U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

55–116 PDF 2010

S. HRG. 111–286 

THE MIDDLE EAST: THE ROAD TO PEACE 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MAY 14, 2009 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts, Chairman

CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

ROBERT P. CASEY, JR., Pennsylvania 

JIM WEBB, Virginia 

JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire 

EDWARD E. KAUFMAN, Delaware 

KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York 

RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana 

Republican Leader designee 

BOB CORKER, Tennessee 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

DAVID MCKean, Staff Director

KENNETH A. MYERS, JR., Republican Staff Director

(II)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Blair, Hon. Tony Blair, Quartet Representative, former Prime Minister of 

the United Kingdom and Envoy to the Middle East, London, United Kingdom ........................................................................................................................ 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 9 

Kerry, Hon. John F., U.S. Senator from Massachusetts, opening statement ..... 1 

Lugar, Hon. Richard G., U.S. Senator from Indiana, opening statement ........... 3 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

Dodd, Hon. Christopher J., U.S. Senator from Connecticut, prepared statement ...................................................................................................................... 36 

(III)

(1) 

THE MIDDLE EAST: THE ROAD TO PEACE 

THURSDAY, MAY 14, 2009 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:04 p.m., in room 

SD–419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John F. Kerry 

(chairman of the committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Kerry, Feingold, Boxer, Cardin, Shaheen, 

Kaufman, Lugar, Corker, and Risch. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN F. KERRY, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS 

The CHAIRMAN. The hearing will come to order. 

It’s a great pleasure for me today to be able to welcome a tremendous friend of the United States of America, and who I can 

happily call a good friend. And we’re delighted to have Prime Minister Blair here with us. 

Since ending his decade of service as Britain’s Prime Minister, 

Tony Blair has continued to lead on global challenges, from development in Africa to interfaith tolerance to climate change. And at 

a moment when many people might have been content simply to 

leave public office and rest on their laurels, Tony Blair left office 

and volunteered for another assignment. He’s here today as the 

Middle East Quartet Representative to discuss the prospects for 

peace. 

As all the members of the committee know, this week, and this 

month, are critical for the administration’s Mideast policymaking. 

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and Palestinian resident Mahmoud Abbas will all 

be here visiting Washington. They will also visit with the committee, as well as the administration. And we expect that, in the 

wake of those meetings, the administration and the Quartet will be 

releasing more details about their plans for peacemaking. 

And in early June, President Obama will travel to Egypt to 

deliver his much-anticipated speech about America’s relations with 

the region and the wider Muslim world. 

We all understand that peace will not come easily to the Middle 

East, or even quickly, but I share Mr. Blair’s optimism that this 

moment presents an opportunity that we can’t afford to miss. If we 

are to avoid perpetual conflict and radicalization, more missed 

opportunities, and countless lives lost, then we have to pursue 

peace now, and with urgency. 

2 

One particularly promising diplomatic opening is Saudi King 

Abdullah’s Arab Peace Initiative, which never received the focus 

that many think it deserved when it was proposed in 2002. Every 

Arab country has now agreed to the basic formulation of land for 

peace, recognition of the State of Israel, and normalization of relations. The Arab Initiative must now grow into a dynamic, evolving 

Arab engagement with Israel and with the Palestinians. 

The simple reality is, the regional dynamics of the Middle East 

have shifted, and today most Arab governments are more concerned about Iran than they are about Israel. Our challenge is to 

translate these changed dynamics into a regional roadmap that 

signs all of the key players to take a series of concrete interim 

steps on the road to peace. 

We know that among the reasons Camp David failed was the 

lack of a buy-in from Arab States whose support would have given 

Israel the broader peace that it sought and also give Palestinians 

the necessary cover to make difficult decisions. That’s a shortfall 

that we now have an opportunity to address by developing a 

regional roadmap that fleshes out the promise of the Arab Peace 

Initiative. 

A key aspect of this—and I emphasize that I’ve had a number 

of conversations with Prime Minister Blair and with other leaders 

in the region—a key aspect of the steps forward is the empowering 

of those Palestinians who are committed to peace. It’s not enough 

to talk about giving Israel a legitimate partner for peace; we have 

to work to support and empower that partner to be able to deliver 

for its people, to build capacity, and to gain legitimacy. 

We have seen real progress in increasing Palestinian capacity 

and economic development, and this is progress we need to build 

on. In Jenin, thanks, in part, to Prime Minister Blair’s efforts, 

we’ve seen the sight of some of the worst violence of the second 

intifada become a place where Palestinians police the streets and 

economic growth is a reality for many. General Dayton’s efforts to 

train Palestinian security forces have also been encouraging. During the invasion of Gaza, Palestinian security forces largely succeeded in maintaining calm in the West Bank amidst widespread 

expectations of civil unrest. But, make no mistake, as I’m confident 

that Prime Minister Blair will share with us today, much work 

remains to be done. 

In Gaza, where Tony Blair visited in March, we need to ensure 

that we deliver desperately needed humanitarian aid and reconstruction assistance without empowering Hamas in the process. 

Having courted destruction, Hamas and Iran cannot be allowed to 

take credit for the rebuilding, just as Hezbollah did in the wake of 

the Lebanon war in 2006. As Prime Minister Blair has said, ‘‘Economic and humanitarian progress will not be enough. There is no 

substitute for political progress toward a two-state solution.’’ That 

is today, has been for these past years, and remains American policy, and I’m confident that the President will be firm on this point 

when the region’s leaders meet later this month. 

The President has picked an ideal envoy in Senator George 

Mitchell, who worked closely with then-Prime Minister Blair to 

achieve the Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland, so this is 

a team with a proven track record. 

3 

We will also need help from Israel. Nothing will do more to make 

clear our seriousness about turning the page than demonstrating, 

with actions rather than words, that we are serious about Israel 

freezing settlement activity in the West Bank. As recently as 2007, 

at the Annapolis Conference, Israel recommitted to implementing 

its obligations under the roadmap, which include freezing all settlement activity. We will defend Israel’s security unflinchingly, but 

the fact is, Israelis themselves decided that the settlements make 

it more difficult to protect the security of their citizens. They’re not 

just fragmenting the Palestinian state, they fragment what the 

Israeli defense forces have to defend. 

None of us can afford to continue on the present course, and 

nothing drove home to me more the human toll of continued conflict over 26 years of visits to the region than a recent day I spent 

visiting the southern Israeli village of Sderot and the Gazan town 

of Izbet Abed Rabo. 

In Sderot, which has been the target of thousands of rockets over 

the last 8 years, security officials told me that, from the moment 

they know a rocket has been fired from Gaza, people have just 15 

seconds to find safety. Children in the 2nd grade have spent literally every day of their lives never more than 15 seconds from 

danger. 

In Izbet Abed Rabo, in Gaza, I saw little Palestinian girls playing 

in rubble, where, just months ago, buildings stood. I saw the ruins 

of the American school in Gaza, but I also saw a glimmer of hope 

in the faces of average Palestinians who manage and are determined to carry on with their daily lives. As I said in Gaza, and I 

said it in Sderot also, if terrorists in Quincy, MA, were launching 

rockets into Boston, we would have had to have put a stop to it 

long before the Israelis chose to put a stop to it in Gaza. 

But, on both sides, I was inspired by the determination of all 

who live with the daily reality of this conflict. And if kids on both 

sides can hope for themselves, if they can persevere for a better 

future, then we have an obligation to help them get there. 

Senator Lugar. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD G. LUGAR, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM INDIANA 

Senator LUGAR. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And 

I join you in welcoming a very special friend, Mr. Tony Blair, to 

our committee. 

It is an honor to have the Prime Minister with us. In his position 

as Quartet Representative, he is specifically charged with revitalizing the Palestinian economy, organizing international assistance, 

and promoting the Quartet objectives. We appreciate the experience and insights he brings to this issue and his willingness to 

testify. 

The United States has a strong national security interest in helping to achieve a resolution of the conflict between Israel and the 

Palestinians. Beyond the humanitarian imperative of achieving 

peace, such a settlement would strengthen American credibility in 

the region, hinder terrorist propaganda and recruitment, and open 

new possibilities for cooperation with states in the region on an 

4 

array of issues. It would also diminish the influence of Iran, which 

is exploiting the conflict for its own purposes. 

President Obama has stated clearly that a comprehensive peace 

between Israel and the Palestinians is in the national interest of 

the United States. He says he wants results, not just a process. He 

has assigned a new special envoy, our friend Senator George Mitchell, to engage in the detailed diplomacy required of such an effort. 

When we met with Senator Mitchell several weeks ago, he spoke 

with energy and pragmatism about the task at hand. We also 

heard from King Abdullah of Jordan 3 weeks ago, who communicated the support of leaders of the Arab States for ‘‘decisive action’’ 

toward a settlement. In addition, there is substantial support within Israeli and Palestinian societies for a resolution to the conflict. 

A recent poll, published by OneVoice, found that 74 percent of Palestinians and 78 percent of Israelis want a two-state solution. 

Yet we know that the history of peace negotiations has been 

extremely difficult and frequently unproductive. Too often, momentum has been stymied by disagreement on minute negotiating 

points or rhetorical diversions that are nearly inconsequential to 

the type of bold, comprehensive approach that would be necessary 

for a settlement. Further, despite substantial support for peace 

within their respective societies, both the Israelis and the Palestinians are politically divided and their governments lack clear mandates to accept major sacrifices in the interest of peace. A peace 

settlement would require Israeli and Palestinian leaders with thin 

majorities to get beyond calculations designed to protect their own 

political interests. 

In this context, generating meaningful progress toward a settlement will require the international community, led by the United 

States, to be very active and creative in engaging the parties and 

providing incentives. It is essential that the administration and 

Congress be united in our commitment to pursuing peace in the 

Middle East. We may not agree precisely on tactics, but serious 

divisions within our government could be exploited by those who 

have other agendas. 

I am hopeful that our government and our partners overseas will 

work to build international momentum for a settlement, and I am 

hopeful that we will be bold in proposing options. Both Israel and 

the Palestinians urgently need international support to fortify their 

ability and willingness to embrace the difficult choices that will be 

necessary. 

We look forward with anticipation to our dialogue with Prime 

Minister Blair. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Lugar. 

Mr. Prime Minister, thank you so much for being here. I promised you this would be a lot easier than questions in Parliament, 

and it will be. [Laughter.] 

We’re really happy you could take time to be here. This committee is deeply interested in the issues you’re going to talk about 

today, so we look forward to your testimony. 

5 

STATEMENT OF HON. TONY BLAIR, QUARTET REPRESENTATIVE, FORMER PRIME MINISTER OF THE UNITED KINGDOM 

AND ENVOY TO THE MIDDLE EAST, LONDON, UNITED KINGDOM 

Prime Minister BLAIR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and everyone. 

Thank you so much for making me feel welcome here today. And 

it’s a very great honor and privilege to come before this most distinguished committee. 

As you know, I’ve submitted a short written statement, and I’ll 

speak and give an outline of how I see the situation. 

And, first of all, just to say that I entirely agree with Senator 

Kerry that this is a moment of opportunity. President Obama has 

made it very clear that this is a strategic priority for the United 

States, to advance toward a negotiated two-state solution. This is 

an issue that Secretary of State Clinton is very familiar with and 

understands and knows deeply. 

The appointment of Senator Mitchell, who is my old collaborator 

from the peace negotiations in Northern Ireland is, again, someone 

for whom I have the highest respect and the highest regard for his 

ability. 

And General Jones, of course, is somebody I worked with specifically in and around the Jenin area, in the northern part of the 

West Bank territory, just a few months back. 

So, I think most people feel, from the outside, that this is an 

administration as well equipped as any possibly could be to take 

this issue forward. 

And also, what Senator Lugar was saying a moment or two ago 

about the—according to the opinion poll, the opinion both on the 

Palestinian and Israeli side, there is absolutely no doubt at all in 

my mind, as indeed the poll indicates, that if people thought it was 

possible to get a two-state solution, then certainly that is the desired outcome. And I think the question really is very simple. Most 

people want the two-state solution. There’s virtually a consensus 

across the international community. There are majorities in favor, 

in principle, in Israel and in the Palestine Territory. The question 

is, How do we do it? How do we take this extraordinary, complex 

set of challenges and turn that opportunity into a credible negotiation for the two-state solution? 

And I suppose the main thing that I would say to you today is 

that there are, of course, issues that have to be resolved in that 

negotiation for a final settlement, and those issues are very well 

known to people, over territory, including the area of land swaps, 

Jerusalem, refugees, security, water, many other issues. 

My basic view is that those issues, although immensely challenging, are resolvable. People can see the way through to resolving 

them. And over the years, many possible options have been canvassed as to how they’re resolved. 

