Was Blair's Middle East visit a success?

Tony Blair has returned from two days of hectic shuttle diplomacy in the Middle East hopeful the peace process can be moved forward.

The prime minister visited Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Israel and the Palestinian Authority to try and encourage the revival of peace talks and bolster support for the international coalition against terrorism.

Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said the trip had helped "very, very significantly" toward getting the peace process "back on track" and the trip had proved "worthwhile", achieving a "great deal".

What do you think? Was Mr Blair's visit a success? Can "shuttle diplomacy" really help achieve peace?

Let's have less spin and more action on real issues affecting the UK

Gordon Grove, UK

Tony Blair has conducted himself well to date, and I fully support the action being taken, however he is now using the war to hide the issues in the UK, such as ever growing NHS waiting lists and the railways. Tony Blair is part of the coalition against Bin Laden not the world leader of the conflict as he seems to believe he is. This recent trip was nothing short of an embarrassment. If Mr Blair spent as much effort looking at the everyday issues affecting this country the public services would not be in the state they are in today, degenerating by the week! Lets have less spin and more action on real issues affecting the UK
Gordon Grove, UK

Tony Blair misses the point entirely. It is the PEOPLE of the Islamic countries who oppose the current genocide in Afghanistan. Assad was doing no more than protecting his own back by reflecting that opposition. Jordan and Saudi Arabia have rulers which owe more to US support than to their people so they say the stuff Blair wants to hear. The people of these countries, unlike those of the UK and the US know that Blair and Bush are not be trusted and no amount of shuttle diplomacy is going to make the lie work. As for Sharon: He will simply mark time until the heat blows over.
Charles Moore, Scotland

If he went there to prove that he was George W's lackey - from that point of view it was successful.
Patrice, Port-of-Spain, Trinidad

Mr. Blair is a man of integrity and vision. He knows England is next on the terrorist list. He shows the world it will not be tolerated and went into the fire with easily breeched security. England should be very proud of him, I'm an American and I certainly am. Will the talking do any good? Certainly not - think of how those on the planes must have talked, reasoned and begged. They have only to live and let live to find peace but they never have and never will follow that simple rule so they will be destined to fight amongst each other in the future just as in the past. The truly sad part is they involve the name of God in their war.
Tom Reeves, Auburndale, Florida, USA

Tony Blair is one of the most dynamic leaders of our times. "Damned if you do, damned if you don't". If Tony Blair had not gone to the Middle East, he would have been criticized for inertia. No one should blame the man for seeking peace and security in a world of uncertainties. He is fearless and decisive and such leaders are always criticized.
Ernest Merrill, Antigua & Barbuda

Blair shouldn't be damned for making the effort

Mark, UK

Too early to say whether Mr Blair's shuttle diplomacy will have any positive effect. The current leaders of Syria, Saudi Arabia and Israel are too used to getting their own way and not listening to contrary opinion. Blair shouldn't be damned for making the effort.
Mark, UK

Mr. Blair's mission was an utter failure as it was certain to be. He went to Syria to ask President Assad to take action against Palestinians who are struggling to drive out the Israelis who have been occupying West Bank and Gaza in violation of UN Resolution 242. The aggressor has killed several thousand Palestinians during the last 34 years and their houses have been bulldozed.
Assad was right that he snubbed him. I am glad to say that Mr. Blair suffered humiliation at the hands of President Assad.
Prof. Mukhtar Ali Naqvi, USA

In my opinion, Mr Blair's visit was relatively successful because it broke the ice between the west and Arabic and Islamic countries. We only need more courageous steps from the UK and USA to face reality and clearly say yes to Arabs' right to get all their occupied territories back and no to illegal Israeli occupation and state terrorism.
AG, Canada

Tony Blair knew for sure that his Middle East visit may not be totally successful, but he did make a very honest attempt and his efforts are laudable. It was not the zeal for success that was the driving force of his swift tour, but an urge to derive strength in this fight against terrorism. In his own words, it was necessary that a heart-to-heart discussion was initiated without further delay to resolve the long-pending territorial disputes in West Asia. While the world coalition under the leadership of the US continues to wage a war against terrorism, it is ostensibly more important that diplomatic efforts too are continued to grasp the roots of the problem and look for a reasonable solution. Blair is a decision-maker and feels it is utterly important to keep the coalition solidly united against terrorism, even though the consequences of this war may not be agreeable to some countries in the Middle East.
Mahesh Chandra Somani, Finland

