lest we forget -

Hamas Principles

The principles of the Hamas are stated in their Covenant or Charter, given in full below. Following are highlights.

“Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.” (The Martyr, Imam Hassan al-Banna, of blessed memory).

__________

Back to top

Click to Buy Tony Blair’s ‘A Journey’

_______________

Sign the Ban Blair-Baiting petition here

Recent comments:

I am staggered by all the hate directed towards our former Prime Minister. I believe that Tony Blair made the Iraq decision in good faith and is most certainly NOT a war criminal. If anyone should be tried at the Hague it should be those in the media for totally misrepresenting the information and facts. The media are to blame for fuelling this hatred as it is purely driven by them. (UK)

__________
The greatest and most successful leader the Labour Party has ever had with the courage to fight the Islamist terrorists who really would like to kill us all, and you never hear a good word about him. The herd of independent minds, commentators, activists etc who have never had to make a difficult decision in their lives drown out all debate with their inane chants of war crimes and blood on his hands. Defend him at every chance. I just wish more people would do it. (Glasgow, UK)
__________
Blair was the greatest Labour Prime Minister. It is a disgrace that the party has turned away from his legacy. Shame on Ed Miliband and his so-called ‘new generation’.

An exhausted Tony Blair to Christiane Amanpour on Palestinian statehood (VIDEO)

September 18, 2011

Comment at end

Or –

18th September 2011

Mideast Envoy Tony Blair Working to Avoid ‘Showdown’ Over Palestinian Statehood

So, you think Tony Blair does this Middle East Quartet business for kudos or fun? I've never seen him looking so shattered!

DON’T LET THE WORK RATE KILL YOU, TONY. There’s another week of this.  At least.

Today on ABC’s This Week in an interview with Christiane Amanpour an exhausted-looking Tony Blair said “I think there is a way of avoiding a confrontation or a showdown”.

I wonder if he is getting any sleep at ALL right now.

Video of Tony Blair interview is also here at Blair’s  website.

Article at ABC follows:

__________

Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, the Quartet’s special envoy to the Middle East, said he is continuing to work to avert a showdown at the United Nations this week over Palestinian statehood, hoping to craft “a framework of reference” for renewing peace process negotiations.

“What we will be looking for over the next few days, is a way of putting together something that allows their claims and legitimate aspirations for statehood to be recognized while actually renewing the only thing that’s going to produce a state, which is a negotiation directly between the two sides,” Blair told “This Week” anchor Christiane Amanpour in an exclusive interview.

“I think there is a way of avoiding a confrontation or a showdown,” Blair said. “The only way in the end we are going to get a Palestinian state, and this week is all about advancing Palestinian statehood, the only way to do it ultimately is through negotiation.”

Frustrated with a stalled peace process, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas this week will ask the United Nations to admit Palestine as a state.

The United States has vowed to use its Security Council veto to block the Palestinians’ bid for official U.N. membership, but Abbas has pledged to take the matter to the U.N. General Assembly. That body is expected to overwhelmingly approve Palestine as an observer state, where it’s now an observer entity.

The largely symbolic change would allow Palestinians to gain access to the International Criminal Court, where it could pursue charges against Israelis. It would not affect Israel’s borders or displace any of the some 500,000 Israeli settlers now living in the Palestinian territories.

But the United States is concerned that the move could crush any chance of further negotiations and exacerbate anti-American sentiment in the region.

While Blair said the Palestinians are entitled to go to the United Nations over statehood, he said he hopes agreeing on a framework for reviving negotiations between Palestinians and Israelis will create “a less confrontational atmosphere” and move the long-dormant peace process forward.

“We’re trying to put together, in the Quartet body, that’s the body of the international community, a statement that is essentially a framework of reference for the negotiations,” Blair said, calling it still a “work in progress.” “So, it sets out … where we want to go on issues like borders. It describes all the main issues to be negotiated. And I think what’s going to be really important is also to give some sense of a time frame … for a successful negotiation.

“We haven’t had proper negotiations now for really quite a long time,” Blair said. “And what that means is that both sides become very frustrated with this situation. Both sides look for ways of advancing their position unilaterally rather than bilaterally or multilaterally … even these difficult issues like settlements and so on, the only way of resolving them is to sit down and negotiate borders, security, refugees, Jerusalem, the core issues at stake here.”

In addition to the U.S. Security Council veto threat, members of Congress have said they are also considering cutting off funding for Palestinian security forces if they go forward with the statehood push.

Blair said he hopes “we can avoid that situation.”

“When I’m there on the West Bank, I see what this American money actually does,” said Blair, who says he has traveled to the region 71 times since leaving office. “And it provides support for security, on the Palestinian side, for institutions and for the economy, which is hugely important to … trying to build the state from the bottom up.”

Former President Bill Clinton echoed Blair’s concern, saying while there’s “a lot of frustration around this issue,” he does not support calls for Congress to cut off Palestinian security funding.

“I think that everybody knows the U.S. Congress is the most pro-Israel parliamentary body in the world. They don’t have to demonstrate that,” Clinton said. “I think as this unfolds, the worst thing we could do is to tie the administration’s hands.”