The point that I would like to make to you today, however, is 

this, that what is important is to pay attention, not merely to the 

issues that will occur and have to be resolved in any final settlement negotiation, but also pay attention, crucially, to what actually 

happens on the ground. And that’s why I ask that these visual 

aids—they’re maps which will be very familiar to you, but I’d like 

to point out certain things about them. 

6 

And the first thing, to be clear, is, when we actually see the territory that comprises what would be both the Israeli and the Palestinian state, it is a small bit of territory in a very large region, and 

it’s a territory in which, when you analyze the 11⁄2 million people, 

maybe, that live in Gaza, 2 and—roughly 21⁄2 that live in the West 

Bank, the just over 7 million that live in the Israeli Territory, you 

see that small bit of territory and those numbers of people, and you 

realize there is no real alternative but for both to have the opportunity of statehood in order for them to live peacefully together. 

And there is no way, if there is not peace between people living in 

that close proximity on that small part of land—if it’s not peace, 

it is conflict. 

And so, the question is, How, as I say, do we get there? And the 

on-the-ground reality that I think is important works in two ways. 

For the Israelis, their on-the-ground reality is very simple. They 

have a major security issue. If there are terrorists, as there are in 

Gaza, who are firing rockets into Israel—and, as Senator Kerry 

was saying, in Sderot there are people there who live in daily fear 

of their lives—that is obviously an immensely serious security challenge for the Israelis. And that is why the situation in Gaza has 

been so difficult and so fraught after the illegal coup by Hamas 

there. 

But, just take it to the West Bank and see the close proximity 

of the West Bank to the major centers of population—Tel Aviv and 

obviously, of course, the shared space of Jerusalem—and you see 

that, without proper security for the Israelis, a Palestinian state 

becomes, for them, a possible threat rather than a possible opportunity. 

So, my basic view is that, for Israel to be able to accept a Palestinian state, they need to know, not just the territory, not just what 

this map would look like and what it’s called, they need to know 

what is happening inside that territory. Is that Palestinian state 

a stable and secure neighbor and partner for enduring peace? That 

is, if you like, the Israeli on-the-ground reality, concern. 

Now, for the Palestinians, they have a different concern, but it 

is equally intimately related to what happens in reality on the 

ground. For the Palestinians, as you see from this second map 

here, they have a certain amount of the territory, which are major 

urban centers. These are the darker areas here. And then, of 

course, they have a large part of the West Bank that is what we 

call Area C, which is under administrative control of the Israelis, 

but it’s about 60 percent of the territory. And throughout the part 

of the West Bank there are settlements or outposts, and, of course, 

because of the security threat that Israel perceives, there are also 

major restrictions on access and movement for the Palestinians. 

So, the Palestinian concern is really this. If they manage to negotiate their way toward a two-state solution, will their state be one 

in which they can genuinely take control of their territory and run 

it as an independent, viable state? Will, in other words, the existence of settlements or outposts in this territory prevent the state 

being viable, or will the existence of Israeli forces on the West 

Bank prevent it from being independent? 

So, these are the two realities. And my view, therefore, is this, 

that if we are to succeed in achieving this two-state solution, it’s 

7 

true that we have to negotiate these difficult and complex issues, 

if you like, from the top down. But, we also have to deal with the 

on-the-ground problems from the bottom up. So, what I see is a 

simultaneous process, where we try and negotiate from the top 

down with a credible political negotiation, but, at the same time, 

we make the changes necessary to meet the Israeli security concern 

and the Palestinian concern as to whether they will get the freedom to run their own territory. 

Now, what does that, therefore, mean? And as has been rightly 

pointed out, my office works specifically on economic development 

on the Palestinian side, and also capacity-building for them. What 

this means, first of all, obviously, is a proper political negotiation, 

the declared and clear and credible objective of ending up with two 

states: a state of Israel, a state of Palestine. Second, however, we 

need economic development that really starts to change the perception of the Palestinians that they are going to have the run of their 

territory on the West Bank and they’ll be able to make an economic 

future for themselves, with rising living standards and prosperity. 

So, we are working on a series of measures—industrial parks, both 

up in the north there, up at the Palestinian Territory on the West 

Bank, down in the south, near Hebron, in and around Jericho, in 

the Jordan Valley, and also, there are housing projects near 

Ramallah. 

Tourism is a major area of potential activity for the Palestinians. 

The numbers of tourists actually in Bethlehem in the last year 

have tripled. Hotel occupancy, when I first went to Bethlehem, was 

about 10 percent, 18 months ago; it’s now around about 70 or 80 

percent. I mean, there are some signs of change and improvement. 

But, basically, this is an area where there should be fantastic 

opportunities for the tourist industry to develop. 

Then, of course, as part of the economic development, you need— 

as well as the major economic projects—you need the gradual stepby-step lifting of the access-and-movement restrictions. Some of 

those, around Nablus and around Hebron, have been eased in 

recent times, but we need to go much further so that the Palestinian industry is able to move around the territory, import and export its goods. 

And then, of course, we have the issues to do with Area C that 

I say is 60 percent of the territory, and where the Palestinians, at 

the moment, find it very difficult to develop their land properly. 

So, alongside the political negotiation should come the measures 

that help the Palestinians gain control of their own territory. However, that has to come alongside the measures to improve the Palestinian security capacity and their capability, showing and demonstrating their capability to run their state properly. Here is 

where the work that General Dayton has done to support Prime 

Minister Fayyad has been immensely important. There are forces 

that have been trained in Jordan that have come back and are now 

working in the Palestinian Territory, and that is changing, significantly and dramatically, the capacity of the Palestinians to run 

their own security affairs. However, security isn’t just about force, 

it’s about courts and prisons and the judicial system and prosecution, and there is a whole series of proposals there that the European Union has put together on the rule of law, which, again, we 

8 

can support. And, in combination with the measures that General 

Dayton is taking, and, of course, under the leadership of Prime 

Minister Fayyad, you can start to see how, over time, we can create 

a viable Palestinian security capability. If that happens, and as it 

happens, then the Israeli security concern is diminished. 

Now, one final point I would make by way of introduction. All of 

this has largely been focused on the West Bank, and that’s for very 

obvious reasons. But, one thing I am absolutely sure of is that, for 

the Palestinians, the only state that is acceptable is a state that 

comprises West Bank and Gaza. And we know what the problem 

has been in Gaza, with the takeover by Hamas. Nonetheless, I 

believe it is important, particularly after the recent operation and 

conflict in Gaza, that we demonstrate that we are doing everything 

we can to meet the genuine humanitarian concerns of the people 

in Gaza, that we are, for example, allowing their housing and their 

infrastructure to be repaired, and that we are showing to the people in Gaza, not all of whom, by any means, are supporters of 

Hamas, that there is a prospect that there is some hope, that 

potentially, if we can get things really moving on this part of the 

West Bank, then the pressure will come from within Gaza to join 

the train of moderation, if you like, and modernization that we 

hope the West Bank can become, and make sure that we have one 

unified process of peace leading to that two-state solution. 

But, it’s important, in my view, that we have a strategy toward 

Gaza that helps the people and isolates the extremists, and not the 

other way around. 

So, that, in summary, is what I would say by way of an opening 

statement. I think this is, as you rightly pointed out, Mr. Chairman, a moment of opportunity. I think it’s a moment of decision. 

I think, in some sense, this is a moment of truth, actually, as to 

whether we, all of us—the international community, Palestinians, 

Israelis—are prepared to do what is necessary to realize the objective we say is our stated objective for the future. I believe it is possible. I don’t suppose—you mentioned my old times doing questiontime period in the House of Commons—I don’t suppose you could 

do that for 10 years and not—and survive it without being an optimist, so—— 

[Laughter.] 

Prime Minister BLAIR [continuing]. I am, by nature, an optimist, 

and—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Either that or a masochist. 

Prime Minister BLAIR. Yes. [Laughter.] 

Well, and sometimes the two actually go in combination. [Laughter.] 

But, it does occasionally challenge even my deeply ingrained optimism, this situation. But, on the other hand, to return to what the 

chairman said—Senator Kerry said right at the very outset, there 

isn’t, in my view, anything more important, in terms of the wider 

security of this region of the world, than making sure we have 

progress on this issue. And that’s why, however challenging it may 

be, the challenge, and overcoming it, is worth it. 

[The prepared statement of Prime Minister Blair follows:] 

9 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TONY BLAIR, QUARTET REPRESENTATIVE, FORMER PRIME

MINISTER OF THE UNITED KINGDOM, LONDON, UNITED KINGDOM

There is no workable alternative to the two-state solution. Politics, geography, and 

demography all point in that direction. 

The political negotiation for a two-state solution has a clear and long trodden path 

to it. The critical issues are well known: In particular, territory, including the role 

of land swaps; Jerusalem; refugees; security; and water. These issues are inevitably 

fraught and complex; but there are solutions to all of them, many of which have 

been canvassed over the years. 

The international and regional politics are better placed than ever to advance 

such a solution. The Arab Peace Initiative is an important recognition by the Arab 

world that its best interests lie in a Palestinian state created alongside a secure 

state of Israel. The United States, Russia, and European Union are all committed 

to such a solution. 

A majority of the people both in the Palestinian territories and Israel, remain in 

favour of the two-state solution, in principle. But, in practice, they doubt it can 

happen. 

The issue is therefore how to restore credibility and conviction to the essential 

vision. 

The key to doing this—apart from a determined focus by the U.S. administration 

and international community, which is happening—is to understand the ‘‘reality on 

the ground’’ issue that dominates the thinking of both the Israelis and Palestinians. 

Put simply, Israel will not agree to the creation of a Palestinian state unless it 

is sure of the nature of that state. It must know that the state will be a secure, 

stable, and well governed neighbour. Their ‘‘reality on the ground’’ concern is not 

simply with the form of the Palestinian state, but with its content. 

For their part, the Palestinians see no purpose in agreeing a political solution, unless it is clear that such a solution means genuine statehood; i.e., that they will 

have full control over and be able to govern effectively and independently, the territory of that state. Their ‘‘reality on the ground’’ concern is that they will be forced 

to make concessions in defining the terms of statehood, but meanwhile the facts of 

occupation—movement restrictions, permits, Israeli incursions, settlements and outposts—will not change. 

To make the agreed vision credible, therefore, the negotiation itself must be credible and the actions on the ground must reinforce and not contradict it. 

It follows from this, that a Palestinian state has to be, simultaneously, negotiated 

from the top down and built from the bottom up. 

The Quartet is the international community’s instrument of ensuring that the 

leading nations stay on the same course, to the same end. The Office of the Quartet 

Representative (OQR), which I head, has a specific mandate to help develop the Palestinian economy and help build the capacity of institutions of the Palestinian Authority. Naturally that involves a close interaction with the Israeli Government and 

an integration between this work and the wider political process. To that end we 

cochaired the Paris Conference of December 2007 which resulted in $5.6bn of support for the Palestinian Authority and assisted the Palestinian Authority in producing the first comprehensive Palestinian reform and development plan, under the 

leadership of PM Salam Fayyad. 

Since that time, we have been working to help put that plan into effect, to create 

the conditions for economic growth and to ensure that as Palestinian capacity, and 

particularly security capability, improves, so the restrictions on the West Bank can 

be eased and measures to stimulate the economy be taken. This has involved actions 

on easing movement restrictions, for example around the northern part of the West 

Bank, industrial parks, housing projects, tourism and infrastructure including in 

Gaza. 

After a prolonged period of political inertia—the result of a combination of factors, 

including Israeli elections, transition in the United States and issues around Palestinian Unity, there is now the chance to reinvigorate the search for peace and move 

forward. 

This will involve addressing three questions. First there must be a clear and credible political negotiation for the two-state solution. Senator Mitchell is absolutely 

right to underline that this cannot be more ‘‘process’’; there has to be a coherent 

plan to conclude it successfully. For President Abbas, this is crucial. Second, there 

has to be a programme of major, transformative change on the West Bank, to give 

the Palestinians real hope that, as their capability to run their territory improves 

and PM Fayyad’s plan is implemented, so the Palestinians will be given proper control over the land in which they live. Third, the security concerns of Israel must be 

thoroughly, verifiably and comprehensively allayed by an agreed programme for reVerDate Nov 24 2008 20:05 Mar 02, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\MIDEAST.TXT SENFOR1 PsN: BETTY
10 

form of the Palestinian security sector and the rule of law. Throughout the obligations of both parties set out in the roadmap must be adhered to. 

In respect of the economy and development on the West Bank, the OQR has proposals across a range of different areas, including major economic projects involving 

industry, agriculture, housing and tourism; lifting access and movement restrictions; 

investments in infrastructure; changing the system of development in Area C which 

is 60 percent of the Palestinian territory; halting demolitions; and budget support 

for the Palestinian Authority. Such a programme requires the active support and 

engagement of the Government of Israel. Without recognition that such a programme is in the strategic interests of Israel and concerted and concentrated efforts 

to help execute it, change in the West Bank will continue to be too slow, too grudging, and too piecemeal to be capable of providing the right context for the politics 

to succeed. Such a programme must be consistent with Israel’s security but must 

also recognise the significant increase already made in Palestinian security capacity. 

