But since this is a fundamentally unjust world, he’ll get one million dollars for his
“global leadership”:
Tony Blair has won a prestigious million-dollar (£697,000) prize for his leadership on the world stage, it was announced today.
The former prime minister, now a Middle East peace envoy, will receive the Dan David prize for “his exceptional leadership and steadfast determination in helping to engineer agreements and forge lasting solutions to areas in conflict”.
The award is presented by the Dan David Foundation, based at Tel Aviv University, and a spokesman for Blair said the money would be donated to the former Labour leader’s charity for religious understanding, the Tony Blair Faith Foundation.
It sounds absurd to give Blair this prize — and you’ll notice the word “Iraq” doesn’t occur in the announcement — until you realise who‘s giving this award. Dan David is an avowed zionist and his foundation is located at Tel Aviv University; zionist usually have little problems with mountains of corpses, if they’re Arab corpses. Furthermore, Blair was very helpful to Israel not just with Iraq, but also with the War on Lebanon, helping delay the ceasefire to give the IDF more time to kill civilians.
It would of course be impolite to mention Blair gets this money for helping get rid of an enemy of Israel or perpetuating mass murder, hence the blather about “asking the important questions” and “morally courageous leadership”. Note that the Israelis aren’t the only ones to thank Blair for delivered services; he’s made a very nice living hovering up nice cushy jobs after he left office. That’s why he went along with Bush all these years. Never mind whether or not he genuinely believed in the War on Terror in the end he did it all for the old do-re-mi, his staunch Christianity no barrier for starting an immoral war that killed some million Iraqis now.
He’s not the only Christian crusader. Our own prime minister, the great moral scold and Harry Potter (grown up to be an accountant) lookalike Jan Peter Balkenende, fought tooth and nail to keep an inquiry into the War on Iraq from happening. Yet he would call himself a moral man, an examplar to the nation, always happy to disapprove of binge drinking teenagers or something, but who so far has not shown any recognition of the sheer monstrosity of what happened, what is still happening in Iraq and Afghanistan. None of the great and the good have, whether they were pro or anti-war back in 2003. It was just another policy choice for them, not a moral question and it could’ve gone either way if the incentives were right.