Clinton agreed with Blair that reviving a framework for peace negotiations was the only way to avert a showdown at the United Nations over statehood, which he called “an act of frustration on the part of the Palestinians.”

“The American government has agreed with Israel that there’s no way the U.N. can impose a peace plan, and therefore the peace plan has to be the subject of negotiations,” Clinton said. “We’re going to stick by Israel and its security, but we need to give them the ability to bring the Palestinians back into a negotiated position.”

“It might be good politics for the Palestinians with their people and the Israelis with theirs to have this standoff, but the most important thing is to have good-faith negotiations,” Clinton added.

__________

Read transcript of above interview here

__________

Keep an eye on Tony Blair’s website updates here – http://www.quartetrep.org/quartet/index/

__________

Back to top

Click to Buy Tony Blair’s ‘A Journey’

_______________

Sign the Ban Blair-Baiting petition here

Recent comments:

I am staggered by all the hate directed towards our former Prime Minister. I believe that Tony Blair made the Iraq decision in good faith and is most certainly NOT a war criminal. If anyone should be tried at the Hague it should be those in the media for totally misrepresenting the information and facts. The media are to blame for fuelling this hatred as it is purely driven by them. (UK)

__________
The greatest and most successful leader the Labour Party has ever had with the courage to fight the Islamist terrorists who really would like to kill us all, and you never hear a good word about him. The herd of independent minds, commentators, activists etc who have never had to make a difficult decision in their lives drown out all debate with their inane chants of war crimes and blood on his hands. Defend him at every chance. I just wish more people would do it. (Glasgow, UK)
__________
Blair was the greatest Labour Prime Minister. It is a disgrace that the party has turned away from his legacy. Shame on Ed Miliband and his so-called ‘new generation’.

Shocker: 92% of Afghans have never heard of 9/11 (video)

September 18, 2011

Comment at end

Or –

18th September 2011

If this Russia Today report is credible it seems that only 8% of Afghans know anything about 9/11. That means 92% have no idea that the USA invasion was as a result of Osama Bin Laden’s attack on the USA.  I wonder what they think it’s all about? US imperialism? Oh yes, that’s it. That and oil.

From on 9 Sep 2011

Images from 9/11 are still chilling, even 10 years after the attacks shook the world. They triggered the so-called war on terror. But in the country that’s been at the forefront of that war, it can be hard to find people who remember why foreign troops arrived in the first place. We continue our special coverage of the 9/11 anniversary, with this report from Afghanistan.

Back to top

Click to Buy Tony Blair’s ‘A Journey’

_______________

Sign the Ban Blair-Baiting petition here

Recent comments:

I am staggered by all the hate directed towards our former Prime Minister. I believe that Tony Blair made the Iraq decision in good faith and is most certainly NOT a war criminal. If anyone should be tried at the Hague it should be those in the media for totally misrepresenting the information and facts. The media are to blame for fuelling this hatred as it is purely driven by them. (UK)

__________
The greatest and most successful leader the Labour Party has ever had with the courage to fight the Islamist terrorists who really would like to kill us all, and you never hear a good word about him. The herd of independent minds, commentators, activists etc who have never had to make a difficult decision in their lives drown out all debate with their inane chants of war crimes and blood on his hands. Defend him at every chance. I just wish more people would do it. (Glasgow, UK)
__________
Blair was the greatest Labour Prime Minister. It is a disgrace that the party has turned away from his legacy. Shame on Ed Miliband and his so-called ‘new generation’.

Tony Blair video interview on 9/11. See why he is still the Best on fighting terror

September 16, 2011

Comment at end

Or –

16th September 2011

Last weekend Tony Blair gave television, radio and newspaper interviews on 9/11.

Thought you might like to see the Jon Sopel interview (in two parts)

9/11 The Tony Blair interview – part 1

9/11 The Tony Blair interview – part 2

Linked too at Tony Blair’s website

Also see report from Quartet on the Palestinian situation on the ground.  Still of relevance even if some think this has been  overtaken by events – announcement by Abbas of Palestinian unilateral proposal at UN.

Back to top

Click to Buy Tony Blair’s ‘A Journey’

_______________

Sign the Ban Blair-Baiting petition here

Recent comments:

I am staggered by all the hate directed towards our former Prime Minister. I believe that Tony Blair made the Iraq decision in good faith and is most certainly NOT a war criminal. If anyone should be tried at the Hague it should be those in the media for totally misrepresenting the information and facts. The media are to blame for fuelling this hatred as it is purely driven by them. (UK)

__________
The greatest and most successful leader the Labour Party has ever had with the courage to fight the Islamist terrorists who really would like to kill us all, and you never hear a good word about him. The herd of independent minds, commentators, activists etc who have never had to make a difficult decision in their lives drown out all debate with their inane chants of war crimes and blood on his hands. Defend him at every chance. I just wish more people would do it. (Glasgow, UK)
__________
Blair was the greatest Labour Prime Minister. It is a disgrace that the party has turned away from his legacy. Shame on Ed Miliband and his so-called ‘new generation’.

The Legal Right to Palestine (15m video Jonathan Freedland & others might wish to watch)

September 14, 2011

Comment at end

Or –

14th September 2011

BREAKING: Word is that the Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas may back off his unilateral call for full statehood recognition at the UN.  And someone we Brits know well is central to this development.