If there is any blame for a lack of progress diplomatically, it belongs elsewhere

Bob Green, USA

I was in complete admiration of Mr Blair in his recent Middle East trip, marching into the lion's den to make his case forcefully and unambiguously, but doing it in a way that conveyed respect and a willingness for sincere engagement. If more leaders were of the calibre of Mr Blair, the world would definitely be better off. The side-by-side contrast of Mr Blair with President Asad showed who really is to blame for most of the problems in the Middle East. Mr Asad's rigid hostility and ungracious rejection of the respect and goodwill brought by Mr Blair was a stark rebuttal to those who expect the US or Israel to unilaterally make peace in the region. But Mr Blair did the right thing in his visit, and if there is any blame for a lack of progress diplomatically, it belongs elsewhere.
Bob Green, USA

I think it was courageous of Tony Blair to visit the Middle East knowing well that he was not going to get the reception he got on his earlier trip. However he is still missing the point. The September 11 attack was not justification for the Palestinian plight in the Middle East. It was the manifestation of the feelings felt by groups of people borne as a result of the west's attitude to the plight of the Palestinians.
Devika, Malaysia

We shall see what influence Mr Blair has had on the Middle East problem in the next few weeks when it will become apparent whether or not Israel has withdrawn from the lands that it is currently occupying. Mr Blair mentioned on his visit that he thinks it is necessary for both sides to recognise the other's right to exist. This is the whole basis of the problem in the Middle East so let's see if it happens. I may be a cynic but I don't think it will happen in my lifetime.
Phil T, Oman

If Tony Blair had visited some of these Middle Eastern countries before September 11 and showed the same concern for their plight then this trip would have been viewed with a bit more sincerity. But now his support for them is seen with a lot of scepticism and the real reason for his renewed interest in the peace talks, has more to do with maintaining this fragile coalition than genuine concern for them.
Matt, UK

Mr Blair made a mistake when he presumed that Syria would stand with the coalition

Mark Morris, USA

I thought Mr Blair made a mistake when he presumed that Syria would stand with the coalition. It appears Muslim countries are afraid of standing up to the evil one hiding in a cave. Perhaps, the UK should take time out and consider its position. It has not been two months since the attacks here, and already the world has started calling for the US to stop its bombing on the people that started this war. I think the US should conduct this war alone. There are to many problems in getting other countries to support America. I think most Americans would be happy to see all other countries keep quiet while our government takes care of our problem.
Mark Morris, USA

Mark Morris, USA: That is typical of an uninformed view. Have you ever been to the Middle East? Do you even comprehend that countries like Pakistan are now struggling with internal strife and problems because of recent events and the killings of more innocent people? Of course Muslim nations are cautious, they have every right to be. They're not afraid of one person, but they do have domestic and political problems to consider and deal with. They also are fully aware of the double standards applied by the west towards say, Israel's occupation and state terrorism. Why does that go more or less ignored and why is that not resolved militarily by the US/UK too?

Western people too often talk about their wonderful democracies, and how barbaric Middle East countries are. Firstly, don't you think that generates just a bit of resentment among ordinary civilians as well? Secondly if we're so great and holier than thou, why aren't we helping to resolve all the problems in that area, instead of selling them huge amounts of weapons and carrying out all kinds of morally dubious operations - read up on the history of the Taleban, for example. Next time you write off non-western countries as barbaric, just remember which major countries took part in the World Wars. For the most part, that was mostly modern countries.
Michelle, UK

Surely the visit was a failure, because the media says it was. I think that broadcasters may as well prefix their news coverage with the following statement: "There now follows a party political broadcast on behalf of Osama Bin Laden and the al-Qaeda terrorist movement."
Dave, UK

I think Blair should not play the role of the US. I understand his determination. But to me this is going too far. The US has its own President but he has never crossed the US borders since the terrorist attacks.
Barry, Holland

Barry, Holland: I guess you are reading the wrong newspapers. George W Bush has indeed been travelling and was most recently in China. He is probably the most energetic president we have had in a long time and may lack so called intellectual skills but more than makes up for it in energy, honesty and persistence - a combination of qualities we haven't seen in that office for quite some time.
Di Stewart, USA

Why did Tony Blair visit Syria? Its leader has made his views on this situation clear so many times and who can forget his treatment of the pope on his visit there.
Robert Parker, UK