In respect of that Palestinian capacity, we need to complement the work done by 

General Dayton and the U.S. Security Coordinator team, (which has seen a dramatic improvement in Palestinian security force capability), with detailed work on 

the other aspects of the rule of law—prisons, courts, judiciary, prosecution and all 

the effective panoply of a proper functioning criminal justice system, in which the 

EU plays a major role. We also need to ensure that in other areas of the Palestinian 

Authority, like health, education, and social services, Palestinian Authority institution-building continues with international support. 

Such a programme would change the nature and reality of life on the West Bank. 

The people of Gaza, however, cannot and should not, be set to one side. The OQR 

has a responsibility to help Gaza also, but the ability to do so has obviously been 

severely restricted by the continuing security issue there, following the unlawful 

coup by Hamas. Gazans, too, have a right to be part of the two-state solution. For 

the moment, it appears hard to resolve the issues around Palestinian unity on a 

basis compatible with the outcome agreed by the international community: A peaceful negotiation leading to a state of Palestine side by side with the state of Israel. 

The politics therefore are presently blocked. But there is still much that can be and 

should be done to improve the conditions for the ordinary people of Gaza, the majority of whom are under the age of 18. This should include: Full humanitarian help 

for the population; repair of housing and infrastructure damaged in the conflict; and 

allowing the import and export of goods and services, that do not have adverse security implications. This would able us to help the people but not the extremists, who 

continue to fire rockets at Israeli citizens. 

The challenges are self-evident; the opportunities for peace less so. Yet peace 

could be achieved with the right combination of determined focus, political will and 

the patient, sometimes painful but utterly essential work on the ground, so that we 

restore credibility to a vision that is actually shared and endorsed by the overwhelming majority of people, in Israel, in Palestine, and the international community. The opportunity is there. But it won’t remain if not seized. As President 

Obama has recognised, this is the right time to seize it. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Prime Minister, thank you. That’s a terrific 

opening statement, and we will place your full comments in the 

record as if read in full. 

If I could pick up where you just left off and ask if you might 

broaden that a little bit, one of the things I’ve found in the recent 

journeys to Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sudan, et cetera, is the degree 

to which the extremism, the radicalization and religious extremism 

that we see translated into violence in so many places, finds an 

organizing principle around this dilemma of Israel/Palestine. It 

seems to me that Yemen, which is now becoming a site of increased 

al-Qaeda activity, the problems of Somalia, and so forth, this is just 

a repeated refrain that I pick up everywhere. And I wonder if you 

share that sense of the conglomerate of this impact and what you 

see are the implications of it. 

Prime Minister BLAIR. I mean, for myself, I entirely share that 

perspective. I think—here’s the important thing. The Israel-Palestine conflict did not create this extremism we see. It’s not the 

author of it. And let’s also be clear that we can resolve the IsraelPalestine question, and this extremism will still exist. That is true. 

11 

However, if defeating this extremism is about mounting an alliance of sensible, modern, moderate people who believe in peaceful 

coexistence, if that is at the heart of it, then resolving this issue 

is a major, major part of empowering that alliance and allowing it 

to fulfill its objective. 

And therefore, my view would be that, if you can resolve this 

question—if we can resolve this question—actually, if we can even 

put it, right at this moment, on a path, credibly, to resolution, then 

I think it would do just an extraordinary amount to heal some of 

the problems of that region and the wider world, and it would take 

out, from the grasp of the extremists, a major weapon that they 

use, or a major recruiting instrument that they use. 

Now, all of that has to be done—and it’s important to say this, 

because Israelis sometimes wonder that, in our desperation to 

make this thing work, we then sacrifice their security. I think certainly I, and I’m sure the members here, come to this from a very 

fixed position, which is that Israel’s security is also our security, 

and that we do not take risks with it. I think I would like to turn 

that on its head and say that, actually, the long-term security, not 

just for ourselves, but of the state of Israel, lies in the resolution 

of this issue on fair, just, and secure terms. 

The CHAIRMAN. And it is apparent also to many of the people 

who have been following this issue for a long time, that the window 

of opportunity for a two-state solution is closing—demographics, 

the problem of how you maintain a Jewish state with an increasing 

population of citizens who might have a different point of view and 

vote differently. All of these larger issues, together with the impatience and the aspirations that have not been met, on all sides, are 

increasingly hardening. And I wonder if you’d comment on that. 

Prime Minister BLAIR. I mean, you always—you’ve always got to 

be cautious about saying, ‘‘Look, this is the last moment and, you 

know, this is the final push,’’ and so on and so forth, because sometimes those phrases are too easy to use and can be overworked. 

But, I—I mean, I agree; in essence, I think, that—well, what’s the 

reality? The reality is, we have a new administration that is coming in, from the outset, and said, ‘‘This is a priority for us.’’ You 

have the Arab Peace Initiative, which signals that the Arab world 

is prepared to recognize Israel and to be part of this process. You 

have a basically unified international community position. 

Now, I think, with all those things in place, if we cannot move 

this forward now, I think the risk is that there will be many people 

within Israel and within the Palestinian Territories who will conclude that it can’t be moved forward. That, I think, is the risk. And 

then, you know, as I always say to people, the alternative to a twostate solution is a one-state solution, but then there’s going to be 

a big fight. So, I—I mean, as I say, I hesitate often about saying, 

‘‘This is the final opportunity,’’ but I think I would say the—up 

until the end of this year, there is a critical window of opportunity, 

and it would be sensible for us to pass through it. 

The CHAIRMAN. Now, speaking to that window of opportunity, 

you mentioned in your comments about the legitimacy of the expectations and fears on both sides. And I wonder if you could set out 

to us your judgment about what steps on each side that could be 

taken without an agreement, without even a process, as confidenceVerDate Nov 24 2008 20:05 Mar 02, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\MIDEAST.TXT SENFOR1 PsN: BETTY
12 

building steps that could help set the stage for the process. What 

do you see as the most important measures both sides could take 

in order to move the other side to have a sense of confidence about 

the possibilities of the future. 

Prime Minister BLAIR. I think President Obama said recently in 

his discussions with King Abdullah of Jordan, that he would be 

looking for gestures and actions consistent with finding a way 

through to peace that should be taken by the parties. 

Well, what would those be? I think they’re actually fairly easy to 

describe, in a way. I mean, they may be tougher to do, but they’re 

easy to describe. I mean, one thing that is very obvious is, for the 

Palestinians, that security capacity that they have been building 

up, they’ve got to continue to build up; they’ve got to take the decisions to start implementing the rule-of-law changes that are necessary to give Israel confidence a Palestinian state will be properly 

run. I think our big benefit there is that Prime Minister Fayyad 

and President Abbas are determined to do this, and they are being 

supported by the international community in achieving it. 

I think, for Israel, the confidence-building measures it can take 

are also, again, reasonably clear. First of all, it’s important that 

settlement activity does not put at risk the concept and viability of 

the Palestinian state. 

It’s important just to describe what the issue is for many Palestinians, here. Their worry is that what happens is that in and 

around the West Bank you get, obviously, settlements that now 

come out of fairway into the Palestinian Territory, past the 67 borders, and, you know, those are of significance, that is absolutely 

true. But, you also get settlements along the Jordan Valley, obviously in and around this area, down in Hebron. And just to give 

you—and as I saw, myself, in and around Bethlehem just 

recently—the concern of the Palestinians is this, that what will 

happen is that, even though there is a political process going on, 

things happen on the ground that contradict that political process. 

That’s their worry. And I saw for myself, when I was down in 

Hebron a short time ago—which is why I think this Area C business is also very important—there were the Palestinians in a village that—they found it very difficult to get permits, because it’s 

under Israeli-administered control, to develop their own land. And 

yet, up in the hills, they could see settlements and outposts who 

are obviously going to pose a real threat to a Palestinian state, as 

they saw it. Now, that is where—if that activity continues and intensifies, it becomes very difficult for the Palestinians to gain confidence. So, that’s something that Israel can do. 

The second thing is that what I’ve found in the work that I’ve 

done—in the last few months, obviously, there has been an unsettled situation in Israeli politics; you know, there’s been a transition 

here; the Palestinian unity talks have been going on—it’s not surprising it’s been hard to get things done. But, now we have a settled Israeli Government, the new administration has got its feet on 

the table here, and you have Prime Minister Fayyad in position. 

There are steps that could be taken on the economic side that are 

not hugely complicated, but will make a big difference. Access-andmovement restrictions that can allow the flow of traffic to happen 

far more easily, and greater trade. These industrial parks, not 

13 

merely accepted, but driven forward with some, you know, real passion and determination. 

If you take—down in the Dead Sea area, down here, the Palestinians, at the moment, a lot of the time find it hard to get access 

to the Dead Sea. But, actually, this is—as it is on the Jordan side, 

on this side you’ve got, obviously, major tourist development 

around the Dead Sea—if we were able to get major tourist development also down here on the Palestinian side, which is actually part 

of the Bethlehem governorate, I mean, it would make a huge difference. You’d bring jobs, you’d bring hope, and you’d bring something else; the Palestinians would think, ‘‘Well, if we’re being 

allowed to develop this area, maybe it’s credible to think that it— 

sometime this could form part of a state.’’ 

So, what I would say is that there are a clutch of measures on 

both sides that could be taken, in advance of a political negotiation, 

that would build credibility. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Senator Lugar. 

Senator LUGAR. Prime Minister Blair, press accounts lead us to 

believe—we will know for certain as distinguished Israeli leaders 

arrive in Washington in the coming weeks—that they want to talk 

foremost about Iran and are seeking to resolve that situation. They 

don’t object to talking about what we’re talking about today, but 

you have the impression that their priorities are quite different 

than our own. And, furthermore, given the timelines you’ve been 

talking about today, the situation with regard to Iran does not necessarily have the same sort of timeline attached to it unless precipitous military action were to be taken by somebody in the world 

that would then create a very different kind of Middle East, both 

for the United States, for Great Britain, for the Arab countries, for 

everybody. 

The reason I raise the subject is that I know that our administration is wrestling with appropriate responses that show our support of Israel, but, likewise, indicate that military action would 

have dramatic and perhaps catastrophic results for many countries 

that may be involved. 

Now, if this were simply something that is likely to go away rapidly, that would be one thing. But it may not. So, even if we get 

into a diplomatic round, or two or three, with Iran and the Israelis 

and others, and this drags on for some time, the reaction in the settlements that you and the chairman have been talking about here 

is likely to be substantial. 

Now, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t progress, but let’s take, as 

one element of the discussion, the settlements, rather large settlements of Israelis in parts of what could be Palestinian Territory. 

In the past, Israeli governments have found it very difficult to 

bring about movement, even change of opinion, of many of the settlers. As a matter of fact, controversies have occurred in which 

some Israelis have felt they ought to have the right for more settlements rather than fewer. They argue that, as a matter of fact, people come from abroad, and wish to move to Israel, need some room. 

And there still is this kind of evangelical fervor which permeates. 

But, how, as a practical matter do you propose the settlement 

issue be resolved? Does the Israeli Government finally have to say, 

14 

first of all, ‘‘No more settlements,’’ and second, ‘‘Those of you who 

are there now, we’ll help you, offer rehab funds, but you’ve got to 

move. You physically have to leave’’? 

Now, such a policy shift would likely only come from a different 

kind of government, I think, than the coalition there now, and it’s 

not really clear how soon such a government might emerge. But, 

as a practical matter, until it does, it’s very likely that this feeling, 

as you said, of some on the mountaintops and some in the valleys 

with a strong sense of their rights in this regard is going to persist. 

And this gets to the fundamental question, the United States has 

felt for a long time the two-state settlement is the best idea. We 

could be faulted for the timing of our enthusiasms and enterprises. 

Perhaps the Annapolis Conference was too late in the administration, perhaps other attempts were too early. But, clearly the 

Obama administration sort of starts out at the beginning, with 4 

years ahead, with strong feelings toward achieving a resolution. 

And yet, as a practical matter, the settlement question has to be 

addressed at some point, quite apart from the security challenges 

that you’ve described, some economic rehabilitation, maybe, as you 

say, development of tourism might be helpful. 

We also know that at some point Gaza and its Hamas leadership 

has to come into some relationship with the rest of the Palestinians. And this is not only daunting, but, for practical politicians, 

they might very well join our Israeli friends who are about to come 

and visit with us in Washington and likely as not say, ‘‘This is way 

on down the line, in the fullness of time.’’ 