Excerpt, Debka: Early Wednesday, Sept. 14, Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas decided crucially not to submit his application to the UN Security Council [...] he may not have caved in completely. Neither is it clear whether Netanyahu will swallow the new blueprint Tony Blair is about to dish up.

Below is an excellent short documentary on the legal and political issues surrounding Israel and its founding.

Opening with the November 1947 resolution at the UN General Assembly, it starts with the vote on Resolution 181 which paved the way for the rebirth of the state of Israel in 1948.

However, did this give Israel legitimacy?

The answer is no. Generally speaking in international law general assembly resolutions are not binding.

An interesting point in itself if one considers the weight that was given to resolutions and non-existing resolutions over Iraq.

Put that thought on the back-burner right now, even though if accurate it negates all the charges against such as Tony Blair & George Bush over the validity of UN resolutions regarding the Iraq invasion.  There is enough in the rest of the 15 minute video to be going on with.

And why do I suggest Mr Freedland should watch this video?

Because of his article – ‘Britain should say yes to Palestinian statehood – and so should Israel’

Its sub-heading reads – ‘A no vote at the UN will boost Netanyahu, wound Fatah and discredit the Europeans as useless hypocrites’

Really, Mr Freedland? Quite how a “no” vote would discredit Netanyahu evades me completely.  It might wound Fatah, but even that is to assume a lot about Fatah and its relationships to others.  As for discrediting we Europeans as hypocrites – on the evidence of the above video, it looks like the opposite may in fact be the case.

Mr Freedland’s article insists -

“… but Britain’s attitude should be clear: we should say yes.That’s because UN recognition of a Palestinian state in the territories occupied by Israel in 1967 will breathe fresh life into the ailing idea which, despite everything, remains the last best hope of Israeli-Palestinian peace – a two-state solution.”

BRITISH INFLUENCE & INTEREST

There is someone who happens to be European, better still happens to be British who understands ALL of the background as well as the present position of both sides.  Unlike those of a different position than, for instance, Tony Blair over Iraq, such as Carne Ross, quoted by Mr Freedland here I do not think each of us can “do our bit”.  But then my expectations from the Arab spring are not as high as those of many.

It is time we let those who see all sides in this decades-long dispute get on with the work. If the Quartet Representative Blair manages to bring these two sides together – sorry – the Israelis Vs and the Palestinians/Syrians/Lebanese/Jordanians/Saudis/Turks/Egyptians + 14 other Arab states to a better place his next act may be walking on the waters of Galilee.

The British press and intelligentsia approach to Israeli/Palestinian issues, especially on the political left is based more on a knee-jerk reaction against the seeming power of Israel. Meanwhile there is the nonsensical belief that Israel’s existence is somehow “illegitimate”.

Poor old all-the-other-21 in the Middle East.  All 21 Arab states. All threatened by Israel’s very existence.  Legal as it clearly is.

The video above with its historical references should help to clarify why today there are 21 Arab states and ONE Jewish state in the Middle East.

Some points of interest, in case you declined to watch the video[my emphases]-

  • It’s a wide myth – there’s absolutely no truth – that Israel’s legal foundation is based on the UN partition resolution of November 29th 1947.
  • If the Jewish people and the Arabs had agreed to enter into a treaty based on the terms of resolution then rights and obligations could have been created in international law. But that didn’t happen.
  • The San Remo resolution (1920) is the basic constitutional document of the state of Israel under international law.
  • In the 1922 Palestine mandate decided to give recognition to the historic right of the Jewish people to “reconstitute” their national home.  Therefore recognising a pre-existing right and not creating a new right.
  • At San Remo, what had been exclusively a British approach, receives the full backing of the international community and in that sense Israel’s legitimacy is linked to an international decision at San Remo and not just a whim of British policy.
  • Legal rights were granted – given to both the Jewish people and the Arab people. Historical rights to this land given at this time.
  • It was the Jewish people that were chosen to be the beneficiaries of a trust-run mandate, under the care of the British government in respect to Palestine. It was the Primary objective of the Mandate for Palestine was to grant political rights in respect to Palestine to the Jewish people.  Insofar as national and collective rights were concerned these were reserved for the Jewish people because the Arabs were given the same rights not in Palestine but in neighbouring countries. That is why today you have 21 Arab states and one Jewish state.
  • In their final resolution passed by the League of Nations in April 1946 it is specified that the intent is that after the dissolution of the League of Nations it is necessary to continue to look after the well-being and the development of the people concerned in each mandate in accordance with the obligations contained in the respective mandates. And for Palestine that meant the Jewish people.
  • Following Israel’s statehood in 1948 the country was invaded by five Arab armies intending to destroy the Jewish state. The UN did nothing.  Eastern part of Jerusalem was annexed by Jordan. Jordan’s sovereignty was never recognised by UN. City was divided for 18 years.
  • The 1967 Green Line was simply an armistice line, chosen between Israel & the Jewish people and the Jordanians when they stopped fighting in 1948/49. That line, it is specified in the treaty in the Armistice Agreement between Israel and Jordan, was never intended to be for anyone the source of rights and obligations.
  • The original Oslo agreements, the first one in 1993 the big Oslo agreement in 1995 known as the Interim Agreement had a clause in them, Article 31, and it said – “neither side shall change the status of the West Bank and Gaza Strip prior to the completion of the permanent status  negotiations”.  If the Palestinians try and change the status of the territory without negotiating with Israel that is a unilateral act which violates this commitment.
  • Why is this particularly important for Europe? Because when the interim agreement was signed with that critical clause at the White House in the presence of President Clinton the European Union signed the agreement as well as a witness. And therefore if  EU countries decide to support the Palestinian move in the UN in contravention of that Palestinian commitment in Oslo, what they’re essentially doing is lending a hand to the violation of a written agreement to which they are also signatories.  So the immediate question in Israel will be – who would ever rely on the European Union again to be involved in the peace process if it violates the very agreements that it itself signed.
  • Many who tell Israel to re-divide Jerusalem along the ’67 lines and therefore placing the whole old city on the Palestinian/Arab side forget what happened in 1948.  Jews were ethnically cleansed, forced to leave, and the Arab Legion along with Palestinian locals destroyed 55 synagogues and Talmudic academies. Israel is determined to avoid such again.
  • The whole world is saying to Israel – why don’t you recognise the rights of the Palestinians to a Palestinian state?
    It seems elementary, and Israelis hear this all the time. But put the shoe on the other foot. Do you see anybody telling the Palestinians – ‘you must recognise the rights of the Jewish people to a nation state of their own, whose roots are in international legitimacy … going back to San Remo and to the British mandate by the League of Nations’ ? Unfortunately that same demand is not made of the other side and perhaps exposes its real intent.

