Original source URL: http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1968086,00.html 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 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. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2006 -- -------------------------------------------------------- Escaping the Matrix website http://escapingthematrix.org/ cyberjournal website http://cyberjournal.org subscribe cyberjournal list mailto:•••@••.••• Posting archives http://cyberjournal.org/show_archives/ Blogs: cyberjournal forum http://cyberjournal-rkm.blogspot.com/ Achieving real democracy http://harmonization.blogspot.com/ for readers of ETM http://matrixreaders.blogspot.com/ Community Empowerment http://empowermentinitiatives.blogspot.com/ Blogger made easy http://quaylargo.com/help/ezblogger.html
