“Tony Blair? Hell no. Hands off Palestine.” The intense debate over the former British prime minister’s possible involvement in a post-war Gaza, as described in Donald Trump’s new peace plan, is encapsulated in this direct warning from a top UN official.
The plan, a 20-point framework, envisions an international “Board of Peace” to oversee Gaza’s governance, chaired by the US President. A key member of this hypothetical body would be Sir Tony Blair, aged 72, whom Trump has publicly praised as a “good man, very good man.” But the question remains: could the man once known as “Teflon Tony” for his political slickness possibly navigate the minefield of Gaza’s future?
Why is Tony Blair Being Considered for This Role?
The peace attempts in the Middle East are not new to Sir Tony Blair. He has been involved in the area for decades, which makes him a distinctive, albeit controversial, personality. He backed US-led peace efforts while serving as prime minister of the United Kingdom in 1997.On the very day he left office in 2007, he was appointed as the special envoy for the Quartet—representing the US, Russia, the EU, and UN—a role he held until 2015.
More recently, he has been deeply involved in drawing up the very proposals now on the table. He has worked for months with key advisers, including Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and Ron Dermer, a close confidant of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. In a statement, Blair lavished praise on the Trump plan, calling it “bold and intelligent” and “the best chance of ending two years of war, misery and suffering.”
Diplomats point to this long history as his key qualification. “He’s got the credibility and experience having been embroiled in the Middle East for 24 years,” said Nick Hopton of the Middle East Association. He is trusted by the Trump administration and possesses an unparalleled network across the Middle East.
Also Read: ‘No Witch-Hunt, Only Evidence’: Ladakh Admin Defends Sonam Wangchuk’s Detention
What Are the Major Objections to His Involvement?
The primary objection is Sir Tony’s legacy from the 2003 invasion of Iraq. His decision to join the US-led war, based on incorrect intelligence about weapons of mass destruction, has left a deep and lasting stain on his reputation in the region. Many view him not as a peacemaker, but as a figure associated with war and Western intervention.
Francesca Albanese, the UN Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories, made this clear by suggesting a meeting in The Hague, the seat of the International Criminal Court, instead of Gaza. Hamas has also rejected him outright. Husam Badran, a member of the group’s political bureau, stated Blair “should be on trial for the US invasion of Iraq, not administering Gaza.”
Beyond Iraq, many Palestinians and analysts believe he has historically been too close to Israeli and US positions. During his eight years as Quartet envoy, his focus on economic development over a forceful push for Palestinian statehood and against illegal settlements led to a perception of failure and bias. “I don’t think the Palestinians trust him at all,” said former peace negotiator Nomi Bar-Yaacov.
Is Blair the Real Issue, or is it the Plan Itself?
Numerous commentators contend that the emphasis on Tony Blair’s contentious image is diverting attention from the core issue, which is the content of the peace proposal. The 20-point framework has drawn criticism for lacking timeliness, specificity, and—above all—support from the major stakeholders.
Sanam Vakil of Chatham House think tank called it “cosmetic diplomacy that embeds structural injustice and deprives Palestinians of agency and sovereignty.” The plan currently lacks public support from both the Israeli and Palestinian leaderships. Without this, the role of any transitional authority, and Blair’s place within it, remains purely theoretical.
Furthermore, the specific duties of the “Board of Peace” are vague. Would Blair’s role be to coordinate with Gulf leaders and the White House, a task for which he is well-suited? Or, as one diplomat texted, would it be a “Viceroy Blair” scenario, with him effectively governing Gaza? The latter, most agree, “will never wash.”
Could Blair’s Skills Ultimately Succeed Where Others Have Failed?
Despite the baggage, some see a glimmer of hope in his specific skill set. Health Secretary Wes Streeting noted that while the role would “raise eyebrows” because of Iraq, Blair also has an “incredible legacy” in negotiating the Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland. “If he can bring that skill set to bear… then so much the better,” Streeting said.
Blair himself seems to view the Middle East as unfinished business. Colleagues have long noted his dogged refusal to accept failure in persuasion. His deep-seated view of himself as a peacemaker may be driving this latest effort. The critical test, however, will be whether he can demonstrate he has the confidence not just of Trump and Netanyahu, but also of the Palestinian Authority leadership—a balance he has never fully achieved.
