In the latest issue of Time (April 20, 2009) you can read an interview with Tony Blair who has a mediation mission in the Middle East. Asked about under what conditions the international community should deal with Hamas, his answer is, that it is difficult to do so as long as Hamas reserves its right to use violence to fire rockets against innocent Israeli civilians.

But, says Blair, if Hamas would say they will instead pursue their political objectives by peaceful means, this would at a stroke lead to the international community being able to say that there must be a solution.

Blair thus seem to suggest that it is OK for Hamas to pursue their political objectives, as long as they do not use violent means.

What, then, are these objectives?

In Haaretz you can read the following statement by Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahar:

We can not, we will not, and we will never recognize the enemy in any way, shape or form

This amounts to the usual message from Hamas: Hamas does not recognize ”the enemy”, ie. Israel’s right to exist, and will never make it ”in any way, shape or form”. Israel should not exist.

Tony Blair appears to consider that this is fine. Hamas may well strive for this ”political objective” as long as they do not shoot rockets.

But a mediator who consider it normal that one of the parties he is appointed to mediate between has as its objective to destroy the other party, in doing so seemingly has taken a position against that other party, ie. Israel. In this situation the solution is clear: Destroy one of the parties and peace will come.

Is it really this that Blair is seeking? If so, then he should (be made to) resign as mediator.


Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om , , , , , , ,