When I wrote about the exploding Palestinian-versus-Palestinian crisis last week, I hardly expected numerous messages about my “suggested peace plan.”

Actually, I referenced more of an idea to break the logjam – a regional peace conference on the order of the Madrid summit of 1991 – than a plan.

One recent development that dovetails nicely with that concept is outgoing British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s appointment Wednesday as an international Middle East envoy. The region certainly could use a person with Blair’s stature, expertise in difficult peacemaking ventures, persistence, communication skills and intellect.

Thus, I would side with those who argue that as impossible as this proposed mission might appear, it is surely one that Blair – or someone with similar credentials – should take on. I understand that the assignment would be difficult for Blair, given his staunch support of the war in Iraq and other policies that many in the region deplore.

At the same time, I reject the criticism of naysayers who insist that the region has no need for Blair, that he consistently has lacked influence or independence vis-a-vis the White House. Persuade him to shoulder this important task, and he will deliver a memorable performance.

In fact, due to the dire state of events, I would advocate not a single envoy but an “A-Team” of at least four prominent leaders without political posts, reflecting the quartet of the United States, the European Union, the United Nations and Russia. The Blair role could serve as the European Union’s contribution, with the others making their own choices. Collective responsibility should not be limited to resolving the Palestinian question but should include all major Middle East issues that defy peace. Furthermore, each country of the region should designate a high-level liaison to work closely with the “A-Team.”

What should the timing be for such a team, as well as for a regional peace conference?

Some urge waiting to select an envoy may, questioning how effective anyone would be as long as the Bush administration holds office. Ditto for a regional peace conference. Better to wait until after U.S. elections next year, they advise.

Rubbish. Anytime is good to aim for negotiating peace, even in the midst of a crisis. I would act without hesitation. The “A-Team” should be up and running before the end of summer, as should the planning for a return to Madrid, with the United States and Russia acting as co-conveners. Given the right players, both initiatives stand to have a significant effect. For historical continuity and sheer impact, President George W. Bush would need to involve his father and former President Bill Clinton in a regional summit. Russian President Vladimir Putin, for his part, would do well to bring in former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev.

No country of the region should be excluded, nor should any issue, including conflicts, terrorism, ideology, territorial disputes, self-determination for Palestinians, the recognition and legitimacy of Israel, economic development, arms control and access to resources.

Now, this is not a new concept for me. I have advocated a return to Madrid for some time. Without a superhuman effort, the likelihood of such a conference this year is minimal. Opportunity abounds, though, to organize a meeting for the spring of 2008.

In the meantime, why not establish the “A-Team” as soon as possible and use it to build momentum for a regional conference? Without urgent, extraordinary and creative diplomatic intervention, the Middle East will continue its tumultuous downward spiral.