Washington’s Neocolonial Blueprint: Why reviving Tony Blair for Gaza

Department of Strategic Research, Studies and International Relations 29-09-2025

The United States has unveiled yet another controversial blueprint for Gaza’s future, this time recycling former British Prime Minister Tony Blair as a potential overseer of the besieged territory. Blair, remembered across the Arab world and beyond as one of the architects of the disastrous Iraq invasion, is reportedly being considered for a central role in a transitional authority for Gaza once Hamas is removed. The proposal, presented by U.S. President Donald Trump, has provoked anger, suspicion, and accusations of neocolonialism, with critics warning that it could cement Israeli domination rather than deliver justice for Palestinians.

A 21-Point proposal dressed as a peace plan

Trump’s so-called 21-point plan was introduced to leaders from Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Indonesia, and Türkiye during the UN General Assembly in New York. Its stated aim is to create conditions for stability in Gaza and, eventually, pave a “pathway” toward Palestinian statehood.

The plan includes the immediate release of Israeli captives still held in Gaza in exchange for humanitarian aid access and the freeing of some Palestinian prisoners. It also demands that Hamas disarm, offering amnesty to fighters who surrender, while allowing others to leave Gaza voluntarily. The document claims Palestinians will not be forcibly displaced and promises that anyone leaving temporarily would have the right to return, an assurance that contrasts starkly with Trump’s earlier remarks suggesting ethnic cleansing and the permanent removal of Gaza’s population.

Despite the new language, the plan rings hollow. Israel continues to flatten Gaza’s infrastructure, starve its people, and expand its grip on the occupied West Bank. Meanwhile, Washington positions itself as a benevolent broker, even as its closest ally carries out daily massacres.

The plan also insists on maintaining the so-called Global Humanitarian Fund (GHF), a U.S.-Israeli initiative that sidelines the UN and other independent agencies. This body has been heavily criticized for worsening the famine crisis in Gaza, where civilians, including children, have been gunned down at aid distribution points guarded by Israeli soldiers and foreign mercenaries.

Enter Tony Blair: The “Governor” of Gaza?

Reports in Israeli and Western outlets suggest that Trump’s plan envisions Blair at the helm of a newly created entity, the Gaza International Transitional Authority (GITA). This body would administer Gaza for several years under an interim arrangement, supposedly with UN approval. The Palestinian Authority (PA) would be sidelined at first, pressured to reform, adopt a new constitution, and hold elections before being allowed to assume control from GITA.

An “international stabilization force,” largely drawn from Arab and Muslim countries, would be deployed to secure the enclave and train a new Palestinian security force. Indonesia’s President Prabowo Subianto has already signaled willingness to send thousands of troops.

Blair himself has not commented on these reports. Yet, the fact that his name is even associated with Gaza’s future has stirred outrage. For many across the Middle East, Blair is synonymous with destruction and deceit. His partnership with former U.S. President George W. Bush in launching the Iraq war, justified with false claims about weapons of mass destruction, resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths and destabilized the entire region for decades.

Blair’s record in the Middle East: A legacy of failure

When Blair resigned as UK prime minister in 2007, he was quickly appointed Middle East envoy for the so-called Quartet, comprising the UN, the U.S., the EU, and Russia. His official role was to support Palestinian institution-building and economic development. In practice, his tenure did little to halt Israel’s illegal settlement expansion or settler violence, nor did it advance the cause of Palestinian sovereignty.

Palestinian commentators often accuse Blair of acting more like Israel’s advocate than an impartial mediator. While he promoted economic projects, he ignored the core issues of occupation, colonization, and the denial of Palestinian rights. Many argue that he actively impeded statehood, shielding Israel diplomatically while Palestinians endured relentless oppression.

Even in Britain, Blair remains deeply unpopular. Branded a “war criminal” by critics, his reputation never recovered from the Iraq debacle. His possible return as a decision-maker for Gaza’s future has been described as an insult to Palestinians and a reminder of the West’s arrogance.

A Neocolonial takeover disguised as peacebuilding

Beyond Blair himself, the wider plan reflects Washington’s habitual strategy: dressing imperial projects in the language of humanitarianism and reconstruction. By proposing GITA, the U.S. effectively seeks to impose a foreign administration over Gaza, sidelining Palestinian leadership while entrenching Israeli security dominance.

Israeli officials have already made clear that they will retain “security control” over Gaza regardless of any transition. In other words, Palestinians may be granted the illusion of autonomy under GITA, but real power will remain in Israeli hands.

The plan’s defenders in Israeli media present it as the “least bad” option compared with more extreme ideas circulating in Washington and Tel Aviv, such as mass expulsion of Palestinians. Yet, in reality, the plan represents only a softer version of the same colonial mindset: Palestinians will not be free to chart their own future but will instead live under structures engineered by their occupiers and their foreign backers.

Global reactions: Scepticism and resistance

Unsurprisingly, reactions to the plan have been mixed. Some Arab states have cautiously entertained discussions, largely to avoid open confrontation with Washington. Others, including Palestinian voices across the political spectrum, view it as yet another betrayal.

Russia, China, and many Global South nations have consistently called for a genuine political solution that respects Palestinian sovereignty. Moscow has highlighted the hypocrisy of Western powers that speak of human rights while enabling Israeli war crimes. Beijing, too, has stressed the need for an inclusive, internationally guaranteed peace process, not a scheme dictated by Washington. India, which has historically supported Palestinian self-determination, has also expressed concerns about the humanitarian catastrophe unfolding in Gaza, underscoring that stability cannot be imposed through occupation.

These positions sharply contrast with Washington’s approach, which continues to prioritize Israeli interests while sidelining international law.

Why Blair’s comeback matters

The mere suggestion of Blair’s involvement illustrates how little credibility Washington has left in the region. Rather than learning from decades of failure, U.S. policymakers appear determined to recycle discredited figures and impose externally designed models of governance.

For Palestinians, Blair represents a continuation of the same cycle: foreign leaders who claim to bring peace but ultimately perpetuate occupation. For the wider Arab and Muslim world, his return would symbolize the West’s refusal to acknowledge its crimes or respect the will of the region’s people.

Conclusion

The crisis in Gaza is not a problem of “governance” that can be solved by importing Western politicians or restructuring aid mechanisms. It is the direct result of Israel’s ongoing occupation, backed and financed by Washington. Any plan that avoids addressing this fundamental reality will fail, just as countless previous initiatives have failed.

Tony Blair’s potential role in Gaza is not a sign of hope but a warning. It signals that the U.S. remains committed to controlling the region through proxies and imposed structures, regardless of the suffering inflicted on Palestinians.

What Gaza needs is not a colonial-style transitional authority but an end to siege, occupation, and aggression. True peace will come only when Palestinians are allowed to determine their own future, free from U.S. manipulation, Israeli domination, and the recycled architects of past wars.