"For the British Prime Minister, Palestine represents a deadlock as much as Iran, Iraq, Lebanon and Afghanistan have all highlighted his failure to reconfigure the region as it was planned in Washington."

It was first and foremost a public relations exercise. If photo opportunities solved anything, Prime Minister Tony Blair’s high profile visit to Palestine would have been worth the effort. If words were all it took to change the situation in this troubled land his pronouncements since 2001 would have done it long ago. The fact is neither his photo-opportunities nor his declarations have helped the Palestinians edge closer toward freedom and independence. Despite his declared intent to return to the region, time is certainly not on his side.

At his party’s annual convention in 2001 Mr. Blair pleaded for the creation of a “reformed world order” and ‘justice’ for the Palestinian people. Five years on, his visit to Palestine was overshadowed by a wave of angry demonstrations, public cynicism and mistrust. This unwelcoming climate was largely due to the Prime Minister’s policies that helped to perpetuate the cycle of death, destruction, siege, kidnap and detention of elected members of parliament and government ministers.

Coming as it did immediately after Israel’s military fiasco in Lebanon, last month’s visit was bound to invite speculation. Was he representing Whitehall, the White House, the European Union or all of these? Across the region at least there is a widespread belief that the visit was to deliver a message from Washington. During the G8 meeting in St Petersburg he was overheard pleading Bush’s approval to sort out the Middle East.

Whatever the case, the timing of Mr. Blair’s visit suggests that this was more about his personal woes than about the suffering of the Palestinians. Like so many Arab leaders have done over the years, he recognizes if he could say the right things about Palestinian suffering he may repair some of the damage done to Britain’s interests because of his unreserved support for Israel. It was precisely because of this damage his Labour Party was in open rebellion against him. With membership fast diminishing and the traditionally loyal trade unions publicly challenging his position as party leader the writing on the wall could not have been any clearer for the prime minister.

Indeed Blair’s foray into the Middle East is reminiscent of Bill Clinton’s final days in the White House. Clinton, like Blair today, was obsessed with his legacy. He did not want to be remembered for his extra marital affairs so he dedicated the last months of his presidency to the ‘peace process’ that resulted in the July 2000 Camp David summit between Ehud Barak and Yaser Arafat. Like his one time political soul-mate Bill Clinton, Blair also has a legacy problem. All indications are that he will be most remembered for the war on Iraq and its tragic consequences for the people of that country.

Stability or Recognition?

Meanwhile, the Israeli war on Lebanon has forced many in Europe to wake up to the realities of the Middle East: that without a just and comprehensive peace to the Arab-Israeli conflict the entire international system will be destabilized. In Palestine, the Hamas led government reaffirmed its willingness to enter into a long-term truce if Israel stopped its attacks. Following the Blair visit Dr. Ahmad Yousef a Special Advisor to Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh explained there is nothing preventing them from meeting Ehud Olmert even though they do not expect this to take place because of the international demands for recognition of the state of Israel.

Contrary to this approach, there is a significant body of opinion in Israel itself that believes stability and peace is more important than recognition. They emphasize that they do not want to be responsible in any form for the governance of the Palestinian people. On this basis they suggest that it is in Israel’s best interest to have a strong Palestinian National Authority that governs the territories rather than a powerless one that cannot impose order and stability.

Altogether, there is a general realization among Israelis of all persuasions that they cannot bury the Palestinian issue while it is unresolved; neither can they run away from it. Unwittingly, they have become the victims of their own illusions of grandeur and power. Of course this dilemma could have been avoided had they and their benefactors acknowledged that it is impossible to enjoy the fruits of peace and security while subjugating another people. It is precisely because of their unwillingness to see the link between these two that both the Israeli Prime Minister and his deputy announced on the eve of the Blair visit that Israel would not be withdrawing from the West Bank. In this context Prime Minister Blair’s up-beat statement that there is ‘a window of opportunity’ can best be described as wishful and contrary to the facts.