Now you and the chairman have said, ‘‘Well, we have the months 

of this year.’’ And maybe you could give yourself a little leeway, a 

few months in the next year, but there is no resolution in sight, 

despite the idealism of King Abdullah, and a seeming unanimous 

sentiment among Arab leaders who have said, ‘‘We really need to 

see this happen. We’ve got to live here, too.’’ 

Try to sort this out in a way that I’m more optimistic. [Laughter.] 

Prime Minister BLAIR. Right. I mean, first of all, I think, Senator, that the—I mean, I’m not suggesting, by the end of this year, 

you can solve this problem. What I am suggesting is that, by the 

end of the year, we’ve got to be on a path that credibly could lead 

to it being resolved. And I’ll come to the question of Iran in a moment, but in respect of settlements, I mean, the very reason why 

the roadmap talks about a freeze on settlements, the very reason 

that people come back to this continually is just for one basic, simple reason, that in the short term, people want nothing to happen 

that prejudices or contradicts the very process of peace that we’re 

trying to achieve. 

Now, I think it is possible that we can find a short-term way of 

ensuring that that doesn’t happen. But, obviously, that’s one challenge. 

I think, then, medium term and longer term, obviously, as it 

becomes clearer what the shape of the Palestinian state will be, 

then, frankly, we are in a position where we can take a more definitive approach on some of these questions, because there will be 

areas that it’s clear will be part of the land-swap deal, and there 

will be areas that will be clear that the settlements will have to 

15 

move. And I think, at that point, it is far easier for both sides to 

start, if you like, acclimatizing their people to the compromises and 

changes that are going to be necessary. 

But, I think, in the short term, and certainly for the coming 

months, what is important is that actions aren’t taken that 

removes the possibility of that state being viable. So, for example, 

you will have heard a lot of the controversy recently over—I think 

it was round about there—the E1 settlement or the E1, rather— 

the E1 strip of land and the concern of the Palestinians if there is 

settlement activity there. I mean, I think that is an important 

question. So, there are various—very specific practical issues that 

arise. House demolitions would be another. Land appropriations, 

another. So, I think there are specific things that we can talk about 

in the short term in advance of that longer term question. 

I think, in respect to the issue to do with Iran, what I would say 

is this, that it—the threat posed by Iran is real. There’s no doubt 

about that. And it is a real threat, not just to Israel, but to the 

wider region. Where I disagree with people is to say, ‘‘Therefore, 

let us focus on that and not focus on the Palestinian question,’’ 

because, in my view, what is necessary, if we are to have our best 

chance, hopefully, of persuading Iran that they cannot continue on 

their present path, then we need the most support, the broadest 

alliance possible, in order to do that. So, I would say that is where 

the issue of—how we build a credible negotiation to a two-state 

solution is actually an important part of dealing with that issue, 

not a separate issue altogether. And I think, you know, that is the 

linkage that many people in the region understand. And so, I hope 

that what we’re able to do is to demonstrate, in reasonably short 

time, that we are, indeed, united, with a common determination, to 

find a way to the two-state solution. Yes, it may take time. Yes, 

it is true we have to build it from the bottom up as well as negotiate it from the top down, but we are determined to do it. And that 

determination, and the demonstration of that determination, is, in 

my view, a very important signal to those that might want to use 

this dispute for their own ends in stirring up trouble within the 

Palestinian Authority, elsewhere in the region. 

Senator LUGAR. Well, Mr. Prime Minister, what do you say to 

those who say to the United States, ‘‘It’s all well and good for you 

to be talking about the two parties negotiating step by step—but, 

in fact, this is not going to happen unless, through very strong 

diplomacy, the United States imposes a solution that would be welcomed by three-quarters of both groups, who would say that’’— 

essentially, ‘‘Thank goodness the job got done,’’ quite apart from 

the rest of the Arab world. Now, from our standpoint, we would 

say, ‘‘Well, that’s not the best idea. The people ought to be working 

it out. They ought to be negotiating.’’ Well, but they would say, 

‘‘We’ve been there, done that, and this is not in the cards.’’ What 

do you say about this strong imposition? 

Prime Minister BLAIR. One of the things I learned by the Northern Ireland process was this, because people often used to say to 

me, ‘‘Just go and put it down and tell them that’s what’s happening.’’ And I used to say, ‘‘I’m afraid it doesn’t work quite like 

that.’’ So, I think, particularly when we are at the beginning, if you 

like, of a new relationship between a new administration, a new 

16 

Israeli Government, Palestinian Authority, I think what is important is to try and find an agreed way forward. And that is the first 

step for us to investigate. And I think the important thing will be 

that there is both a commitment to the two-state solution, in principle, and then, underneath that commitment, on the politics, on 

the economics, on the security, underneath those headlines, there 

are credible demonstrations, on the ground, of our determination to 

get to that two-state solution. Now, that is where at least I would 

start. 

Senator LUGAR. Thank you, sir. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Lugar. 

Senator Boxer. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Blair, your work, not only on this critical issue of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, but also on global warming, is so important. 

I really want to thank you very much for your dedication on these 

two critical issues, because this portfolio you carry is really extraordinary. And many of us on this committee are working, with our 

chairman’s incredible leadership, I might say, on both of these 

issues. So, hopefully we’ll figure it out, because, many ways, 

humankind, you know, is looking to us, and this is our moment. So, 

I really appreciate your optimism on this, because we must be optimistic. We can solve these problems. And we have to—we don’t 

have a choice; we have to—because there’s a window, on both these 

issues, and the window’s closing. 

Mr. Blair, in a speech you delivered last April to the Atlantic 

Council, you talked about the threat that the West faces from 

Islamic extremism. Specifically, this is what you said, ‘‘Out in the 

Middle East, it is there in the activities of Hezbollah in Lebanon, 

or Hamas in Palestine, it is played out in the street of Arab opinion 

every day. In the Middle East, the ideology that drives extremism 

is not abating—an alarming number of people buy the view that 

Islam is under attack from the West. The leaders to support are 

those like Nasrallah and Ahmadinejad, who are perceived to take 

on the West, and there is a contrast between governments and 

their people.’’ 

So, I just have a couple of questions to ask you that I’m taking 

from that speech, because I think it’ll help us. So, it’s been a little 

more than a year after that speech. Is your opinion still the same? 

And, to quote you again, is the ‘‘ideology that drives extremism,’’ 

abating at all, in your opinion? And last, how is the new United 

States administration perceived, particularly as President Obama 

prepares to deliver a major speech in Egypt early next month? 

Prime Minister BLAIR. Thank you, Senator. And I think I would 

say my opinion is still the same. I would say that—can almost answer the last two questions together, in the sense that I would say 

that the abatement of that extremism could happen, with the 

advent of President Obama, what he’s set out for people and the 

engagement he’s offered to the Muslim world. I think it’s created 

a lot of interest and expectation amongst our friends. It’s created 

concern amongst our enemies, which is the right balance. And it’s 

probably making some people in the middle ground think. 

17 

So, I think this—that’s why I say I think this is a moment of 

opportunity. 

The tough thing is this, though, that, in the end, as actually with 

so many issues, what the President requires are people that are 

willing when he reaches his hand out to them, to reach back and 

not merely to take his hand and say, ‘‘Well, that’s really good of 

you.’’ So, what we need—if we do get this process going, we also 

need countries out in the region to be reacting to this overture, to 

be reacting to the progress, and to be giving, as well as merely 

receiving. 

Senator BOXER. If I could follow up with that, since you opened 

the door to other countries, I want to ask you about the tough issue 

of Iran and its role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I have here 

an Associated Press article that I’d ask unanimous consent, Mr. 

Chairman, to place in the record. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection. 

[The article referred to follows:] 

[From the Associated Press, May 5, 2009] 

IRAN, SYRIA DEFEND PALESTINIAN MILITANCY

AHMADINEJAD MEETS WITH HAMAS, HEZBOLLAH IN VISIT TO DAMASCUS

DAMASCUS, SYRIA.—The leaders of Iran and Syria reaffirmed their support for 

‘‘Palestinian resistance’’ on Tuesday, a defiant message to the U.S. and its Mideast 

allies who are uneasy over Washington’s efforts to forge closer ties with the hardline government in Tehran. 

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad also met with the chiefs of Hamas and 

other Damascus-based Palestinian radical groups during his visit to Syria. Iran is 

a strong supporter of Islamic militants in the region, including Hamas and Lebanon’s Hezbollah. 

Ahmadinejad’s visit to Syria comes as the U.S. is trying to improve strained ties 

with the two longtime adversaries. Two U.S. envoys, Jeffrey Feltman and Daniel 

Shapiro, left Washington on Tuesday for Syria for their second visit since March to 

explore ways to ease tensions between the United States and Syria, the State 

Department said. The envoys would be in Damascus on Thursday, Syria’s ambassador to Washington, Imad Mustapha, told The Associated Press. 

But Ahmadinejad and his top Arab ally Syrian President Bashar Assad made little mention of American outreach as they sat together at a press conference following their talks. 

The hard-line Iranian leader said the two countries’ alliance was achieving ‘‘victories’’ in preventing ‘‘the big powers’ offensive to dominate the region.’’ 

‘‘RESISTANCE WILL CONTINUE’’ 

‘‘Syria and Iran have been from the very beginning united and in agreement to 

stand on the side of the Palestinian resistance,’’ Ahmadinejad said. ‘‘They will continue to do so. We see that the resistance will continue until all occupied territories 

are liberated.’’ 

Ahmadinejad later held talks with Hamas’ political leader Khaled Mashaal and 

the head of the smaller militant Islamic Jihad. The Iranian leader ‘‘affirmed Iran’s 

support for the Palestinian people and their resistance,’’ said Ziad Nakhaleh, a senior Islamic Jihad official. 

Ahmadinejad and other Iranian officials have been sending mixed messages in 

response to President Barack Obama’s calls for dialogue—at times taking a moderate tone, only to fall back on a tough line. 

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who is visiting the Middle East, said Tuesday the U.S. is still waiting to see how the Iranians respond to Obama’s outreach, 

but so far the rhetoric from Ahmadinejad has been ‘‘not very encouraging.’’ 

Gates sought to reassure U.S. Arab allies, who are worried that their rival Iran 

will be boosted by a U.S. dialogue. He also said a ‘‘grand bargain’’ between Tehran 

and Washington was unlikely. 

There has been widespread speculation in the Middle East that the Obama 

administration would try to forge a ‘‘grand bargain’’ with Iran, in which Washington 

18 

would press Israel for concessions in the peace process with the Palestinians in 

exchange for Tehran rolling back its nuclear program. 

‘‘The United States will be very open and transparent about these contacts, and 

we will keep our friends informed of what is going on so nobody gets surprised,’’ 

Gates said at a news conference in Egypt before heading to the Saudi capital. 

WORRY ABOUT IRANIAN INFLUENCE

The U.S. overtures to Iran are raising concerns among its Arab allies like Egypt 

and Saudi Arabia, as well as Israel. They fear Iran is trying to spread its influence 

across the Middle East, with its support of Hamas, Hezbollah and other militant 

groups. 

Arab diplomats who met in Cairo Tuesday with the State Department’s new special envoy for the Persian Gulf, Dennis Ross, said they voiced those concerns. 

‘‘Some of what he heard was more than just grievances. They warned that Washington should be careful not to be so mild to Iran,’’ said one diplomat who attended 

one of these encounters. He spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject. 

Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul-Gheit expressed similar concerns on 

Monday. 

‘‘Iran’s behavior in the region is negative in many aspects and does not help in 

advancing security, stability and peace,’’ the state-run Middle East News Agency 

quoted Aboul Gheit as telling Ross. 

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is due to meet Obama later this 

month at the White House for their first meeting since each leader took office earlier this year. Netanyahu is expected to come under pressure to publicly accept the 

principle of a Palestinian state, a step he has avoided amid U.S. attempts to revive 

the peace process. 

Netanyahu is expected in turn to push for a tough U.S. stance on Iran. Israel 

argues that progress in peace with the Palestinians can’t happen unless Iran is 

reined in. 

Hamas’ top political leader Khaled Mashaal, who is based in Syria, was quoted 

by the New York Times Tuesday as saying that Hamas is willing to support a twostate solution. But he also said Hamas would not renounce violence against Israel 

or recognize the Jewish state. 

Senator BOXER. And it’s entitled ‘‘Iran-Syria Defend Palestinian 

Militancy.’’ I don’t know if you’ve seen it, but I’ll get it to you. The 

article talks about a recent trip to Syria made by Iranian President 

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. And according to the article, Ahmadinejad 

met with the chief of Hamas and other Palestinian radical groups 

based in the country and ‘‘affirmed Iran’s support for the Palestinian people and the resistance.’’ He also praised Iran’s alliance— 

and this is troubling to me—with Syrian President Assad, saying 

that, ‘‘The two countries’ alliance’’ was achieving ‘‘victories in preventing the big powers’’—and we know who that is—‘‘offensive’’— 

and we know that is—‘‘to dominate the region.’’ Well obviously 

you’re trying to help, and I worry about that kind of language. 

