Who is Tony Blair?

You haven't heard too much from Tony Blair these days, but recently he popped up in Iraq right after the Road Map agreement was reached by President Bush and Prime Minister Sharon. Why is this significant?

Contact Editor
Stanley Zir,

לבן ריק
לבן ריק
צילום: ערוץ 7
Everyone would love to be the recipient of a one million dollar check until they find out it is a forgery. Such is the nature of the present negotiations, where Israel is making concessions for fool's gold. First Tony Blair and now George Bush and Ariel Sharon are telling the whole world to invest in security bonds that will be worthless in 2005. Until that time, Abu Mazen, the new Palestinian Prime Minister, and his cohorts know that keeping any promises for just a couple of months is only a minor inconvenience, for soon they will be free to act with impunity.

You haven't heard too much from Tony Blair these days, but recently he popped up in Iraq right after the Road Map agreement was reached by President Bush and Prime Minister Sharon. Why is this significant?

It started almost two months before the war against Iraq. At the time, Israel thinking they are in the clear, the United Nations and the majority of its supporters had finally been exposed as an organized for appeasing evil. What went unnoticed was Tony Blair standing in front of his parliament crying out about the suffering of the Palestinians, over and over, with no reference to their endless sponsorship of terrorist bombers and their support of Saddam Hussein. He talked about their poverty, but not about the tyrannical governments that led them into it. Little or nothing was said about the suffering of the Israeli citizens enduring continuous terrorists attacks by the Palestinians year after year. Then, Blair slammed down his hand, reminiscent of Khrushchev's shoe slamming exhibition 40 years ago, and said "We will have a Palestinian state installed in less than two years, I promise you this."

Suddenly, his parliament stood up cheering wildly, thinking that this was the solution, and that its absence was the cause of the conflict between the Moslem nations and the West, and even the cause for the war with Iraq. Now they felt all these issues were going to be resolved, even if it means giving up Israel in the process into the hands of the enemy. He then mentioned the ongoing meetings with Yasser Arafat, using it as a testimony to convince parliament that progress was being made for peace in the Mid-East, even against the wishes of the United States, who had cut off relations with Arafat in June 2002. Nevertheless, the British foreign ministers continued in discussions with Arafat about a Palestinian state, to be created in less than two years.

This was the fait accompli, for Blair was now assuring them that by giving Arafat his way, this would also solve any issues with the Moslem populations in their own nation and shore up future relationships with the EU, thus giving them protection they would need against terrorism and assure their economic prosperity.

There it was, as plain as day, Tony Blair insisting he alone would fulfill this promise. Nothing was ever mentioned coming from the United States on their own position about the same issue at that time. Surprisingly, four months later, after the victory was declared over Iraq, we heard President Bush espousing this same extreme agenda to the American public and the world at large over the airways.

Equally important, it became Blair-ingly apparent in the British Prime ministers' speech, that there would be no stipulations for the actions the British government would take if any further terrorist attacks were made against the State of Israel or even after a Palestinian state was established. Thus, any commitment of the use of British troops, if Israel were attacked again, to put an end to the Palestinian organizations of terror and rebuild their society from within was strikingly absent from his speech, as it is now from the speeches of President Bush, four months later. Thus, in essence, Blaire took it upon himself, without the approval of Israel, to force her to enter into negotiations that would help form a Palestinian nation born of terror, and now immunized from responsibility for such acts, or face his wrath. All this because he had a promise to keep to his parliament.

By making such a speech in front of the world, he had in essence declared that the Bush doctrine was null and void. He showed his ultimate contempt not only for Israel, but for liberty as well, by not even affording Israel the most the most basic consideration given to all allies who embrace democracy - full protection against terrorists attacks, and full support for any counter attacks, until they are totally out of harm?s way.

Instead, Tony Blair abandoned this doctrine and embraced a doctrine that gives approval for offering up the people of Israel and their sovereignty as ransom to extortionists, who promised peace and economic security in the world in return. To Blair, this was obviously a small price to pay considering the size of Israel and the size of the populations and nations that oppose her.

Here, Blair has made the ultimate mistake, because he bet on tyranny, and their lies, and now has put us all in harm?s way, by abandoning the use of the forces of liberty against the actions of terrorists, and the tyrannies that support them, as the only barging chip to bring about true peace in this conflict and in that region. Now, for the second time since World War II, the representatives of the British government have offered up Israel as the sacrificial lamb to the forces of tyranny.

Thus, the security of Israel became a tradeoff for Blair to gain the support of parliament for the war in Iraq. This put the United States in a very vulnerable position, for now they had to back Blair's commitment to Arafat after the war in Iraq, in order to get full support from Blair's parliament before the war started.

This is why you did not hear too much from Tony Blair when the discussions for the Road Map started, right after our victory in Iraq. That's the reason he did not appear on the scene until the Road Map was accepted. He also did not want to appear in the spotlight until the clamor of the recent French meeting with Arafat died down in the press, and the dust cleared, for obvious reasons. But now, he is back and people are even thinking of offering him a Nobel Peace Prize.

This was how Tony Blair got his support for the war in Iraq, on Israel's back, and kept it a secret. With this tradeoff, Blair opened the door to hell and now Bush is fanning the flames, by repaying the debt for Blair's support in the war. Now, five months later, here is President Bush banging the same shoe as Blair did before him, but this time it is on Ariel Sharon's desk and now Sharon is surrendering in fear of losing the Bush administration's support.

What is Sharon afraid of? Is he afraid of disagreeing with the policies the United States has imposed on Israel in confronting Palestinian terror, because she might offend or lose America's support? Can this be possible? It is outrageous that Israel, a nation of democracy that had honored the Bush doctrine not to negotiate with terrorists, would now fear the seat of liberty itself, if she continues honor that doctrine. Now, Israel alone may face a ?three strikes? policy, including sanctions and suspension of economic aid, if she does not abide by this mandate, since a Palestinian state must be achieved by 2005 - no matter what.

Being the commander-in-chief of the forces of liberty carries a grave responsibility, because after the war with Iraq the influence the Untied States has on the world is truly unlimited. President Bush went to war against Iraq because he felt America was in harm?s way. He dared to stand against the world based upon the principles of liberty, claiming the defeat of Iraq was the only way to "peace and world security." The fact that he now supports a Road Map that is based on the consensus of the very same nations that opposed us in our war against the tyranny and terror of the Iraqi regime, only signifies that we have now adopted a policy that dictates appeasement to terrorists is the only way to "peace and world security". This is not only outrageous, but it puts Israel in imminent danger.

Now, because of Sharon's acceptance of the Road Map, the Bush administration will take actions to declare that any voice denouncing the Road Map as a map of suicide for Israel is a voice of obstruction, embraced by the people who are against "peace and world security".

In the eyes of the free world, this would be tantamount to putting those who stand up for liberty and the security of Israel in the same category as those who marched against the war with Iraq and blamed the United States for the suffering of the Iraqi people. This classifies all those who marched in pre-Gulf-War peace demonstrations around the world as America's newest allies.
--------------------------------------------------------
Stanley Zir, an author, is the Founder of VictoriousAmerica.com.
Phil Orenstein is the Editor-in-Chief and Co-Director of VictoriousAmerica.com and an Adjunct Instructor at Queensborough Community College .