__________

Many, including Dr Jacques Gauthier – international human rights lawyer, Dore Gold – former Israeli Ambassador to UN,  Howard Grief – International Lawyer and former Palestinian terrorist Walid Shoebat, don’t necessarily see things in those terms.  How often are we reminded by the Palestinian side of the San Remo Conference April 25th 1920? Yet this is the place and time when legal rights were given to both the Jewish people and the Arab people. At San Remo what had been initially a British approach received the full backing of the international community, and in that sense “Israel’s legitimacy is linked to an international agreement at San Remo and not just a whim of British policy.”

It is all of great historical consequence to the British and Europeans, as well as to the Israelis and Palestinians.

__________

Who is Walid Shoebat?

_________

RELATED

1. Washington Institute – The Palestinian Bid for UN Membership: Rationale, Response, Repercussions

2. Turkey’s Prime Minister Erdogan may prove even more intransigent than even Abbas, due to its present relations with Israel. Who’d wish to be in Tony Blair’s shoes right now?

3. The Guardian says that Europe is split on backing any unilateral Palestinian declaration.  Spain is for. Others including Britain yet to declare. But the pro-Palestinian/anti-Israel Guardian is still intent on declaring that the EU is at the centre of negotiations.  Sorry, it is not.  But one European is.

While I’m on the topic of the guardian of all that is just, right and moral, that reminds me: what was the reason I said in a tweet last night that I trusted Tony Blair far more than I trusted Mr Freedland? It has been clear for some time, years in fact, that the dissatisfaction over Blair’s Iraq decision has turned many against anything which he says, does or even suggests. As well as that it has turned many against anything Israeli or American. The great and lesser Satans of this wicked world.

Regarding Iraq, for instance in June 27th as Tony Blair left office Freedland said this:

I have written before that it is an indictment of our system of government that Tony Blair was able to remain in office despite Iraq. Even if he was not culpable of deception, as he insists he was not, even if he only ever did what he thought was right, he was guilty of the grossest misjudgment – one that has led to the deaths of at least 118 British service personnel, along with as many as 655,000 Iraqis. For that mistake alone, even if it was an honest one, he should have paid with his job. It is a badge of shame for the parliamentary Labour party and the cabinet (and indeed his successor), who between them could have driven Blair from office, that they did not do so earlier. But it also reflects a moral failure by Blair that he leaves today believing himself to be a star, going out on a high.

His expected appointment as the Middle East envoy of the international community suggests he’s pulled it off, winning instant rehabilitation, at least from the club of world leaders. The likeliest outcome is that he will not succeed in the job, if only because the circumstances are so utterly unconducive to progress. Indeed, the role could be a painful reminder of the most unhappy aspects of his premiership, as he encounters Arab suspicion that he is merely a lackey of George Bush, and Arab anger over Iraq and the Lebanon war of 2006.

It is seldom pointed out by our press that the assumption that Mr Blair is seen as a mere “lackey” is utterly wrong-headed. Yet it is clear to those of us who actually watch how he is greeted in the Middle East, by political leaders and public alike.

Mr Freedland, who tweets here, may yet redeem HIMself in my eyes, but not for the suggestion in the last sentence of this excerpt:

“If he [Blair] was to defy those odds, and achieve success, providing the dogged, daily application of pressure and pursuit of detail that the Israel-Palestine conflict requires (and which he demonstrated in Northern Ireland), then he will deserve enormous credit. Indeed, he will have gone a large way towards redeeming his reputation. Maybe that’s why he’s so keen to do it.”