So, what steps can the United States take to curtail Iran’s 

involvement with Hamas, particularly as the Obama administration looks to isolate Hamas? And what support do you think is Iran 

providing to Hamas, in terms of weapons? 

Prime Minister BLAIR. First of all, the strategy of engaging with 

Iran, I think, is an entirely sensible strategy. We are saying to 

Iran, ‘‘If you want to take your place, you know, as a proud and 

ancient civilization, as a country that is a powerful country—if you 

want to take your place in the community of nations, the door is 

open to you.’’ And that’s important to say, and to mean, incidentally. The message to Iran, however, I think, is equally important, 

and has to be very clear. It cannot have nuclear weapons capability, it must stop supporting terrorism. 

19 

I think it’s important for the Iranian regime to know that we 

are—our engagement is genuine and the clarity of our message is 

genuine, as well. And that is in, I think the right balance. And the 

way of reducing their influence within the region is to show precisely that we want peace. It’s to take away—and this is the importance of moving forward with the Palestinian issues—to take away 

a cause that they abuse, frankly, in order to gain support for their 

ends. 

And the Iranian relationship with Hamas—I mean, I think it’s 

fairly clear, they both fund and they arm them, as they do other 

groups within the region. My response to that, however, is that the 

best way of pushing them back is to show, in this case, the Palestinian people there is a moderate and modern way forward, where 

we live together in peace. 

So, I think that is—you know, that is why this next period of 

time is very important, because these issues do interrelate in a 

very profound way. So, you know, equally, as I would say to people, 

you cannot say, ‘‘Let’s concentrate on Iran and forget about Palestine,’’ I would say it’s equally true you shouldn’t concentrate on 

Palestine and forget about Iran. To me, this is one picture, with 

many different parts of that picture. And I think one of the benefits 

of the approach we’ve got at the moment is that we see it as one. 

And I think, for people within the world of Islam who are trying 

to make the right type of change, you know, they want to be able 

to stand up and say, ‘‘We’re an alliance with America to achieve an 

end that’s just and is peaceful.’’ Now, of course that’s got to be done 

on the right terms, but that’s where they want to be, because they 

know, in the end, this extremism can only be defeated by them, 

and not by us, actually, or not defeated, in its final analysis. I 

mean, I think this extremism—sometimes I think it’s more like, 

you know, maybe, revolutionary communism, in the sense that it 

doesn’t necessarily have one command-and-control center and all 

the rest of it, but it’s an ideology, and it gets adherence, and it’s 

very adept, for example, at using the Internet and means of communication to pull people in. We’ve got to be providing, therefore, 

this strong momentum toward peaceful coexistence on the basis of 

just and evenhanded treatment of people that discomforts those extremists and helps defeat them within the culture of their own politics and their own countries. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Mr. Blair. I know we all wish you 

well and hope for some really great breakthroughs, despite all the 

problems that you come up against. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Boxer, we appreciate it. 

Senator Corker. 

Senator CORKER. Mr. Prime Minister, thank you for being back 

here again. I think you’re one of those people that show us what 

great benefit those who leave public office can offer, and certainly 

you continue to do that on many, many fronts. And again, thank 

you for being here today. 

I was out for an Energy markup and understood there were some 

questions about the settlement issue, and I think you may have 

mentioned that that’s something that we need to get to after some 

20 

basic general understandings are agreed to. But, I guess I—that 

issue, to me, seems like one that, as it continues on a daily basis, 

indicates that there’s not a seriousness toward working toward a 

two-state solution. It just seems to me to be a constant stick in the 

eye, if you will. And I’m just wondering if I’m seeing that in the 

wrong way. Certainly on my last visit there, it seemed to be that 

that was the case. We have a Prime Minister today that does not 

even acknowledge a two-state solution. And so, it seems to me that 

that is very much a centerpiece, and I’m just—certainly you’re the 

person that’s so involved in these negotiations and on the ground. 

Just as an educational piece to me, I’d like to understand how that 

can be left aside when it’s such an irritant on a daily basis. And 

certainly we’d love any comments you might have about the current Prime Minister’s position on a two-state solution, and how we 

actually see that, going forward, we can discuss that in a meaningful way when we have a leader who isn’t even acknowledging that. 

Prime Minister BLAIR. Thank you. I mean, first of all, I think the 

settlement question has to be dealt with—I mean, immediately, as 

well as in the longer term. But, I think the most—the single thing 

that is most important immediately is that actions are not taken 

that prejudice the final outcome of the negotiated solution. 

So, I think there’s a short-term question there, and then there’s 

a longer term question, which is, once we know what the outlines 

of a Palestinian state would be, obviously that then has profound 

implications for what happens to the settlements. 

Now, I think, in respect of the Israeli Prime Minister, I’ve sat 

and talked with this—about this with him over a prolonged period 

of time. Even so, it’s—I think it’s for him to make his statement 

and position clear, rather than me. But, let me try and give you 

the optimist’s view of where Prime Minister Netanyahu is. 

There are those that—in Israel, who are against the concept of 

a Palestinian state. Now, I happen to think they’re a pretty small 

minority, actually, but there are people who would argue that. 

I think and believe that the Israeli Prime Minister’s position is 

different; it is that he wants to be sure that that Palestinian state 

is consistent with his perception of Israel’s security requirements. 

Now, I think if he is in that position, which is what I would call 

building the state from the bottom up, as well as negotiating it 

from the top down—if he is in that position, we can work with that. 

But, the test will be whether the actions, then, over the coming 

months, are consistent with that view. 

So, I hope very much that when he comes here, that it is clear 

he’s prepared to work toward the same end as the rest of us, and 

that we are able, together with him, to work out a way, both of 

ensuring that, as the politics move forward, so there is the economic development, and there is the security-building—the capacity-building on the Palestinian side that allows the Palestinians to 

believe he’s serious about allowing them statehood, and allows the 

Israelis to believe that the Palestinians are serious about running 

an efficient and well-ordered state. 

Now, that’s—you know, I think—which is the right view of the 

Prime Minister’s views, I think, will become apparent in the 

months to come. I hope I’m right. 

21 

Senator CORKER. Is there any sense that a cessation, a stopping 

of settlements for some period of time while the men who continue 

to prejudice the issues of boundaries and all of those kind of things 

as settlements continue? Any discussion about just stopping, as is, 

for some period of time? 

Prime Minister BLAIR. Yes, of course. And, I mean, that’s exactly 

the issues that the roadmap examined. And, you know, you come 

back to the same thing, which is to make sure that there is not 

activity in respective settlements that then makes a Palestinian 

state either untenable or unviable. But, also—and this is the other 

problem—I mean, if you get settlement expansion at the same time 

as you’re negotiating over a two-state solution, Palestinians then 

feel, ‘‘Look, you’re—you know, we’re being made fools of here. 

You’re saying you want a two-state solution, but you’re taking 

actions that are inconsistent with it.’’ That’s why the issue is 

important. 

Now, as I say, I think and hope there are ways that we can 

ensure that nothing happens that prejudices the final outcome of 

a settlement and a negotiation around the two-state solution. I 

hope we can find those ways of doing it over the next few weeks. 

But, undoubtedly, you know, of course, the settlement issue will be 

very important. 

Senator CORKER. So, since you’re discussing this ground-up/topdown simultaneous way of looking at this, you know, one of the 

major glaring problems from an economic standpoint, seems to me, 

the separation from Gaza and the West Bank, and it seems to me 

that for that truly to be a state that, today, is disconnected—I 

mean, what is the best on-the-ground solution for cross-country 

transit in that regard that doesn’t create security issues for Israel? 

I mean, what are some of those ground-up solutions? 

Prime Minister BLAIR. Well, I think, you know, as you can see 

from the map, I mean, the distance is reasonably short between the 

West Bank and Gaza at the moment, but you can also see why 

Israel would be deeply concerned unless it was clear that both 

parts of the Palestinian state were going to be secure and properly 

run. Now, the reality is, at the moment, as we know, in respect of 

Gaza, we have a situation where, following the takeover by Hamas, 

there has been conflict, a miserable time for the people there, and 

a miserable time for the people in places like Sderot, who felt the 

impact of the rockets being fired from Gaza. So, what I would say 

to you is that, in the short and medium term, what is important 

is that we try and improve the lives of people in Gaza and we try 

and show to the people there that actually there is a way forward 

that will include them, that that way forward will only happen, in 

the end, if people are prepared to commit to a peaceful road to a 

two-state solution. So, that’s the—you know, that’s the difficulty 

that we have. But, in any event, we are in a far better position to 

show that to them if, on the West Bank, we’re making real, tangible progress in improving the lives of people. 

Senator CORKER. Any—I know you’ve laid out—I think, in the 

next 5 or 6 weeks, there are some tangible things that are going 

to occur on your end. Can you give us any sense of the speed at 

which you think things will be coming together, your thought about 

22 

how quickly and how things are going to move along into the 

future as it relates to coming to an overall settlement? 

Prime Minister BLAIR. I think it’s possible—I mean, certainly if 

we’re talking about the things that would help on the Palestinian 

side—I think it is possible to see, reasonably quickly, changes that 

can be made in access and movement. There have been some easing of some of the restrictions, but there could be more done that 

allow people better access—I mean, I was pointing out earlier the 

access down there by the—to the Dead Sea, for example; access for 

people to actually get across and utilize their land in the Jordan 

Valley, some of the access for goods to get out in and around Bethlehem. You know, there are changes that could be made that would 

make a difference. We could get some of the blockages cleared on 

some of the major economic projects and have them agreed and 

underway. And, of course, if we got commitments on issues like settlements, not to do anything that prejudices the final outcome, then 

that, again, helps build confidence. 

I think, for the Palestinian side, it’s fairly obvious, again, what 

they can do for the Israelis. What they can do is to make it clear 

that the process of reform in their security forces, in the rule of 

law, is going to continue, it’s going to intensify, that they will—you 

know, that they will deal with what the Israeli problem is on the 

Palestinian side. And we’ve got to be honest about this. The Israeli 

problem is, they worry that if they get out of the West Bank, they 

will have a situation where there’s a takeover by extremists. 

So, the Palestinians—we’ve got to acknowledge this is going to 

take place over time, and we’ve got to create the circumstances in 

which the Palestinians are also showing the Israelis that they are 

serious about getting that security capability so that, in the end, 

I mean, to put it in the—to put it in the—in crude terms—and I 

mean nothing other than just this simple analogy, by what I’m 

about to say—the Israelis need to know the West Bank will be run 

as, for example, Jordan runs its security, rather than like Gaza. 

It’s as simple as that. And that’s what they need to know. 

Senator CORKER. Mr. Prime Minister, my time is up. I do want 

to say, with Senator Mitchell and yourself involved in creating a 

solution to this, I think we all are hopeful, because you are two of 

the most well-qualified people to do this that exist in the world. I 

wish you luck. I—the geography is such that—and the tensions are 

such that—it, no doubt, is going to take herculean efforts for all involved. And again, I’m thankful that you’re involved in this, and 

appreciate you being here today. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thanks, Senator Corker. 

Senator Feingold. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this 

hearing. 

Thank you, Mr. Blair, for testifying on this important issue. 

The last time this committee met to discuss the Middle East 

peace process, in September of last year, I expressed regret that 

the previous administration did not engage on this issue earlier. 

We did see some positive movement toward the end of the second 

term, which I was pleased about, but it obviously was not enough. 

Working to resolve conflicts and achieving a lasting peace in the 

Middle East is essential not only to the security of the Israelis and 

23 

the Palestinians, but, of course, for the region as a whole. It is also 

in the national security interests of the United States. And there 

is a growing sense of urgency—expressed most recently by King 

Abdullah of Jordan and Lieutenant General Dayton, among others—that now more than ever, renewed American leadership is 

needed to reinvigorate the peace process. 

I’m pleased that President Obama has recognized this urgency 

and made it a top priority since day two of his administration, and 

certainly join in the comments about naming George Mitchell the 

special envoy to the Middle East. And I hope, as we hear from you 

today, that we can work together collectively to overcome the many 

obstacles that exist and encourage the compromises that will need 

to be made in order to facilitate a comprehensive two-state solution 

between Israel and the Palestinian Territories. 

Mr. Blair, as I mentioned in my opening comments, there is an 

increasing sense of urgency on this issue, and many see the window of opportunity to reach a comprehensive peace and a two-state 

solution getting smaller. You mentioned the window in your opening remarks, as well. I expect this urgency will continue to grow, 

particularly over the new few weeks as President Obama meets 

with the region’s leaders and prepares to give his address to the 

Muslim world in Egypt. 

