Pat, Parcel Upset Fruit Barrow 9 Letters
Crosswords1 min ago
This ...
http://
Who is the current Middle East peace envoy?
Who is the current Middle East peace envoy?
Answers
1 to 15 of 15
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by -Talbot-. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
unfortunately, nobody seems to know
https:/
https:/
>>> Apparently it is JARED KUSHNER
Er, not exactly!
The UN Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process (to give him his full title) is Nikolay Mladenov:
https:/
The Special Envoy of the Quartet on the Middle East (made up of the USA, the EU, Russia and the UN), who succeeded Tony Blair, is Kito de Boer:
https:/
Jared Kushner holds the title of Senior Adviser to the US President. Donald Trump has given him responsibility for trying to broker a peace agreement between Isael and Palestine but his exact role remains unclear.
Er, not exactly!
The UN Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process (to give him his full title) is Nikolay Mladenov:
https:/
The Special Envoy of the Quartet on the Middle East (made up of the USA, the EU, Russia and the UN), who succeeded Tony Blair, is Kito de Boer:
https:/
Jared Kushner holds the title of Senior Adviser to the US President. Donald Trump has given him responsibility for trying to broker a peace agreement between Isael and Palestine but his exact role remains unclear.
The title, "Middle East Peace Envoy" was always a misnomer which right-wingers - ever since Tony Blair was appointed by the Quartet (See Buenchico at 0733) - have either simply failed to grasp or possibly deliberately pretended to misunderstand.
The post related specifically to relations between Israelis and Palestinians and consequently had nothing whatsoever to do with any other Middle East nation such as Saudi Arabia and Lebanon.
The post related specifically to relations between Israelis and Palestinians and consequently had nothing whatsoever to do with any other Middle East nation such as Saudi Arabia and Lebanon.
TTT, That's exactly what Mr Blair was appointed to do, despite the fact that no one had succeeded in doing so since biblical times! It shouldn't have come as a surprise to anyone really, in such circumstances, that he failed.
The point I am making here, however, is that when problems involving other Middle Eastern nations arose in the past decade or so...say Saudi, Yemen, Qatar, Egypt, Syria or whoever...AB's right-wingers invariably started gloating along the lines of, "What has Blair done about this?"
Of course, the answer was absurdly simple..."Nothing...because it was none of his business!"
The point I am making here, however, is that when problems involving other Middle Eastern nations arose in the past decade or so...say Saudi, Yemen, Qatar, Egypt, Syria or whoever...AB's right-wingers invariably started gloating along the lines of, "What has Blair done about this?"
Of course, the answer was absurdly simple..."Nothing...because it was none of his business!"
"Devotee" is putting it a bit too strongly, TTT.
What I'd really like is for people on Answerbank who share your political views to grasp - and even perhaps openly acknowledge - their error as regards what the phrase, 'Middle East Peace Envoy' actually MEANT!
Having said that, I'm sure I can confidently expect them to continue believing their obvious error.
Mr Blair, despite the title, had nothing to do with the wider Middle East beyond Israel/Palestine. That's a fact!
What I'd really like is for people on Answerbank who share your political views to grasp - and even perhaps openly acknowledge - their error as regards what the phrase, 'Middle East Peace Envoy' actually MEANT!
Having said that, I'm sure I can confidently expect them to continue believing their obvious error.
Mr Blair, despite the title, had nothing to do with the wider Middle East beyond Israel/Palestine. That's a fact!
And it's probably just as well. He "laboured" for eight years and achieved absolutely nothing, apart from no doubt increasing his bank balance considerably. Although the UN post was officially unpaid I understand the UAE chipped in a good few bob for exes for himself and his "office". Had his remit been wider no doubt the remuneration would have been correspondingly greater.
I know what his remit is (or rather, was) QM. I'm not disagreeing with your explanation.
I thought discussion was sometimes about hypotheses. Nobody knows by how much or little Mr Blair benefitted from his time in post as the "envoy". But I think it's fairly safe to say he did not give his time for nothing. I don't thInk there's any doubt that the UAE contributed to paying for him to undertake his role, though I didn't provide any evidence, hence "I understand". I'm sure you can do some research to see if my understanding is correct or not. My first "probably" [it's just as well his remit was not wider] of course really is a probable. His remit was not wider so nobody can say how it would have turned out if it was.
I thought discussion was sometimes about hypotheses. Nobody knows by how much or little Mr Blair benefitted from his time in post as the "envoy". But I think it's fairly safe to say he did not give his time for nothing. I don't thInk there's any doubt that the UAE contributed to paying for him to undertake his role, though I didn't provide any evidence, hence "I understand". I'm sure you can do some research to see if my understanding is correct or not. My first "probably" [it's just as well his remit was not wider] of course really is a probable. His remit was not wider so nobody can say how it would have turned out if it was.
NJ, you know as well as I do that right-wing newspapers regularly publish articles relating to Mr Bair's wealth, invariably designed to put him in a bad light. What they absolutely always include is a sentence which reads, "There is no suggestion that Mr Blair has done anything illegal" or words to that effect. Clearly, this is done solely to cover them from any legal comeback, given that the whole tenor of the articles suggest the exact opposite.
You yourself write, "Nobody knows by how much or little Mr Blair benefited from his time in post as the "envoy". Obviously, in your mind, there is no doubt but that he DID personally benefit. What evidence have you got of any such thing? Even a shred? He may have done, but I don't know that and neither do you.
If the investigative reporters of The Sun, Mail and Telegraph, with all their resources, have regularly and consistently failed to find a piece of financial mud that will stick, why do people like yourself persist in believing that it is there to be found?
Yes, he has taken payment from people these papers might "claim" to disapprove of, but why wouldn't he, if he performed the service which he contracted to povide?
Anyway, this site has many clearly right-wing contributors who - unlike yourself - are clueless about what Mr Blair was expected to do from his office in Jerusalem, but still continue to imagine they can use it against him!
You yourself write, "Nobody knows by how much or little Mr Blair benefited from his time in post as the "envoy". Obviously, in your mind, there is no doubt but that he DID personally benefit. What evidence have you got of any such thing? Even a shred? He may have done, but I don't know that and neither do you.
If the investigative reporters of The Sun, Mail and Telegraph, with all their resources, have regularly and consistently failed to find a piece of financial mud that will stick, why do people like yourself persist in believing that it is there to be found?
Yes, he has taken payment from people these papers might "claim" to disapprove of, but why wouldn't he, if he performed the service which he contracted to povide?
Anyway, this site has many clearly right-wing contributors who - unlike yourself - are clueless about what Mr Blair was expected to do from his office in Jerusalem, but still continue to imagine they can use it against him!
1 to 15 of 15