He was “so keen to do it” Mr Freedland, since first looking at it seriously in Bill Clinton’s time as President, well over 12 years ago, if I recall correctly. [You might wish to look for this link online Mr Freedland. You, after all, are paid to do balanced research journalism. Aren't you?]

THE IRAN QUESTION

So, in my humble opinion Mr Freedland’s inability to see any link between issues in the Israel/Palestine/Iraq/Afghanistan situations has been compromised by his determined position on Iraq. It’s likely that he sees no exacerbating effect from the likelihood of a threat from a nuclear Iran. If so, he has that in common with most of the Westminster-based literati. His thoughts are shown in his article on Blair at Chilcot Inquiry 2010

Freedland:

“Not content with that, Blair pushed further, apparently touting a new war in the Persian Gulf, this time against Iraq’s neighbour, Iran. All day Blair used his platform to bring up Iran, even when it was only tangentially related to the topic in hand. The arguments that applied in 2002 – about WMD falling into terrorist hands – applied in spades to Iran in 2010, he said.

Blair clearly doesn’t realise that the fastest way to taint any planned military action against Iran is to associate it with the catastrophe of Iraq. But he is convinced that he can see what others cannot, that he is a latter-day Winston Churchill, crying out a warning that others refuse to heed. He thinks history will vindicate him – crediting him for seeing the menace of Saddam and Iran when others refused to listen.

Exiled and reviled by those who will forever believe he is a war criminal, he is still a character from a Trollope novel – specifically the one entitled, He Knew He Was Right.”

I’ll leave the last word to a man who knows: Tony Blair: “Resolution will only come through negotiations”

[Sorry for going on a bit in this post. Some settlements take longer than others]

Back to top

Click to Buy Tony Blair’s ‘A Journey’

_______________

Sign the Ban Blair-Baiting petition here

Recent comments:

I am staggered by all the hate directed towards our former Prime Minister. I believe that Tony Blair made the Iraq decision in good faith and is most certainly NOT a war criminal. If anyone should be tried at the Hague it should be those in the media for totally misrepresenting the information and facts. The media are to blame for fuelling this hatred as it is purely driven by them. (UK)

__________
The greatest and most successful leader the Labour Party has ever had with the courage to fight the Islamist terrorists who really would like to kill us all, and you never hear a good word about him. The herd of independent minds, commentators, activists etc who have never had to make a difficult decision in their lives drown out all debate with their inane chants of war crimes and blood on his hands. Defend him at every chance. I just wish more people would do it. (Glasgow, UK)
__________
Blair was the greatest Labour Prime Minister. It is a disgrace that the party has turned away from his legacy. Shame on Ed Miliband and his so-called ‘new generation’.

Russia moved Saddam’s WMD

September 12, 2011

Comment at end

Or –

12th September 2011

“… two Russian ships set sail from the (Iraqi) port of Umm Qasr headed for the Indian Ocean,” where Shaw believes they “deep-sixed” additional stockpiles of Iraqi WMD from flooded bunkers in southern Iraq that were later discovered by U.S. military intelligence personnel.

I’m becoming somewhat peeved by the semi-ignorant we-all-knowers and their offspring the we-all-NOW-knowers who see themselves as the epitome of truth on… well, more or less everything. But particularly on Tony Blair, WMD, Saddam Hussein and the Iraq war.

The more one researches the more one finds. But the we-all-NOW-knowers have reached that perfect position of certainty and clarity whereby they need no more information. Perhaps TMI overload is the reason they cannot cope with knowing a little more. Perhaps. On the other hand their various agendas get in the way.

Below is an article at Newsmax published on February 19th 2006 which requires journalistic investigation. In later posts, given time, I may well do so -  since none of our anti-Blair / anti-Bush / anti-Iraq war “professional” journalists seem willing to expend the effort.

If you are tempted to say – “Oh, that! That was even dismissed by Bush’s administration”  – do read on, oh great denying “truth-finder”.  In a later post I hope to try and cast some more light on the issues, political agendas, individuals and organisations within the article.

__________

Ex-Official: Russia Moved Saddam’s WMD

Kenneth R. Timmerman
Sunday, Feb. 19, 2006

A top Pentagon official who was responsible for tracking Saddam Hussein’s weapons programs before and after the 2003 liberation of Iraq, has provided the first-ever account of how Saddam Hussein “cleaned up” his weapons of mass destruction stockpiles to prevent the United States from discovering them.

“The short answer to the question of where the WMD Saddam bought from the Russians went was that they went to Syria and Lebanon,” former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense John A. Shaw told an audience Saturday at a privately sponsored “Intelligence Summit” in Alexandria, Va. (www.intelligencesummit.org). [link added]

“They were moved by Russian Spetsnaz (special forces) units out of uniform, that were specifically sent to Iraq to move the weaponry and eradicate any evidence of its existence,” he said.

Shaw has dealt with weapons-related issues and export controls as a U.S. government official for 30 years, and was serving as deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security when the events he described today occurred.

He called the evacuation of Saddam’s WMD stockpiles “a well-orchestrated campaign using two neighboring client states with which the Russian leadership had a long time security relationship.”

Shaw was initially tapped to make an inventory of Saddam’s conventional weapons stockpiles, based on intelligence estimates of arms deals he had concluded with the former Soviet Union, China and France.

