The interesting question is why Sir Tony still feels the need to be involved in trying to find an end to the fighting in the Middle East. He has long seen himself as a peace-maker, after his success negotiating the Good Friday Agreement that helped reduce conflict in Northern Ireland.
But as a political correspondent throughout the 1990s and 2000s, and thus a close observer of the Blair years of power, I was always struck by his dogged refusal to accept that he might have failed to persuade someone of his point of view. It niggled at him. To that extent, the Middle East may be seen by Sir Tony as unfinished business.
Health Secretary Wes Streeting told PA Media Sir Tony’s role would “raise eyebrows” because of the Iraq war and said he had an “incredible legacy” in Northern Ireland of building peace that lasted. “If he can bring that skill set to bear in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with the support of Israelis, Palestinians and other regional powers, then so much the better,” Mr Streeting said.
In truth, the role of Blair is a second order issue. He will have a job to do only if this peace plan succeeds and survives, and there is no guarantee of that. Far more important are the differences between both sides and details that are as yet unresolved by the framework outlined by the White House.
Sanam Vakil, Middle East programme director at the Chatham House think tank, said: “The focus on Tony Blair and his legacy of western intervention in Iraq masks the real challenges of this peace framework that lacks details, timelines and deliverables – and does not yet have Palestinian or Israeli buy-in, let alone leadership.
“Without significant work to move beyond 20 points on a piece of paper, this plan will be another version of cosmetic diplomacy that embeds structural injustice and deprives Palestinians of agency and sovereignty.”
So maybe what really matters is not perhaps the psychodrama of Sir Tony Blair and the controversial opinions people hold about him. A more relevant question may be more what role any transitional authority in Gaza might play and whether Sir Tony has the right skills and experience to play a significant role.
If his job would be to coordinate with Gulf leaders and the White House, that is one thing. But if he were being asked effectively to govern Gaza, overseeing the reconstruction, the security and economic development of the Strip, that is quite another. “Viceroy Blair?” one diplomat texted me. “That will never wash.”