What steps can and should be swiftly taken, once the Quartet’s 

new strategic framework is released, to capitalize on the existing 

energy and goodwill? And how soon do you think a combination of 

high expectations and diminishing patience will begin to work 

against us? 

Prime Minister BLAIR. Thank you, Senator. I mean, I think, first 

of all, if we just go back for a moment to what happened in the 

year 2000, because I think it’s very crucial to understanding what 

both the challenges, as well as the opportunities, are now. What 

happened, essentially, was, once the peace negotiations failed between then-Prime Minister Barak with President Clinton and Yasser Arafat—once those negotiations failed and then the intifada 

began in the year 2000, really, for a long period of time, it was almost impossible to see how you could make progress. And then, the 

disengagement from Gaza happened. It happened unilaterally. But, 

to be fair to the Israelis, they took their settlers out of Gaza with 

them, and then they felt they got a security problem in return. 

I think, however, when the Annapolis process began again, if it 

had had more time, it actually could have borne a lot more fruit. 

And, to be fair, also, within that process, both sides did get down 

and negotiate some of the really tricky questions. 

I think, however, what we now know, partly as a result of the 

past few years, and as a result of the previous attempts to find 

peace, is, as you say, this opportunity that we have now is very 

directly linked to whether we can show the two peoples, if you like, 

the Israelis and the Palestinians, that, even though there has been 

all this history of past failure, nonetheless it’s possible to perceive 

a future success. 

And what I would say—you know, sometimes people say to me, 

‘‘What’s different? I mean, how come you’ve had all this failure and 

now you’re going to succeed?’’ Now, I could say, as Senator Mitchell 

and I found in Northern Ireland, that actually we had decades of 

24 

failed peace processes there that—and then one succeeds. But, I 

think now you can actually identify the objective factors that 

should lead us to be able to resolve this. 

One, truthfully, the Arab world has decided that it wants this 

issue resolved; it really does. Second, there is an administration 

that, as you rightly point out, at the outset is saying, you know, 

‘‘We are taking this issue seriously, we want to push it to resolution.’’ Third, we have different Palestinian leadership. And fourth, 

I think we have a better understanding of what I would call the 

relationship between the reality on the ground and the political 

negotiation. And so, I think, over these next few months, the really 

critical thing is to reinvigorate the credibility of the whole path to 

peace, and the way of doing that is to have a strong, credible political negotiation, backed up by changes in the reality. And those 

changes, which are there on the West Bank, in the way we treat 

Gaza, in the building Palestinian security capacity—they’re not impossible, either to define or to do. So, that’s where I think we are 

now. 

And, as you rightly imply, this is the moment when doing this 

right at the outset of a new administration, with a new set of attitudes, if you like, emerging in that region, this is the moment when 

we’ve got an opportunity to do it. And the fact we have been unable 

to do it up to now should not, in my view, disillusion us or deter 

us from doing it in the future. 

Senator FEINGOLD. I very much appreciate that response. And let 

me go on and say, here in Congress there’s been a lot of discussion 

recently about how—and whether—the United States should engage with and provide aid to any possible Palestinian unity government, particularly, of course, if it were to include members of 

Hamas, provided, of course, that they agree to the Quartet’s conditions to disavow violence, recognize Israel, and accept prior agreements. What is your assessment, first, on what you think the likelihood is that a Palestinian unity government could actually form? 

And, second, whether or not you think the Quartet should encourage or support the creation of such a government. 

Prime Minister BLAIR. This is obviously a key question in this 

whole business, and—you know, I think Egypt is to be congratulated in the efforts it’s made and the enormous hard work it’s put 

in to try and find a basis for Palestinian unity. 

I think what I would say is, one of the things I learned through 

my time in politics is that the only unity that works is a unity of 

genuine agreement. You know, in other words, I think a Palestinian unity government is, in principle, a desirable objective, for 

sure. Unity on the Palestinian side is a desirable objective, for sure. 

It makes it easier to resolve this whole process. But, it has to be 

a genuine unity. And the reason why the Quartet principles are 

there is not because we want to put obstacles in the way of Hamas 

or anyone else joining the process, but because they do define the 

parameters of unity for us to be able to get a solution to this issue. 

And, you know, there is a similarity, again, with, for example, 

the Mitchell Principles, in the context of Northern Ireland, where 

if people wanted to join the peace process, they had to sign up to 

the principles, and that was the gateway that they came into the 

process by. 

25 

So, you know, my view is that there will continue to be attempts 

to get a unity government, but I do believe that that unity government will only work if there is a genuine political unity that is 

inspiring it and lies at its base. If there isn’t, if we simply push 

the parties together without a proper and genuine unity, I think 

we will—we may find our path to peace more difficult rather than 

less difficult. 

Senator FEINGOLD. You said that the Quartet will be releasing 

a new strategic framework for the peace process. As I mentioned 

earlier, achieving resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is 

essential to the security of not just the two parties, but the region 

as a whole. So, I’d like to know what’s being done to ensure that 

the regional dimension of this process is being adequately discussed. Is the Quartet working with the Arab League in developing 

this framework, or considering any aspects of the Arab Peace Initiative? And how do you view the role of the United States and the 

Quartet as partners with other key actors in helping to resolve the 

broader—the Arab-Israeli conflict? 

Prime Minister BLAIR. I think for all of us that see this as an 

issue that concerns the whole of the region, the regional dimension 

is obviously of, you know, fundamental importance and significance. 

So, I think the idea will be to take the Arab Peace Initiative, the 

outcome of the various discussions that will take place here and 

elsewhere over these next few weeks, and try—and obviously this 

is where the role of America will be central—try to outline a way 

forward. You know, I think people will want—after there’s been a 

whole set of discussions and negotiations and interaction, they will 

then want to know, ‘‘Well, OK, and it amounts to what as a way 

forward?’’ And I think that’s what President Obama said a short 

time ago is absolutely right, we will want to see, after that, gestures and actions consistent with the two-state solution. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you very much, Mr. Blair. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Feingold. 

Senator Risch. 

Senator RISCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Blair, we had the fortune, some of us, of traveling last month 

to Israel and meeting with Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Barak and others in the government. They—admittedly, they were only on their 

second day on the job, and had just come off of a campaign. We all 

know what that does to someone. But, in any event, they were— 

and I understand you’ve talked a little bit about this while we were 

gone—but, they were uniformly focused on the Iran problem. And 

one has to understand where they’re coming from on it, because 

they can’t be wrong. They—there’s no room for error there. They 

have got to be right on that. 

This is the problem we’ve been talking about here—the Palestinian problem—is certainly an issue for them, but it’s been going 

on for a long time. It—they were in—in my view, in talking with 

them, in an emergency view of the Iranian problem. How do you 

get them to shift from that to talking about the Palestinian problem, when they are so focused on an issue that they believe their 

very existence turns on the outcome of, and particularly when they 

believe it to be as imminent and as close as it is? 

26 

Prime Minister BLAIR. It’s perfectly natural—especially given the 

language used by the President of Iran, it’s perfectly natural for 

Israel to be focused on this issue. I mean, if we were, any of us, 

politicians in—within the Israeli system, we’d be focused on it. 

Actually, incidentally, I think all of us should be focused on it. 

The question is—to my mind, is, What is the best way to deal 

with that? Is it to see that in isolation from these other questions 

within the region or as part of, as I say, one picture? And my view 

is that, when it comes to pushing back Iranian influence that’s 

used for ends that undermine the stability of the region, we are in 

a stronger position to do that, a far stronger position, if actually 

we’re making progress on the Israel-Palestine question. And so, in 

a sense—because I often have this discussion with Prime Minister 

Netanyahu, Defense Minister Barak, and others within the Israel 

system, often, as well. What I say to them is, ‘‘I’m not asking you 

to take your focus from Iran, but I am asking you to see the Palestinian question as bearing on that, as well.’’ And so, it’s not a question of looking at these things as if they’re completely separate and 

different issues. And when we are trying to mobilize moderate and 

modern-minded opinion within that region, a resolution or a credible path to resolution of Israel-Palestine is an important part of 

doing that. 

Look, I—you know, I spend, obviously, a lot of talking to people 

on the—talking to people on the ground in Israel, but also in the 

Palestinian Territories, and in the wider region, too, for that matter. And the claim of Iran—this is the claim—I don’t just mean the 

leadership of the Iranian regime, but people who support their 

basic world view—their claim is that we are essentially people who 

want to do down their fellow Muslims, and the proof of that is that 

the Palestinians, who should have a state, can’t get statehood. And 

when we are faced with that argument, which we are, obviously 

one very important part of undercutting their attempt to rally support behind that view is to say, ‘‘No, we’re evenhanded. We believe 

in a state of Israel that’s confidence of its security, but we are prepared, if the Palestinians are able and willing to take the right 

measures, to ensure that Palestinians also get the justice and dignity of statehood.’’ So, that’s why I say to people, ‘‘You can’t separate these questions out.’’ In my view, it’s a mistake and, actually, 

a very fundamental one, to do so. 

But, if we want to make progress also on the Iranian question 

and take that to a peaceful resolution, then progress in the IsraelPalestine question is an important part of doing that. And maybe 

more important than taking, you know, my word for it is to take 

the word of virtually every moderate, modern-minded, sensible 

leader in the region, who would say the same to you, I think. 

Senator RISCH. And I agree with that. The other leaders—we met 

with Mr. Mubarak and—President Mubarak and also with King 

Abdullah, and they did have that same position. But, I have to tell 

you that the fortitude I saw in Israel on that position was very, 

very strong, and I wish you luck in that regard. 

Let me just briefly talk about the unity issue. One gets a sense 

that the gap between the leadership in the West Bank versus the 

leadership, if you would call it such, in Gaza grows instead of 

comes closer together. How do you deal with that? How do you— 

27 

if you’re going to cut a deal—and we all want to see the deal cut— 

surely you can argue that you have a leadership in the West Bank 

to deal with it. But, what do you do in Gaza? I mean, who can 

guarantee that, if you shake hands and you make a deal, that the 

deal can be implemented? That seems to me to be an incredible 

challenge. 

Prime Minister BLAIR. That’s an absolutely right question to ask. 

I don’t think we can be sure, right now, as we speak, of what the 

attitude of people in Gaza would be in the future if we were able 

to restore credibility to the peace process in the Middle East. But, 

one thing I’m sure of is that it’s worth us trying to find out. In 

other words, it is worth us pushing this process forward, on sensible and right terms, but precisely in order to give the people in 

Gaza a clear and visible objective that we set before them and say, 

‘‘This is what we’re trying to do and why we’re trying to do it.’’ 

Now, I don’t know how, then, the reaction will be between the 

local people and Hamas, and that is obviously, as I say, as we 

speak now, we can’t be sure of this. But, one thing I am absolutely 

sure of is that Hamas have a military grip on Gaza, but I don’t 

know that they have a grip on the minds of the people in the same 

way. And therefore, my view would be that we should move forward in the way that I’m describing, we should be doing all we can 

to help the people in Gaza, without assisting Hamas, and then 

there is going to come—I mean, let’s be clear, there will come a moment of reckoning, because there can only be one Palestinian state, 

West Bank and Gaza, and we need that state, as a state, as a 

whole, to be secure and stably run. And plainly, at the moment, 

you can’t say that those people in Gaza, who will not even recognize the existence of Israel, can produce a stable partnership for 

peace. So, there will come a moment of reckoning on this, that’s for 

sure. 

My point is very simple. We are in a better position to secure the 

right outcome at that moment, and peacefully, if we show there is 

a genuine, credible vision for a two-state solution, and, what’s 

more, we’re making progress in getting there. 

Senator RISCH. Well, I wish you well in that regard, and I hope 

your optimism plays out. But, you know, we wanted—we Americans love elections, and we had an election over there, and it didn’t 

come out exactly the way we wanted it. And so, the people there 

have not shown what I would call a real good vision in that regard. 

So, I hope that when we get to the point that you’re talking about, 

that their vision is a little better than what it’s been in the past. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Blair. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Risch. 

Senator Cardin. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And, Mr. Blair, I want to thank you very much, not only for 

being here, but for your extraordinary international leadership on 

this issue. I think there is some reason for optimism with a new 

administration in Washington and a new administration in Israel. 

There’s opportunity for new starts. And there seems to be more 

international support for moving forward with a process consistent 

with the roadmap than we’ve seen of late, and moderate Arab 

28 

States seem to be more interested today. So, I think there is reason 

to believe that you can proceed. 

I think you’ve also outlined probably the only way you can do 

that with Hamas currently in control of Gaza. The good news is 

that we’ve seen a maturing of the Palestinian Authority on the 

West Bank, and that if we can move forward with progress on the 

West Bank and provide hope for the people of Gaza, then clearly 

you’ve made your point that we can’t deal with Hamas unless they 

were to disavow their current position. I think the experiences in 

Northern Ireland underscore that point. So, I think you’ve outlined 

perhaps the only way we can proceed, and I think there is reason 

to believe that we can overcome some of these obstacles. 