He estimated that Saddam had amassed 100 million tons of munitions – roughly 60 percent of the entire U.S. arsenal. “The origins of these weapons were Russian, Chinese and French in declining order of magnitude, with the Russians holding the lion’s share and the Chinese just edging out the French for second place.”

But as Shaw’s office increasingly got involved in ongoing intelligence to identify Iraqi weapons programs before the war, he also got “a flow of information from British contacts on the ground at the Syrian border and from London” via non-U.S. government contacts.

“The intelligence included multiple sightings of truck convoys, convoys going north to the Syrian border and returning empty,” he said.

Shaw worked closely with Julian Walker, a former British ambassador who had decades of experience in Iraq, and an unnamed Ukranian-American who was directly plugged in to the head of Ukraine’s intelligence service.

The Ukrainians were eager to provide the United States with documents from their own archives on Soviet arms transfers to Iraq and on ongoing Russian assistance to Saddam, to thank America for its help in securing Ukraine’s independence from the Soviet Union, Shaw said.

In addition to the convoys heading to Syria, Shaw said his contacts “provided information about steel drums with painted warnings that had been moved to a cellar of a hospital in Beirut.”

But when Shaw passed on his information to the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and others within the U.S. intelligence community, he was stunned by their response.

“My report on the convoys was brushed off as ‘Israeli disinformation,’” he said.

One month later, Shaw learned that the DIA general counsel complained to his own superiors that Shaw had eaten from the DIA “rice bowl.” It was a Washington euphemism that meant he had commited the unpardonable sin of violating another agency’s turf.

The CIA responded in even more diabolical fashion. “They trashed one of my Brits and tried to declare him persona non grata to the intelligence community,” Shaw said. “We got constant indicators that Langley was aggressively trying to discredit both my Ukranian-American and me in Kiev,” in addition to his other sources.

But Shaw’s information had not originated from a casual contact. His Ukranian-American aid was a personal friend of David Nicholas, a Western ambassador in Kiev, and of Igor Smesko, head of Ukrainian intelligence.

Smesko had been a military attaché in Washington in the early 1990s when Ukraine first became independent and Dick Cheney was secretary of defense. “Smesko had told Cheney that when Ukraine became free of Russia he wanted to show his friendship for the United States.”

Helping out on Iraq provided him with that occasion.

“Smesko had gotten to know Gen. James Clapper, now director of the Geospacial Intelligence Agency, but then head of DIA,” Shaw said.

But it was Shaw’s own friendship to the head of Britain’s MI6 that brought it all together during a two-day meeting in London that included Smeshko’s people, the MI6 contingent, and Clapper, who had been deputized by George Tenet to help work the issue of what happened to Iraq’s WMD stockpiles.

In the end, here is what Shaw learned:

