Who is the UK ex-PM in Trump’s Gaza peace plan

London – Tony Blair.

A political titan that remains the most successful post-war leader in Great Britain, or a disgrace scourge of the Middle East which should never be authorized near the region again.

According to the person you are talking to, the man is now planned for a central role in the peace plan of President Donald Trump for Gaza could evoke one or the other reaction.

The proposal will see Blair, 72, join Trump as co -president of a “peace council” – an international organization that would supervise the reconstruction of the Gaza Strip after its devastation in the hands of the Israeli army.

Blair won three consecutive elections between 1997 and 2005, standing two years later, having never been defeated in the polls.

Some in Great Britain rent its historical achievements such as the introduction of the minimum wage, pay investments in public services and help ensure peace in Northern Ireland. But for many others, his name is a word of evolution of the war in Iraq, having used imperfect information to challenge the public’s opposition and join President George W. Bush in the 2003 invasion which is now largely considered to be disastrous.

Blair described Trump’s proposal “daring and intelligent”, saying in a statement that she could “put an end to war, immediately relieve Gaza”. It brings “the risk of a better and better future for its people, while guaranteeing the absolute and sustainable security of Israel and the release of all hostages”.

It came after Trump revealed that Blair wanted to be on the board, calling him a “good man, a very good man”.

Blair’s post-Iraq career includes a passage as a worldwide worldview of the Middle East, but even figures within his former Labor Party have conceded that potential appointment “would make eyebrows”, such as his secretary of health in service, Wes Street, BBC told the BBC on Tuesday.

Indeed, among the Palestinians, the reaction “is not positive, at the very least”, according to Ha HeLyer, principal associate researcher at the Royal United Services Institute, a group of reflection based in London. “Blair continues to be associated with public conscience in war in Iraq.”

He is a leader with “a lot of luggage, of course,” said Michael Wahid Hanna, director of American programs at International Crisis Group. “It is completely particularly special about what he does here,” he said. “I think many people are confused by this.”

Blair remains one of the most dividing names in British politics, despite the release of the scene almost 20 years ago.

He evolved in the public in the 1990s, winning the Labor Party leadership competition after the sudden death of his predecessor, John Smith.

He began to make radical changes, to remove the commitment of the left party towards the ownership of the public and to trigger a bitter debate between those who saw this as the pragmatism necessary to gain elections, or the abandonment of progressive values.

After a historic landslide in 1997 which ousted the longtime conservative party, he began to redo Great Britain with the minimum wage and peace in Northern Irish, but also in historical laws which advance LGBTQ equality and the social security net.

However, none would define his inheritance as follows Bush in Iraq, however. As in the United States, it still unites many conservatives and liberals in their (in certain retroactive cases) opposition and repulsion.

The war in Iraq saw the Minister of Blair ending in 2007 under a cloud of anger – and, of the most vehement criticisms, accusations that he was a war criminal after hundreds of thousands of people who died in the conflict that was not sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council or in accordance with the founding charter of the UN.

A British 2016 historic historical survey revealed that the basis for going to war was “far from satisfactory”. After this conclusion of punishment, Blair expressed “sadness, regret and excuse” and took “my entire responsibility without exception or excuse” for the tragic consequences of the war. He said he had gone to war in “good faith”, believing that the threat of the weapons of mass destruction of Iraq is real and wanted to rid the Iraqi people of “evil” of Saddam Hussein.

NBC News contacted the White House and Blair office to comment on the criticisms surrounding its proposed appointment.

Blair’s involvement with the Middle East did not end with war.

The day he resigned, he announced that he should become a special envoy to the quartet, a supranational group including the United Nations, the United States, the European Union and Russia, which requested a resolution between Israel and the Palestinians. He resigned in 2015 after having made little progress.

The following year, he founded the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change, which became a giant of more than 800 employees in around forty countries.

The non -profit institute has been criticized for working with authoritarian governments such as Saudi Arabia and Rwanda. Blair previously defended his work in these countries by saying that his institute focused on the positive forces of change, even if these were in countries with imperfect human rights files.

At the head of this institute, Blair continued to cultivate solid Middle East networks in Washington, and would have been involved in discussions on the backchannel against Gaza in the past year.

Whatever its references, the idea of ​​Western leaders parachuting to govern Gaza – with questions about what will play, if necessary, the Palestinians – makes many nervous observers.

“The construction is colonial pseudo; all these external powers in a way create a new protectorate,” Hanna told the International Crisis Group. “It is therefore very strange and it is really not clear how it will work.”

HeLLYER compared the proposed role of Blair to that of the vicers used by empires such as Great Britain to supervise India and other colonies.

“People who are not connected to Gaza or the West Bank or to Palestine will go on Gaza with a very minimal Palestinian involvement,” he said. “So Blair or not Blair, I think it will be something that will be difficult to justify politically.”