Tony Blair cares about Islamic issues more than Bush or any other western leader

Muumin, Finand

It was a success and the Muslim world will know that Tony Blair cares about Islamic issues more than Bush or any other western leader. One has to give him credit for trying. As a Muslim I do appreciate his visit. I knew from start that it was not going to solve everything but Mr Blair took the trouble to travel to places like Syria where its leader had the indecency to embarrass his guest publicly. Mr Asad has every right to air his views publicly but it does not do any good to his cause. He could have said whatever he wanted in private and spared the indignation of embarrassing his guest.
Muumin, Finand

So Blair has finally realised the truth behind the divisions within the coalition. The simple fact is that if the US and UK treated the Muslim states with respect instead of seeing them as part of the exploitation/ globalisation process, then most of the conflicts would be resolved through political means. Treat people with respect and they will do likewise. Unfortunately all democratic processes are being completely ignored.
AL Peters, UK

I think Mr Blair's visit was successful in that it keeps all sides concerned talking. It is puzzling to hear citizens of the UK call him, and their nation, America's lapdog. On the contrary I think the world and especially Americans care a great deal what the UK thinks and appreciate its support. As for those who are concerned with the bombing campaign against the Taleban and al-Qaeda, I ask, though it troubles me greatly to see innocent people being killed or injured, what did they expect would happen?
Jim McCormack, USA

A cold handshake between Ariel Sharon and Tony Blair said it all. Nothing is going to change.
Ratna Sengupta, MD, USA

It was like watching Mr Chamberlain with his scrap of paper

Thomas Lloyd, UK

Mr Blair's whistle stop tour of the Middle East was anything but successful. Watching him on TV was like watching Mr Chamberlain with his scrap of paper.
Thomas Lloyd, UK

It has to have done more good than Bush's efforts, which were displayed by going to a baseball game.
Lori Smith, USA

It's too early to declare his visit a success. I was amazed at the blatant disrespect shown to Mr Blair by the Israelis when they bombed three men in their car while he was in Palestine. It's important to keep talking but there has been too much talk since the Oslo Agreement was reached. Blair and the west have to take a stand and implement all the UN resolutions in Palestine. If the fight against terrorism is to succeed, then double standards should be a thing of the past and not the norm.
Omar, USA

The trip to the Middle East was a fruitful one. Tony Blair's mission was to form a coalition against terrorism but I think at last he concluded by saying that he realised there was a gulf between the Arab countries and the west, which in a way is a positive sign. Leaders of today are the terrorists and rebels of yesterday. To Joan, I'd like to point out to you that no person will just go and maim people for no reason.
Vijanth, Malaysia/Ireland

Until Blair and Bush are willing to force Israel to seek a just peace their visits to the Middle East will be useless. Actions speak louder than words.
E Carter, Canada

Other nations must wonder at his audacity. We'd have done better to send John Prescott

Alex, UK

I'm not certain that Tony "governor of the state of Britain" Blair is the right man for the job. We still have terrorist issues to deal with at home before we can go preaching to other states. Other nations must wonder at his audacity. We'd have done better to send John Prescott. At least it would have been a laugh when he started punching people.
Alex, UK

The fact that he undertook these visits is a success in itself. Short-term results are unrealistic, as Blair said. There are vast gulfs of misunderstanding between the west and the Arabs, especially on the definition of terrorism. I am pessimistic however, and I believe this sincerity and interest in communicating with the Middle East will drastically subside once the conflict in Afghanistan is over, and the West no longer needs Arab support. Then we will return to the normal finger pointing and isolation of "rogue states".
Ibrahim, London, UK

The fact that the western media has focused on set piece press conferences and not what has always been more important - officials talking to each other and the fact that the leaders also meet privately face to face, says far more about the lightweight, dumbed down media we now have. These trips have to take place. People have to look each other in the eye. Blair's a genuinely good man and the FCO people are very good people also. I suspect a lot went on behind closed doors that we don't know about. One up for Her Majesty's Government.
Neil, UK

At the end of the day, all our Tone is doing is Big George's dirty work. Whilst it is fine for the Americans to go after Bin Laden, surely it should be the UN who should be carrying out the diplomacy and dealing with the Taleban and its oppressive regime.
Adam Markham, England

Syria has shown its true colours in no uncertain terms. I dislike Tony Blair intensely but at least he has had the courage and determination to try. However his efforts were wasted from the start. Syria is a dictatorship and so is the so-called Palestinian Authority. Both are on the side of terrorism - they invented it. Now that Syria has declared its position - actively against us - we need to treat it like the pariah state it is. These people are our enemies, so get real and treat them as such. As for the so-called moderate Islamic states, we have every right to expect their unconditional support, and if push comes to shove we can do without it anyway.
Robin Johnson, UK