  • In December 2002, former Russian intelligence chief Yevgeni Primakov, a KGB general with long-standing ties to Saddam, came to Iraq and stayed until just before the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003.
  • Primakov supervised the execution of long-standing secret agreements, signed between Iraqi intelligence and the Russian GRU (military intelligence), that provided for clean-up operations to be conducted by Russian and Iraqi military personnel to remove WMDs, production materials and technical documentation from Iraq, so the regime could announce that Iraq was “WMD free.”
  • Shaw said that this type GRU operation, known as “Sarandar,” or “emergency exit,” has long been familiar to U.S. intelligence officials from Soviet-bloc defectors as standard GRU practice.
  • In addition to the truck convoys, which carried Iraqi WMD to Syria and Lebanon in February and March 2003 “two Russian ships set sail from the (Iraqi) port of Umm Qasr headed for the Indian Ocean,” where Shaw believes they “deep-sixed” additional stockpiles of Iraqi WMD from flooded bunkers in southern Iraq that were later discovered by U.S. military intelligence personnel.
  • The Russian “clean-up” operation was entrusted to a combination of GRU and Spetsnaz troops and Russian military and civilian personnel in Iraq “under the command of two experienced ex-Soviet generals, Colonel-General Vladislav Achatov and Colonel-General Igor Maltsev, both retired and posing as civilian commercial consultants.”
  • Washington Times reporter Bill Gertz reported on Oct. 30, 2004, that Achatov and Maltsev had been photographed receiving medals from Iraqi Defense Minister Sultan Hashim Ahmed in a Baghdad building bombed by U.S. cruise missiles during the first U.S. air raids in early March 2003.
  • Shaw says he leaked the information about the two Russian generals and the clean-up operation to Gertz in October 2004 in an effort to “push back” against claims by Democrats that were orchestrated with CBS News to embarrass President Bush just one week before the November 2004 presidential election. The press sprang bogus claims that 377 tons of high explosives of use to Iraq’s nuclear weapons program had “gone missing” after the U.S.-led liberation of Iraq, while ignoring intelligence of the Russian-orchestrated evacuation of Iraqi WMDs.
  • The two Russian generals “had visited Baghdad no fewer than 20 times in the preceding five to six years,” Shaw revealed. U.S. intelligence knew “the identity and strength of the various Spetsnaz units, their dates of entry and exit in Iraq, and the fact that the effort (to clean up Iraq’s WMD stockpiles) with a planning conference in Baku from which they flew to Baghdad.”
  • The Baku conference, chaired by Russian Minister of Emergency Situations Sergei Shoigu, “laid out the plans for the Sarandar clean-up effort so that Shoigu could leave after the keynote speech for Baghdad to orchestrate the planning for the disposal of the WMD.”
  • Subsequent intelligence reports showed that Russian Spetsnaz operatives “were now changing to civilian clothes from military/GRU garb,” Shaw said. “The Russian denial of my revelations in late October 2004 included the statement that “only Russian civilians remained in Baghdad.” That was the “only true statement” the Russians made, Shaw ironized.The evacuation of Saddam’s WMD to Syria and Lebanon “was an entirely controlled Russian GRU operation,” Shaw said. “It was the brainchild of General Yevgenuy Primakov.”The goal of the clean-up was “to erase all trace of Russian involvement” in Saddam’s WMD programs, and “was a masterpiece of military camouflage and deception.”Just as astonishing as the Russian clean-up operation were efforts by Bush administration appointees, including Defense Department spokesman Laurence DiRita, to smear Shaw and to cover up the intelligence information he brought to light.”Larry DiRita made sure that this story would never grow legs,” Shaw said. “He whispered sotto voce [quietly] to journalists that there was no substance to my information and that it was the product of an unbalanced mind.”Shaw suggested that the answer of why the Bush administration had systematically “ignored Russia’s involvement” in evacuating Saddam’s WMD stockpiles “could be much bigger than anyone has thought,” but declined to speculate what exactly was involved.Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney was less reticent. He thought the reason was Iran.”With Iran moving faster than anyone thought in its nuclear programs,” he told NewsMax, “the administration needed the Russians, the Chinese and the French, and was not interested in information that would make them look bad.”McInerney agreed that there was “clear evidence” that Saddam had WMD. “Jack Shaw showed when it left Iraq, and how.”Former Undersecretary of Defense Richard Perle, a strong supporter of the war against Saddam, blasted the CIA for orchestrating a smear campaign against the Bush White House and the war in Iraq.”The CIA has been at war with the Bush administration almost from the beginning,” he said in a keynote speech at the Intelligence Summit on Saturday.He singled out recent comments by Paul Pillar, a former top CIA Middle East analyst, alleging that the Bush White House “cherry-picked” intelligence to make the case for war in Iraq.”Mr. Pillar was in a very senior position and was able to make his views known, if that is indeed what he believed,” Perle said.”He (Pillar) briefed senior policy officials before the start of the Iraq war in 2003. If he had had reservations about the war, he could have voiced them at that time.” But according to officials briefed by Pillar, Perle said, he never did.Even more inexplicable, Perle said, were the millions of documents “that remain untranslated” among those seized from Saddam Hussein’s intelligence services.”I think the intelligence community does not want them to be exploited,” he said.Among those documents, presented Saturday at the conference by former FBI translator Bill Tierney, were transcripts of Saddam’s palace conversations with top aides in which he discussed ongoing nuclear weapons plans in 2000, well after the U.N. arms inspectors believed he had ceased all nuclear weapons work.”What was most disturbing in those tapes,” Tierney said, “was the fact that the individuals briefing Saddam were totally unknown to the U.N. Special Commission.”In addition, Tierney said, the plasma uranium programs Saddam discussed with his aids as ongoing operations in 2000 had been dismissed as “old programs” disbanded years earlier, according to the final CIA report on Iraq’s weapons programs, presented in 2004 by the Iraq Survey Group.”When I first heard those tapes” about the uranium plasma program, “it completely floored me,” Tierney said.

__________

Back to top

Click to Buy Tony Blair’s ‘A Journey’

_______________

Sign the Ban Blair-Baiting petition here

Recent comments:

I am staggered by all the hate directed towards our former Prime Minister. I believe that Tony Blair made the Iraq decision in good faith and is most certainly NOT a war criminal. If anyone should be tried at the Hague it should be those in the media for totally misrepresenting the information and facts. The media are to blame for fuelling this hatred as it is purely driven by them. (UK)

__________
The greatest and most successful leader the Labour Party has ever had with the courage to fight the Islamist terrorists who really would like to kill us all, and you never hear a good word about him. The herd of independent minds, commentators, activists etc who have never had to make a difficult decision in their lives drown out all debate with their inane chants of war crimes and blood on his hands. Defend him at every chance. I just wish more people would do it. (Glasgow, UK)
__________
Blair was the greatest Labour Prime Minister. It is a disgrace that the party has turned away from his legacy. Shame on Ed Miliband and his so-called ‘new generation’.

Ten years on from 9/11, Blair says Iran is the real enemy

September 9, 2011

Comment at end

Or –

9th September 2011

Ten years on, Blair says Iran is the real enemy

As the tenth anniversary of 9/11 approaches, Tony Blair has called for a continuation and extension of interventionism. An article in The Times says -

Tony Blair has backed regime change in Iran and Syria and warns the West of a long and hard struggle to defeat terrorism and the flawed ideology that supports it.

The former Prime Minister, in an interview with The Times to mark the tenth anniversary of 9/11, blames Tehran for helping to prolong the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan long after the allies’ initial victories.

He suggests that the West must be ready to use force against Iran if it pursues its nuclear ambitions.

