I understand that Tony Blair is “dismayed” that President Bush has rejected the UK’s call for an American led monitoring force, to be deployed as a buffer zone between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.
The rationale for Tony Blair’s proposal was based on the knowledge that Israel would never accept a UN led force.
However, he ignored the other side of the equation; namely:
- The USA already has large numbers of its forces committed around the world, eg Iraq to name but one place, these commitments are overstretching its resources.
- President Bush is standing for re-election, and will do nothing to antagonise the Jewish vote.
In view of the above, the USA would not have deemed Tony Blair’s proposal to be in its interest; no matter how well intentioned. Therefore it rejected it.
PM Blair felt, that after his support for the US invasion of Iraq, he was owed some form of payback. He ignored the lesson of history, that when dealing with the USA, the USA will always do whatever is in its own national self interest.
This is as true today, when dealing with President Bush; as it was in the Second World War when dealing with FDR, or during the Suez crisis when dealing with Eisenhower.
I do not understand why Blair is “dismayed”, ignore the lesson of history at your peril.