Washington, D.C. — Oct. 1, 2025
Among the many bottlenecks in the Trump framework for Gaza, one is glaring: the sudden return of Tony Blair. His name was written into the plan as co-chair of the 'Board of Peace.' But the world’s reaction shows why this appointment is a liability, not a solution.
Credibility questions immediately surface. The Guardian called his proposed role 'laced with fatal flaws,' noting the failures of his tenure as Quartet envoy. AP reminded readers that Blair carries heavy baggage from Iraq and previous Middle East ventures that achieved little.
Perceived bias further erodes legitimacy. Palestinians and Arab commentators see him as aligned with Israel and Western interests. The Financial Times reports Arab and European officials fear the Gaza plan is already skewed toward Israeli priorities, lacking Palestinian legitimacy.
Economic focus over politics is also Blair’s hallmark. His style is development, investment, and oversight. But economic fixes without true sovereignty or political empowerment have never brought peace. They usually collapse.
Palestinian rejection is fierce. Hamas officials explicitly say, 'Blair has no role here.' A Gazan displaced by war told AP, 'This man has the blood of Iraqis on his hands.' Mustafa Barghouti compared his reappearance to returning British colonialism. Mahmoud Habbash, adviser to Mahmoud Abbas, insisted: 'The only side that can administer Gaza is a Palestinian government.' Even West Bank PA officials said no plan can be imposed externally.
At home, Blair is divisive. In the UK, his name still triggers controversy. Labour MPs and activists condemn his Iraq legacy. His reappearance in the Middle East stirs opposition in his own country.
This is more than an irritant — it is a structural bottleneck. A plan that inserts figures already rejected by Palestinians, mistrusted by Arabs, and controversial at home reveals its own fragility. It risks being seen not as peace, but as foreign guardianship dressed up as governance.
1. Why Blair, despite all the baggage?
• Gravitas to outsiders: For Washington and Europe, Blair still carries a former-PM aura. Even if he is toxic to Palestinians, his name signals 'serious statesmanship' to Western publics.
• Economic entry point: Blair’s strength is not political reconciliation, but economic reconstruction and private capital mobilization. If Trump wants Gulf billions to flow into Gaza, Blair’s networks with banks, development funds, and corporations are useful.
• Cover for Trump: By putting Blair as 'chair' beside himself, Trump shifts optics — he is not alone, but backed by an 'international statesman.' This cushions accusations of unilateralism.
• Foil for rejection: If the plan collapses, Blair can be the fall guy. Trump walks away saying, 'We tried, even Blair was there, but Hamas/Palestinians refused.
2. The deeper Trump method
• Every clause is leverage. He doesn’t expect Hamas to fully comply (72-hour hostages, disarmament). These are traps designed to force Hamas and Qatar into an impossible corner.
• Every figure is a signal. Blair isn’t about Gaza legitimacy; he is about signaling to Gulf/European donors: 'Your man is at the table, so you should pay.'
• Every failure is still a win. If Hamas refuses → Israel gets legitimacy, Arab bloc blames Hamas, Trump gets credit for 'trying.' If Hamas accepts partially → Trump claims history, Blair can take operational heat, and Trump drives normalization.
3. What this could mean later
• Blair as bridge to Saudi funds: Riyadh has long liked 'technocratic committees' and international faces to mask normalization. Blair’s presence could make Saudi/UAE more comfortable committing billions while keeping PA language alive.
• Blair as disposable pawn: If Palestinian rejection becomes loud, Blair can be dropped without the plan collapsing — Trump stays central, Blair vanishes.
• Blair as buffer for Trump: Any failure or unpopular measure gets blamed on Blair’s 'management,' preserving Trump’s stature.
4. What we must hold
• Trump doesn’t waste moves. Blair is not there to solve Gaza politically — he is there to give Trump cover, Gulf comfort, and donor access. In the covenant reality, it will not 'divide the land,' but politically it allows Trump to say: 'I built the widest coalition ever — even Blair, even the Gulf, even Europe stood with me.'
One more bottleneck, one more reason this deal cannot stand. 'They shall not divide the land' (Joel 3:2).