His experience and ongoing work for peace between the Israelis and Palestinians will have undoubtedly informed his approach to other (rogue) states in the region.  His reference to “regime change” will get the “highfalutin” standing on their high-horses and yeeha-ing over UN resolutions & legal issues.  Ahmadinejad knows this and will smile at the insanity of the western fatal regard for doing it right. The unbalanced UN is as dangerous a nut to try to crack as are the heads of the Iranian and Syrian regimes to deal with as though they give a damn.

“Regime change in Tehran would immediately make me significantly more optimistic about the whole of the region.”

BE PREPARED – FOR THE CIRCLING MOON-GOD WORSHIPPERS

But Mr Blair must know that this kind of call will raise hackles in certain circles. The sort of circles who gather to hold hands and moan in unison to the moon-god to fix the wicked world PAINLESSLY.

It is not new for Mr Blair to remind us that Iran continues to support groups that are engaged with terrorism and the forces of reaction. In Iraq, he says “one of the main problems has been the continued intervention of Iran and likewise in Afghanistan.”

OUT WITH AHMADINEJAD. OUT WITH ASSAD

While making clear that he was not proposing military action against Iran Tony Blair is clearly calling on the international community to help rid Iran of President Ahmadinejad and Syria of  President Bashar Assad.

The Times also carries an interview with Tony Blair recalling the attacks of 9/11.

Again here he refers to Iran’s influence in prolonging the conflict. He also admits that he underestimated the task in the battles against both the Taliban and Saddam Hussein.

Critics of both conflicts easily forget to remember that more than half the deaths in Iraq were directly attributable to the actions of the locals and near-locals (notably Iranian insurgencies or infiltrators.) Suicide car bombers and roadside bombs proliferate today still.  But the same critics of both actions fail to see that the common link is not western action but those wedded to an ideology of extremism which bears no compassion, leaves few witnesses.

This warning over Iran will not be greeted with generosity or even a blink of understanding that perhaps after his four years in the region Mr Blair understands a little more than do the armchair twitterers.

But his admirable approach to his own reputation is refreshing. How many other western political leaders would concede this?

He acknowledged that his personal career may have been damaged by the aftermath of 9/11 but added: “I don’t think the cost to me personally matters one way or another.”

____________________

Also reported on SkyNews – Blair Calls For Iran And Syria Regime Change

Tony Blair pictured in Tel Aviv, September 2011Tony Blair will spend the Sunday anniversary of 9/11 in the Middle East

The former prime minister told the Times he blames “external factors” such as Iran for prolonging the conflicts in the Afghanistan and Iraq so long.

He also suggests Iran’s threat to the area remains “immense” and the West must be prepared to use force if Tehran pursues its nuclear ambitions.

“Regime change in Tehran would immediately make me significantly more optimistic about the whole of the region,” Mr Blair said.

But insisted he was not advocating military action – instead, he wants countries to use determination to face down the threat and only resort to force , and only if necessary, force.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Tony Blair is critical of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s regime in Iran

“If Iran were to acquire nuclear weapons capability it would destabilise the region very, very badly, ” he said.

“They continue to support groups that are engaged with terrorism and the forces of reaction.

“In Iraq one of the main problems has been the continued intervention of Iran and likewise in Afghanistan,” he added.

Reflecting on the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, Mr Blair admitted he mistakenly expected the interventions to be relatively short.

He said while there were not many extremists, a “worryingly large” number of people bought into the ideology.

Aftermath of attack on Twin Towers in New York on 9/11Tony Blair was at the TUC conference at the time of the 9/11 attacks

“We are a long way from getting out of this,” he added.

He made the remarks days before the 10th anniversary of the 2001 terror attacks which saw four hijacked aeroplanes hit the Twin Towers in New York, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania.

Mr Blair is expected to spend Sunday in the Middle East due to his role representing the Quartet – the US, the European Union, the United Nations and Russia.

UK prime minister at the time of the attacks, Mr Blair was in Brighton at the annual Trades Union Conference (TUC) when he first heard of the unfolding events.

On Syria, he said president Bashar al-Assad was “not capable of reform” and his position is untenable.

“There is no process of change that leaves him intact,” he told the paper.

Back to top

Click to Buy Tony Blair’s ‘A Journey’

_______________

Sign the Ban Blair-Baiting petition here

Recent comments:

I am staggered by all the hate directed towards our former Prime Minister. I believe that Tony Blair made the Iraq decision in good faith and is most certainly NOT a war criminal. If anyone should be tried at the Hague it should be those in the media for totally misrepresenting the information and facts. The media are to blame for fuelling this hatred as it is purely driven by them. (UK)

__________
The greatest and most successful leader the Labour Party has ever had with the courage to fight the Islamist terrorists who really would like to kill us all, and you never hear a good word about him. The herd of independent minds, commentators, activists etc who have never had to make a difficult decision in their lives drown out all debate with their inane chants of war crimes and blood on his hands. Defend him at every chance. I just wish more people would do it. (Glasgow, UK)
__________
Blair was the greatest Labour Prime Minister. It is a disgrace that the party has turned away from his legacy. Shame on Ed Miliband and his so-called ‘new generation’.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,234 other followers