Even with all its drawbacks there still remains a small but powerful interest group that profits from Israel’s military adventures and conflicts. The benefits are largely economic and political. In Israel the dominant military establishment has been the main beneficiary of the conflict with the Palestinians and neighboring Arab states. They have enjoyed the financial largesse that has been heaped upon them annually by the US. Even when they decide to retire, the generals still enjoy positions of power and influence within the political establishment. Hence the saying, ‘every country possesses an army but in Israel the army possesses the country.’

Government of National Unity

In Palestine the process of political change has been equally laborious. Eight months after its crushing defeat in free and fair elections the Palestinian National Liberation Movement - Fateh - which prevailed over Palestinian politics for four decades is still not prepared to accept its loss of power. The acquisition of personal fortunes by many of its key figures contrasted markedly with the impoverishment of the vast majority of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories. Amidst the mad rush for personal wealth and glory the revolutionary ideals of the early struggles were gradually transformed into the defeatist ‘realism’ of today. Without this makeover the Zionist Anglo-American Alliance would not have sidelined ‘extremist’ Hamas in order to do business with ‘pragmatic’ Fateh.

With regard to the Europeans, the prospect of the formation of a government of national unity is cautiously welcomed because it gives them a pole to climb down from the tree of sanctions that they so hastily climbed on to. Their qualified acceptance of the idea only came about after months of unsuccessfully trying to drive a wedge between the Palestinian electorate and their elected government. Hence the demonstrations and strikes for wages, albeit just demands, failed to topple the government. Likewise, the capture of 32 parliamentarians by Israeli forces did not lead to a split between Hamas’ ‘external hard-liners and its internal pragmatists’.

For the British Prime Minister, Palestine represents a deadlock as much as Iran, Iraq, Lebanon and Afghanistan have all highlighted his failure to reconfigure the region as it was planned in Washington. As ever, the outcome of his visit was expected to have broader implications for the region. One ominous view is that an easing of tensions in Palestine and a lifting of the embargo would make a military attack or economic sanctions against Iran seem more amenable to western public opinion. It is widely believed that former Foreign Secretary Jack Straw was sacked because he viewed a military attack as ‘crazy’. Both Prime Minister Blair and President Bush insist all options are on the table.

In this climate the likelihood of substantial progress remains negligible as Washington continues to oppose the formation of a national unity government. They are particularly averse to the reported agreement between Hamas and Mahmud Abbas which would allow Khalid Misha’al to become the deputy chair of the PLO. According to some reports Hamas wants a proportion of representation within the PLO that is equivalent to its current representation in the National Authority Parliament [60%]. It also wants a veto on the appointment of ministers even though Fateh will have the key ministries of Interior, Finance and Foreign Affairs. Furthermore, what makes the agreement more unpalatable to the US and Israel is its unconditional support for the Palestinian right of return according to UN Resolution 194 and the decision to continue support for the refugee communities in the region.

With such a progressive agenda it seems rather unlikely that the Zionist-Anglo-American Alliance would recognize the proposed national unity government. Ever since the earliest days of the conflict factionalism has always been an obstacle in the way of Palestinian national liberation. For most of the last two decades relations between Fateh and Hamas have been frosty at best with a notable wave of harassment and imprisonment in the immediate period after Oslo. Despite the tensions, the situation never got out of hand or escalated into civil war as many hoped.

When all is said and done the formation of a government of national unity in the West Bank and Gaza Strip must be seen for what it is. It is not an independent government but bears only limited authority. It has no sovereignty over the land and its ability to function is substantially limited by the Israeli Occupation. Even with such limitations the Zionist-Anglo-American Alliance opposes its establishment. Any talk of ‘window of opportunity’ in these circumstances must therefore be regarded simply as media spin.

Daud Abdullah is senior researcher at the Palestinian Return Centre, London and deputy director of the Muslim Council of Britain.