I want to put another part of the equation, here. We haven’t 

talked too much about the Golan in Syria. Some of us have been 

to Syria. I think we were all somewhat surprised to learn about 

how much progress had been made between Israel and Syria 

through Turkey prior to Gaza problems. There’s been genuine 

agreement that if progress was made on that front, it would negate 

some of the influence of Iran and perhaps be an encouragement for 

the Palestinians moving forward with peace. 

I just want to get your observations as to how helpful it would 

be and whether it is realistic to expect that progress can be restarted between Syria and Israel. 

Prime Minister BLAIR. First of all, I’m all in favor of trying. I 

mean, I don’t—I think there’s no harm—and, indeed, a lot of 

good—in pursuing the Syrian track along with the Palestinian 

track; not in substitution for it, I would say very clearly. 

I think Syria’s going to have to make a choice, though, in the 

end, as to whether it wants to be part of a successful peace process 

in the whole of the region. And, you know, for them, I think the 

Golan Heights issue could be resolved, but it won’t be resolved unless it’s absolutely clear that it’s part of an enduring and lasting 

peace. And, you know, you have the leader of Hamas in Damascus, 

you have Corporal Shalit still—Gilad Shalit—still in captivity, 

which you would think that some pressure could be brought to 

bear, and brought to bear very clearly, in order to get his release 

since it’s such a hindrance to finding a way forward, as well as, 

obviously, inhumane. 

But, I guess what I would really say is, yes, I think the Syrian 

track is worth pursuing. Yes, we should pursue it. I believe that 

the Palestinian track moving forward is probably the most important thing in that track, also, showing signs of success. 

And I think, you know, one thing—it would be a reflection just— 

not merely from this time doing this, but in the time when I was 

Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and the Senate was talking 

about the elections that happened, the Palestinian side. And actually I think there were many reasons why those elections turned 

out in the way that they did, and so on. And I—you know, I believe 

that it—although we must take account of them, obviously, and 

recognize the outcome of those elections, nonetheless I still believe 

that if people in that region saw a genuine hope of a way forward, 

then the traction that those people who are extreme would have 

greatly diminish. And also, if there were political progress—and 

this is something we found in the Northern Ireland peace process— 

29 

one of the things that’s going to have to happen—and this is a difficult thing to say, but I think it’s very important in this—is this 

concept of violent resistance has got to be consigned to the history 

books, because it’s not merely that targeting innocent Israeli civilians through acts of terrorism is wrong, it’s also totally counterproductive to the prospects of peace and to the prospects of Palestinian dignity, statehood, and advance. 

So, one thing that has to happen is that this argument, not just 

within the Palestinian context, but within the wide regional context, and this includes some of the statements that emanate from 

Syria, there’s got to be an understanding that that whole concept 

of resistance based on terrorism holds the process back; it doesn’t 

advance anybody anything. And, you know, when we finally got to 

the point in Northern Ireland when the Republican movement— 

without throwing aside all its history and what it felt and how, you 

know, this had all come about, but simply said, ‘‘OK, we are now 

going to commit fully to peaceful negotiation,’’ then that was what, 

in the end, did the deal, because then there could be no reason why 

there shouldn’t be power-sharing, which was the equivalent, in the 

sense of statehood. And, likewise, I mean, truthfully, if in Gaza 

people said, ‘‘Violent resistance, we are now—that’s out. What 

we’re going to do is, we’re going to use this political process, and 

we’re going to make that as our means of advancing our cause,’’ 

you would be concluding the negotiations for a state, in my view, 

within a pretty short space of time. Now, obviously we’re not in 

that situation, we’re in the opposite, for the moment. But, that’s 

why I think that one clue as to what countries like Syria can do 

in this situation, and their goodwill, will be demonstrated by 

whether they’re prepared to move away from that concept that has 

really done so much damage to the process of peace within the 

region. 

Now, I’m afraid the recent comments by President Ahmadinejad 

there in—when he visited Damascus, was unhelpful in that regard, 

but, at some point, people have got to understand, because I think 

our position—I mean ‘‘ours’’ in the intelligence community, and I 

think this is the position of America, too—is really pretty clear. 

We’re prepared to move heaven and earth to get the two-state solution, but we will not expect Israel to take risks with its security. 

So, everyone can work that out. You know, if we’re going to make 

progress, we’ve got to do so with those—that determination sitting 

alongside the fact that nobody here in America, and actually 

nobody, when they think about it, in the broader international community, is going to support anything other than a peaceful, nonviolent negotiation to a two-state solution that protects Israel’s 

security as well as offers the Palestinians statehood. 

Senator CARDIN. Well, I think you’ve given the right definition of 

what is meant by ‘‘normalization of relations.’’ I mean, if you’re 

going to have peace, you’re going to have peace. And that includes 

the whole aspect. When King Abdullah was here, he talked openly 

about that being the expectation that needs to be met. It’s not only 

normalization of the relations between neighbors; it’s also denouncing extremism, as far as the use of force. The reason I mentioned 

Syria is that we shouldn’t be surprised with statements made by 

the Iranian leaders. They’re very interested in keeping Syria as an 

30 

ally. Look, Syria’s doing a lot of bad things. We know that. We go 

into this knowing full well that we have a state that has sponsored 

and facilitated terrorism and has aspirations which are inconsistent with stability in the region. But, if Syria made progress 

with Israel and we were really able to get that type of normalization between Israel and Syria, then you’re breaking the alliance 

between Syria and Iran, which is another part of the equation here, 

to try isolate the extremism of Iran from its neighbors. That would 

have, I think, a very positive aspect about one of the major concerns that Mr. Netanyahu has. So, I think these all sort of fit together. I agree with you completely, one should not be at the exclusion of the other. And I think there’s a different set of challenges 

with Syria. But, we do need to address the issue of Iran that has 

been very much in the mind of Mr. Netanyahu. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Cardin, I appreciate the questions. 

Senator Shaheen. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Welcome, Mr. Blair. We’re delighted to have you here. 

I would like to follow up a little bit on the discussion you had 

with Senator Risch about the connection between Iran and progress 

on the Palestinian issue. And in the conversations that you’ve had 

with Israeli leaders, whether it’s Prime Minister Netanyahu or 

Minister Barak, is—was it your assessment that they appreciated 

the analysis that you were making and agreed that there might be 

an opportunity to make some progress on the Iranian front by 

addressing the Palestinian issue? 

Prime Minister BLAIR. Look, their view is very simple, that—and, 

in a sense, I think it’s really this, which is—look, whatever happens, the Iranian question has to be confronted. I think that they 

do understand, however, the argument that we would put, which 

is, if you’re to mobilize the majority across the region in favor of 

a sensible engagement of a peaceful coexistence within the region, 

then the Palestinian issue has a role to play. I think what they— 

I think their fear, actually—I mean, it’s not for me, again, to put 

words in their mouth—but, I think their fear would more be if we 

said, ‘‘Look, the Palestinian’’—if we went to the opposite extreme; 

in other words, said, ‘‘The Palestinian issue is what we are concerned about, but Iran we put to one side’’—my view is that, as I 

say, they both have to be dealt with, but I do believe we are in a 

far stronger position to resolve the Iranian question successfully by 

diplomacy, even by taking steps of pressure, if it is clear that, on 

this issue, the—the Palestinian issue—that there’s such resonance 

right across the Arab and Muslim world is being properly 

addressed. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you. I was in the Middle East for the 

Palestinian elections in 2006, and certainly many of the Palestinians that we talked to as part of that mission indicated their support for Hamas was based, not on support for a terrorism organization, but on the corruption that they had seen from the Palestinian 

Authority and Fatah, the inability of the PA to deliver services, 

and that Hamas, they viewed as an alternative that might better 

be able to deliver social services throughout the West Bank and 

31 

Gaza, and restore order that seemed to be lacking in many areas 

under the Palestinian Authority. 

So, I guess my question is, Given what we’ve seen in the West 

Bank—and I know that there has been some progress recently with 

respect to supporting President Abbas and the leadership of the 

Palestinian Authority—what more should the Quartet—what more 

should we be doing to provide support for legitimate Palestinian 

government on the West Bank that would give encouragement to 

all Palestinians that this is—and to Israelis—that this is a government leadership that they can count on? 

Prime Minister BLAIR. First of all, I entirely agree with you, Senator, about the elections. I think there were many reasons for the 

outcome of those elections. And they don’t lead me to change my 

view that, if we made substantial progress, we could mobilize majority support amongst the Palestinians. 

And also, you’re absolutely right to point out the huge impact of 

Prime Minister Fayyad and his reform program. I mean, one of the 

things that we did when we held the conference in Paris in December 2007 is that we didn’t just raise a substantial sum of money 

for the Palestinians, we also—for the first time, that money was 

marked against a reform and development plan that was a serious 

plan drawn up by serious people. And that also makes a big difference. And what Prime Minister Fayyad personally has done, 

with the support of President Abbas, is to make changes in Palestinian security capacity that now mean, actually, in substantial 

parts around the area, there up in and around Jenin and down in 

Nablus, down in Hebron—there is a lot more work now being done 

by the Palestinian forces and they are, then, cooperating with their 

Israeli counterparts in trying to iron out some of the difficulties 

that there are between them. 

So, you know, this is—this could be done. But, the thing that’s 

going to make the difference is that we take these concrete practical measures on the ground—and, you know, I have done this 

now for 18 months—and we have produced a package of measures 

that, I have no doubt, if we took and we did, they’d make a difference to the psychology of the average Palestinian living on the 

West Bank. Unfortunately, for the moment, that’s just—you know, 

talk about the West Bank rather than Gaza. But, there’s no doubt 

in my mind that implementation of these measures would make a 

significant difference. 

And what we need from the Israeli Government there, is for 

something really very simple; we need what Prime Minister 

Netanyahu’s been saying about an economic peace to be taken at 

its face value, to be worked on and delivered. Now, it’s not a substitute for the political negotiation, of course. But, it’s still important. So, sometimes people say to me, ‘‘Well, you’ve got to tell the 

Israelis, you know, ‘‘We don’t want to hear this about an economic 

peace.’’ And I say, ‘‘No, actually we do want an economic peace, but 

we want a political peace, as well.’’ But, if you can get genuine economic change going on in the West Bank, it will make a difference, 

for sure. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Let me also ask you—one of the things that 

I have—has been pointed out to me recently is that there is interest on the part of some of the younger leadership among the PalVerDate Nov 24 2008 20:05 Mar 02, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\MIDEAST.TXT SENFOR1 PsN: BETTY
32 

estinians in taking action if they don’t see some change in President Abbas’s administration, and see things differently. Do you 

think that’s real? Is there a real potential that some of the younger 

leaders on the West Bank could actually provide an ultimatum or 

make it clear that they are going to make some changes if they 

don’t see a change in the leadership there? 

Prime Minister BLAIR. Well, I think it’s important that a new 

generation of leadership is brought on in time. And that’s why one 

of the things that President Abbas is addressing, quite rightly, is 

the issues—along with Abu Abu Ala and others, the issues of Fatah 

reform. And that’s important. 

You know, the only leadership that’s going to work, in the end, 

is the leadership that’s committed to statehood. And, you know, 

what I always say to Palestinians that I talk to about this is to say, 

you know, ‘‘We need, if we get this process going again, properly 

and credibly, we need to shift your mentality from that of resistance, which is one type of mentality, to governance, which is 

another type of mentality. Now, we’ve got to make it real,’’ but— 

‘‘for you,’’ but if we do, then that’s where they—this younger generation should be concentrating, on actually how they’re going to 

run a Palestinian state. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Shaheen. 

Senator Kaufman. 

Senator KAUFMAN. Thank you for what you’re doing. I’ve been 

sitting here for 2 hours listening to a tour de force. I mean, it really 

is quite incredible, the grasp we have of this. And I think how 

many of the—of what you say, the members agree with. And—but, 

of course, when you look at this problem, it is so incredibly intractable and so incredibly difficult, but I have a real advantage; my 

mother was Irish and my father is Jewish, so I’ve followed both of 

these issues quite closely. And I don’t think many people really 

understand how difficult the Irish problem was. And I think we 

have assembled here, kind of, the dream team, having you and 

George Mitchell both come back to solve the intractable one. So, I 

feel good about that. 

I just wanted to ask you, How is coordinating things with Senator Mitchell? How is that going? How is that working? 

Prime Minister BLAIR. One of the great benefits of having Senator Mitchell on this task is, first of all, that he’s, in my view, a 

very clever, as well as principled, leader in the political field, and 

the other is that we worked very closely over the Northern Ireland 

deal. And actually, he and I have just been talking this morning— 

I mean, we keep in close contact with other—have been this morning about how we worked together to push this forward. And I 

think, you know, there’s a great degree of agreement on the different elements—the political, the economic, the security—how we 

should make progress here. 