Now that we've tried bringing the Arabs on side and failed, the US and UK can get on with the war

Peter, UK

No, but it never was going to be. I think this was more a case of being seen trying to bring the Arabs on side and to address the Palestinian problem (as this is perceived as being the driving force being the attacks on America). Now that we've tried bringing the Arabs on side and failed, the US and UK can get on with the war. The UK and US get something out of it, as they can dismiss any further Arab objections to the war. And people like Assad get a big domestic PR coup (and ego boost) by being seen giving Tony Blair a dressing down.
Peter, UK

Okay, maybe Mr. Blair would be better off staying at home. However, who would you rather went out to garner support for the anti-terrorism effort - a reasonably articulate Tony Blair, or a not-so-articulate "Dubya" Bush?
Scott Ash, USA

I think the USA is fortunate to have the energetic and fast talking Tony Blair as its Foreign Secretary. The UK could currently do with someone like him as its Prime Minister.
Chris, England

He's done more for this country than anyone since Churchill

Owen, England

I've absolutely loved some of the comments on this and related subjects recently. They can be summed up as follows: "Who does Tony Blair think he is? How dare he, as our elected representative, represent Britain's policy overseas and not do his REAL job of personally running the NHS, Railtrack and Battersea Dog's home?"

Remember his "kaleidoscope" speech? He's running around at the moment because he believes that it's only when the usual rock solid positions of international diplomacy are thrown into fluidity by some event like September 11th that progress has a real chance of success. Remember the effect of the Omagh bomb on the Good Friday Agreement. I've been VERY impressed by Blair on this, and most of all because he undertook his latest trip well aware it would be difficult at best. He's done more for this country than anyone since Churchill.
Owen, England

History will look favourably on the courage that Mr Blair has shown in this crisis. Putting your heads in the sand and hoping these terrorists will not become more empowered is naive. The UK is not a lapdog of the US but a true friend. God Bless America and the UK.
G Siwek, USA

He has to maintain a balance between an international diplomatic role and being PM of the UK

Michael Bird, UK

Nobody should have assumed too much out of this visit - this is a region with numerous beliefs, hatred and hidden agendas - the important thing is to keep the dialogue open. However I believe he has to maintain a balance between an international diplomatic role and being PM of the UK. He appears to have become the spokesman for Mr Bush?
Michael Bird, UK

The question is not whether this trip was successful or not because the problems in the Middle East are far from being resolved. Countries like USA, UK and others should keep relentlessly pushing for peace, regardless of temporary setbacks, failures. For this many more trips and meetings have to take place in future.
Vijay R, USA

It really depends what his reason for going was. If it was to try and get Muslim nations to support the military campaign, then no. If it was to show the Islamic nations that the West is prepared to listen to them, and to give those leaders an opportunity to publicly challenge Tony Blair, thus satisfying domestic public opinion, then yes, it was successful.
Matt Spencer, Luton, UK

Blair's leadership does not represent a clear stance on the fight against terrorism equally in all parts of the world

Asif Iqbal, USA

I really think that an impartial leadership is required to resolve the Middle East crisis. We need to define what state terrorism is and who is killing the innocent people in the Middle East. Enough of taking sides!! Until today Tony Blair's leadership does not represent a clear stance on the fight against terrorism equally in all parts of the world.
Asif Iqbal, USA

How wrong can "Sharon B" be? Of course Tony Blair has a role as an international diplomat and her parochial attitude is simply astounding. What is happening in the world affects everyone.
Mark, UK

A resounding failure! He got the talking down he deserved from the Arab world. When will the arrogant West learn that there are other cultures that exist in this world who have different priorities and view things differently. How patronising to go around the world and preach our doctrine to others when our own form of government is failing so badly at dealing with its own domestic issues - including domestic terrorism. Hopefully this will teach Blair that he is OUR prime minister, elected by the people of the UK to be our servant and do good for us. He is not an international diplomat and there already exists an international body attempting to find peace - its called the UN. Perhaps now he can finally return to the UK and deal with our own problems instead of other countries.
Sharon B, UK

I agree with Sharon B, the United Nations should deal with all international problems such as the ones we are witnessing now. Their diplomats should be trying to assuage the situation and not one man. Blair has a role as the leader of the UK, not the rest of the world. By flying around as he is, he undermines the authority of the UN and gives the impression that it has no power or any place in international politics. It is interesting to note however that the UN has now called for an end to the bombing and yet the USA and UK continue to ignore the UN and carry on carpet bombing.
Carole K, UK

