September 27, 2025 - 2:00pm
During his six years as Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers, US General Douglas MacArthur ruled postwar Japan almost as a personal fiefdom. Perhaps surprisingly, he was embraced by the Japanese, receiving over half a million letters from grateful civilians, praising him for the reconstruction of their country and beseeching him to intervene in their personal disputes. So much did the Japanese take to modern-day Shogun MacArthur, some of the divinity associated with the Emperor rubbed off on him and he came to be seen as an almost God-like figure.
Who knows if such thoughts entered Tony Blair’s head as he sat in the White House, pitching his plan to end the war in Gaza and run the region during its reconstruction. The scheme would make Blair the head of the proposed “Gaza International Transitional Authority” (Gita), which would have full political and legal control of Gaza for five years, backed by the UN and Gulf states, before leaving a democratic Palestinian government in place.
As with previous schemes to end the conflict, no one can be too hopeful: when the least cynical and most cooperative part of your deal-making triumvirate is Donald Trump, it’s hard to have faith that any of the oft-mooted plans to bring about peace will ever come to pass. However, while Tony Blair is many things, he is no fool; nor can he be accused of lacking in cynicism when it comes to international relations. And since he is putting himself forward in such a public manner, he must think it has some chance of success.
Even if he doesn’t fancy himself as a latter-day MacArthur, Blair, like Trump, knows that the carnage of the past two years has shown that the sclerotic status quo of the past three decades is no longer tenable. The prize of being the man or men who brought “peace to the Middle East” — as Blair claims he did in Northern Ireland — may be up for grabs, and he wants to make sure he is counted among their number.
As it stands, Blair’s legacy is sweeping constitutional reform and the grisly Iraq War. Gaza is a way to right the wrongs of the latter. But will it work? Previous plans have faltered because of two apparently irreconcilable objectives: the Israeli government can’t say it has “won” if Hamas remains in Gaza, even as a much-reduced political and military force; while Hamas won’t accede to their own destruction. So this deal will hinge on how far Bibi can convincingly claim Hamas is destroyed, and how little influence and power Hamas will accept as the price of survival.
From the Hamas point of view, the plan proposes the complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza. If the terrorist organisation truly believes that the IDF would leave and that there is scope for Hamas’ continued existence and influence, then it will accept the terms, despite the Israelis targeting their negotiating team in Qatar earlier this month.
Therefore the success of the plan will rest, as with the two ceasefires in November 2023 and January this year, on whether it’s acceptable to the Israeli government. In other words, how far does Benjamin Netanyahu believe the plan will aid his own difficult position.
The hardliners in Bibi’s coalition won’t accept the Blair proposal, much as they opposed and worked to bring down this year’s ceasefire. For a start, they would oppose it on the grounds that it would dash their dreams of resettling all the land of Biblical Israel, coming on the heels of Trump’s promise that he “won’t allow” the Israelis to annex the West Bank.
The recent recognition of Palestinian statehood by Britain, France, Canada and Australia should increase their opposition, since it is easier than it was just a few months ago to see how a Gaza without Hamas and renewed Palestinian Authority government over both the Strip and the West Bank could be the precursor to such a state.
What calculation will Bibi make? If it ends the war, gets the hostages back and results in the end of Hamas as a military and political entity, he could paint the deal as enough of a success to risk the collapse of the government and an early election. Presumably, Gazan security would be provided by troops from friendly Arab nations and plenty of Western contractors and mercenaries, who would cooperate with Israel much as the Palestinian Authority forces do in the West Bank. This would allow Netanyahu to continue to stymie a Palestinian state despite “giving up” Gaza.
The signs that a grand compromise might be reached are not promising. Netanyahu earlier this month gave an ominous speech, warning that Israeli isolation was “inevitable”, and that the country needs to become economically and militarily “autarkic”. Sadly, we shouldn’t be surprised if Bibi rejects the plan, even if it means deepening his rift with Donald Trump and the West.
It is clear, then, that much stands in the way of Tony Blair’s dreams of being the world’s great peacemaker.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
Subscribe