And, you know, I learned two things, at least, and possibly three, 

after the Northern Ireland experience, and—you know, there are 

many, many differences, let me put that on the table; of course 

there are. But, one is that you need a determined focus. And that’s 

why what President Obama has done in the new administration is 

so important. Second—and that’s why I have my maps there—you 

33 

need to focus on detail, the detail matters. I mean, people sometimes said to me, ‘‘What on earth are you doing, knowing about 

this checkpoint or that checkpoint?’’ And I said to them, ‘‘I used to 

know the most intimate details about bits of the security operators 

alongside the border in Ireland, because they had an impact on 

whether you could get a deal or not.’’ So, detail matters. 

And I guess the final reflection is that, you know, as you see with 

Dr. Paisley sitting down with Martin McGuinness, it is possible for 

your enemy to become your friend. So—or at least your partner. 

And I think that, however difficult it is, you know, it’s not simply 

optimism that fuels my search for something that works, here. It’s 

also that I don’t see the alternative. I mean, the alternative is conflict. So, however much we have to try, and however long we have 

to try, and however many times we have to try and retry, we’ve 

got no choice if we’re to act responsibly toward the challenges we 

face in this region and the wider world. 

Senator KAUFMAN. Any response to Senator Risch’s column? You 

talked about the day of reckoning, when we actually get to a twostate solution. Is there any progress being made, in terms of getting the two sides and the Palestinians together in—any kind of 

developments that are anything optimistic? 

Prime Minister BLAIR. Well, the Egyptians have done a heroic 

task on this. And I think they have isolated the key questions and 

got to grips with them. But, as I was saying in answer to a question earlier, ultimately, to agree, you’ve got to agree, and you’ve got 

to agree on the objective—a two-state solution—and you’ve got to 

agree on the means of getting there—politics, not violence. So, that, 

I think, is at the heart of where this thing—this thing comes to. 

And I think, you know, people want there to be unity on the Palestinian side, but, as I was saying earlier, it must be unity that’s 

real. 

Senator KAUFMAN. Can you talk a little about the Russians’ role 

in the Quartet? 

Prime Minister BLAIR. I have to say that Russia has been actually very supportive of what we’ve done, and I have found them, 

during the course of this process, as members of the Quartet, supportive of both what we’re trying to do and the wider process. So, 

I can’t say I have any complaints at all; on the contrary. 

Senator KAUFMAN. And what’s the role of the EU, in terms of 

building institutions in the Palestinian state—I mean, the Palestinian areas? 

Prime Minister BLAIR. The European Union, for example, has 

just put together a comprehensive set of proposals. I mean, these 

are proposals that the Palestinian Authority and Prime Minister 

Fayyad—these are—this is his desire, his wish, it’s his plan, his 

program, but we have put forward proposals that can support that. 

And I think the Europeans have an important role to play, not 

merely in terms of financing the Palestinian Authority, but also in 

capacity-building and institution-building, since these institutions 

are so crucial to statehood. 

Senator KAUFMAN. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Kaufman. 

34 

I couldn’t agree with you more, I think we’ve been treated, this 

afternoon, to a terrific opportunity to be able to look inside quite 

a few years of the highest level of leadership’s struggles with this 

particular issue, and it’s a rare insight, and an important one for 

the committee, and we’re very grateful to you, Mr. Prime Minister, 

for helping us to establish this benchmark as we go into these next 

weeks and months of meetings and, hopefully, negotiations. 

I know you have a 4:30, and we promised to get you out of here— 

there is a topic that I want to get your quick comments on, if we 

can. Before I do, if I could just say to you that we’ve dwelled quite 

significantly, and appropriately, on the steps on both sides that 

could be taken, particularly the settlements issue. And I raised it 

in my opening, and I concur with you completely, it would just 

have a dramatic, enormous impact on raising the other issues to 

a new moral plane and to really leveraging Israel’s larger interests 

in an important way, and our larger interests. At the same time, 

there’s one other component of it, and that is the freedom of movement of and the improvement of day-to-day life for Palestinians. 

I was struck, 5 years ago, when I was in Ramallah, meeting with 

President Abbas, literally the morning he was elected, and he 

turned to me, plaintively, to say that he knew what we wanted him 

to do, which was to disarm Hamas, and then he looked at me, and 

he said, ‘‘Senator, you tell me how I’m supposed to do that. I don’t 

have any police, I don’t have any radios, I don’t have any cars, I 

don’t have any people who are trained.’’ And then he went on to 

explain to me how Hamas had a greater ability to deliver services 

in the streets in Ramallah than he did, with money coming from 

charities and from outside, and the ability to pay off a suicide 

bomber’s family, and so forth. And it just sort of hit me at that 

level of Politics 101 being practiced, and his inability to practice it. 

Now, admittedly, there were issues of some questions of the abilities and corruption and other questions within Fatah. But as 

you’ve said, Mr. Fayyad has brought a whole new moment and era 

to the accountability and finances of the authority, and many people on the other side, as well as in other Arab countries, have enormous respect for him, as you know. So, that helps to contribute to 

this new moment. 

But, the Arab world has got to also engage in these major steps. 

It’s not just Israel’s role to change the dynamic. And there are so 

many things that they could do, as you know. And I’m going to 

have the privilege of being in Jordan in a couple of days at the 

World Economic Forum; I intend to try to lay out some of those 

things, because they’ve got to show their good faith here, and that 

involves travel, visas, flights, visits, economic assistance, ceasing to 

do certain things that we know they are doing. There’s just a clear, 

bold list, and I think it’s very important for us to be evenhanded 

in laying that out. And I’m sure you would agree with that. 

You have been enormously engaged, also, on the issue of global 

climate change. And we had an important meeting here, which you 

led, with corporate leaders, the CEOs of GE, Jeff Immelt, John 

Chambers, of Cisco, Florida Power & Light, DuPont, Dow Chemical—I mean, it’s an extraordinary array of companies who are 

looking for a response. A lot of Americans aren’t aware of the corporate desire to have this market signal set, and for us to begin 

35 

to move on global climate change. As you know, Great Britain has 

been a leader. They have a superb wind project that is being 

undertaken now. The EU has set a very high goal for reductions 

in emissions. 

And I wonder if you would underscore to us, to Americans today, 

and to the committee, the global security implications of this issue 

and what your belief is about Copenhagen and its importance, and 

American leadership with respect to it. 

Prime Minister BLAIR. Thank you. And, first of all, I agree 

entirely with the concluding remarks you made on the IsraelPalestine question. 

In respect of global climate change, I mean, this is a huge issue 

for, not just the long-term future of our environment, but for our 

security, our stability, for the reasons of long-term energy policy, 

and people are anxious—desperate, even—to see that U.S. leadership out there showing the way forward. 

There is a tremendous commitment now from within Europe. I 

believe there is a sincere desire on the part of the leadership of 

China to play its proper part in reaching a global agreement. And 

what I would say is that, provided we can show that we’re setting 

the world on a new path toward a low-carbon economy, there are 

massive business opportunities and job opportunities in this also. 

I mean, we now employ, in the United Kingdom, far more people 

in the new environmental technologies than we do in coal, steel, 

and shipbuilding, some of the traditional stable industries of the 

United Kingdom put together, and doubled. So, it is possible for 

this to be a situation in which we make progress on our economy 

whilst changing the nature of that economy so as to make it compatible and sustainable, in terms of our environmental responsibility. And it’s urgent, this—I mean, look, I’m not a scientist, and 

I’m not an expert, but, I think, in any other walk of life, if you had 

that degree of scientific consensus about a problem, you would, as 

a political leader, feel a great responsibility to achieve a solution. 

So, that’s the point we’re at, and I think if it—you know, there 

are two things that are necessary now. One is to take this issue, 

as it were, out of the realms of a campaign and put it in the realms 

of practical, severely practical policymaking so that we get severely 

practical solutions to these questions. And, second, for American 

leadership to lead us to an agreement at the end of the year in 

Copenhagen that would demonstrate, not only a combined, collective commitment, but also be a major step forward for the credibility of multilateral change. 

The CHAIRMAN. And, just very quickly, Mr. Prime Minister, could 

you say something about what is at stake, in terms of real security 

implications—failed states, refugees, the kinds of challenges that 

we really face based on what the science is telling us is happening 

now? 

Prime Minister BLAIR. I think it’s very clear—and this is one of 

the reasons, incidentally, why some of the developing countries, not 

least China, now take this issue so seriously. I mean, the impact, 

if we do not deal with this issue and the science turns out to be 

correct, the impact will be devastating, in terms of the dislocation 

of people, in terms of drought, serious land erosion, in terms of how 

people feel capable of meeting the challenges of an environment 

36 

that will be changing very fast indeed around them. And I think 

that there are, you know, fundamental reasons to do with our 

future security, as well as issues to do with the environment, which 

make this issue absolutely a top priority for us, urgent, and—at the 

end of the year, we’ll have a chance to demonstrate whether we— 

where there’s the will there’s also the way. And that’s what we 

must do, for sure. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, we thank you. 

Senator Risch, did you have any final comment? 

Senator RISCH. No, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for 

holding the hearing. 

The CHAIRMAN. Again, Mr. Prime Minister, we really are grateful 

to you. This has been unbelievably helpful, and I think you spoke 

with great candor and obviously with a lot of expertise on some 

very tough questions. And it’s a good baseline to have established 

as we enter into this new period. I can’t think of anybody who 

could have brought us a better sort of explanation of it. 

So, thank you so much for arranging your schedule to be able to 

be here today. We’re very grateful to you, and we look forward to 

continuing to meet with you in the days ahead. 

Prime Minister BLAIR. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

We stand adjourned. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 4:06 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, U.S. SENATOR FROM

CONNECTICUT

I would like to begin by thanking you, Chairman Kerry, for holding this important 

hearing today. I would also like to thank Mr. Blair for taking the time to join us 

today and for his years of dedicated work in the search for Middle East peace. 

Your work to engage the international community and help promote Palestinian 

development is a critical component of the Quartet’s peace efforts, and you have 

done a remarkable job despite these trying economic times. Similarly, your sense 

of appreciation for the issues at play and depth of regional knowledge are tremendous assets to the Quartet’s efforts. I think I can speak for the whole of this committee when I say that we are grateful that you have chosen to take on such a monumental task. 

Mr. Chairman, the weeks and months ahead represent a historic opportunity for 

the United States and international community to restart and reenergize the 

Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Over the past 6 months, we have seen the danger 

of letting this conflict remain unresolved, and it has become clear that the status 

quo is truly unacceptable. 

The United States must remain active and honest mediators between Israelis and 

Palestinians, and continue to lead negotiations with the aim of establishing two 

states, a Jewish state of Israel and sovereign Palestinian state, living side by side 

and in peace. President Obama’s appointment of Senator George Mitchell—a good 

friend of many on this committee, including myself—was a tremendous step forward, and an indication of the Obama administration’s commitment to achieving a 

lasting and comprehensive peace. 

While the opportunity and need for robust U.S. leadership is clear, so, too, are 

the challenges ahead. Israelis continue to live under the constant threat of rocket 

fire and terrorist attacks. Hamas, in control of the Gaza Strip, remains dedicated 

to the obliteration of the state of Israel, and some political forces in the West Bank 

refuse to recognize Israel’s identity as a Jewish state. 

At the same time, Palestinians living in the West Bank struggle to live normal 

lives due to continued settlement expansion—both authorized and unauthorized. 

While in Gaza, nearly 1.5 million Palestinians living under the control of Hamas 

have found their access to even the most basic of goods curtailed. Whether they are 

37 

Israeli or Palestinian, there are victims on both sides of this conflict, and the status 

quo is not acceptable. 

Despite all of this, the challenges are not insurmountable. A Quartet-led joint 

Israeli-Palestinian program to rebuild and strengthen Palestinian security forces 

has shown that regional cooperation is not only possible, but effective. The United 

States and the international community stand committed to bringing the two parties together, and both President Obama and Secretary Clinton have made clear 

that the establishment of a state of Israel living side by side with a Palestinian 

state is one of America’s top foreign policy priorities. We must follow through with 

this promise. We must engage in robust diplomacy that, first and foremost, recognizes Israel’s precarious security situation, as well as the national aspirations of the 

Palestinian people. 

Mr. Chairman, in 1978, while the region was still recovering from the 1973 

Israeli-Arab war and the prospects for peace seemed dimmer than ever, it was the 

work of diligent, principled U.S. leadership that helped forge a permanent peace between once sworn enemies Israel and Egypt. I have no doubt that, in cooperation 

with the Quartet and our partners in the international community, we can once 

again achieve what so many have called the impossible. 

Mr. Blair, thank you again for joining us today. I look forward to working with 

you in the weeks and months ahead. 

Æ