I agree with most people here but I have to fiercely disagree with Sharon B, UK. If some the "other cultures" of the world that harbour terrorists would stay in their own countries and try to improve their way of life instead of coming over to the west and terrorising us, then we wouldn't have to go "preach" to them. No matter how bad our "domestic issues" get, they will never be as bad as what some of the people of these "other countries" have done to others. If it takes going over there and showing them how to live in peace, then so be it.
Patty, USA

Better to have tried and failed than never to have tried at all

Michael Entill, UK

None of the countries Blair visited were ever going to be an easy ride. All are hard-liners, in their different ways. I doubt Mr Blair expected things to be any different to how they turned out. The important thing was that he made the effort to talk to the leaders of Syria, Saudi Arabia and Israel. Unless such efforts are made, no matter how difficult, there can be no dialogue. It's utterly unrealistic to have expected any more of Blair than he has delivered. If these countries wish to pursue hardline policies then the consequences are ultimately their own responsibility. Better to have tried and failed than never to have tried at all.
Michael Entill, UK

No, the recent sessions of shuttle diplomacy we not successful in as much as they failed to stimulate any movement on the issues. However it would be extremely unfair to put the blame for any of this at the PM's door (although I'm sure the many visceral Blair-haters amongst your readers will try their best). The visits showed the extent of the divergence of opinion on the Middle-east question that exists between the Arab nations and Israel - this is not of Tony Blair's making. On the question of whether it was worth the journey - surely anything, which opens or keeps open the channels of communication is worthwhile. However, we must not go in blindly. - the only people who would see the trip as a disappointment are those who harboured unrealistically optimistic expectations from the start.
Matthew Salter, UK

According to the public statements given by the Middle East leaders, the visit was a disaster. However, according to the British officials it was worthwhile, because what was said in private is different to the public statements. I don't think convincing the leaders of the middle east is a success, because most of them are dictators and they don't represent the views of the their populations, who suffer the consequences of injustice and are the main supply of terror recruits. If we really want to rid the world of terrorism, we must try to cut its human supply sources by directly addressing the Middle East populations, and helping them achieve freedom in their countries.
Jennifer, UK

Perhaps that just says a lot about the West's attitude to the rest of the world

Paul R, Wales

Tony Blair expressed his views, and his hosts expressed theirs. Clearly there was a huge gulf between them, but this seems to have been portrayed in the media as something as an embarrassment. Perhaps that just says a lot about the West's attitude to the rest of the world - that other nations are expected to shut up and do what we say. If that was the expectation, then the visits were a very useful lesson to us that there are other views that must be heard - and which usually aren't heard or discussed in the western media.
Paul R, Wales

No, this is obviously just a cover-up during the continuing bombing of Afghanistan, to be seen to be tackling the problems 'at root'. What one is forced to ask, is if 'shuttle diplomacy' is such a 'success' during the current time then why in the past has the Western superpower been so slow to help resolve conflicts. This just goes to show what the UN could achieve if it really wanted to.
Sobia, Oxford, UK

His trip to Syria did not achieve much and he shouldn't have gone as Syria is a state sponsor of Terrorism including Hamas, Hizbollah, Islamic Jihad and others. However, his trip to Israel and the Palestinian Authority has reinforced his existing knowledge that all parties want peace and he reinforced his expectation of Yasser Arafat that Israel's security must be guaranteed. He also correctly passed onto the Israelis that it must withdraw from Area A as soon as possible.
Nick, UK

It certainly didn't do any harm

Jake Hadlee, UK

Only time will tell. It's rather like asking a cancer patient if the biopsy was a success - its a small step on the way to what will hopefully be a solution to a very complicated problem. It certainly didn't do any harm, and that is no mean achievement in itself in a situation where everyone involved is walking on eggshells.
Jake Hadlee, UK

Yes, Tony Blair's visit to the mid-east was a success. We now have a definition of what a freedom fighter, as opposed to a terrorist is. According to the Syrian President that is. If you're Palestinian and kill innocent Israeli's you are a freedom fighter and legitimate to be praised. If you are a bomber pilot, bombing the Taleban front line, or al Qaeda bases, you are a terrorist killing innocent people. This is what any rational person would conclude in a democratic society. I'm just pleased that in my society people can say such things without being executed, which hardly applies in the Syrian society.
Joan, Australia