More like this
Tony Blair's reward for following the 'right' foreign policy
Toe the line with the US and Israel and that pension fund will keep growing
So, Tony Blair has been awarded a $1m prize for "his exceptional leadership and steadfast determination in helping to engineer agreements and forge lasting solutions to areas in conflict".
Some will argue that Blair should be on trial for war crimes, not receiving prizes. Others will say that the award, made by the Dan David Foundation of Tel Aviv, is a huge own goal for Israel because it sinks the country's international standing even lower after its actions in Gaza.
But they are missing the point.
The award - along with many of the other riches which have come Blair's way since he left Downing Street - is the payback for doing 'the right thing' by way of the US and Israel while he was in office.
Follow the ‘right’ foreign policy and look forward to a comfortable retirement
The £2m-plus annual fee from JP Morgan Chase... the $250,000 for a 45-minute speech on the US lecture circuit... the all-expenses paid jaunts to Jerusalem as the Quartet's (ineffectual) Middle East envoy... it all serves as a reminder to members of the western political elite of the enormous financial rewards that will come their way if they toe the line.
It makes no difference that the $1m from Dan David will go to the former Prime Minister's 'Faith Foundation'; it is still heading for the overall Blair kitty.
Over the past six years, there has been much debate as to why Blair led Britain into a disastrous and illegal war with Iraq. Some say it was due to a passionate belief in spreading democracy. Others maintain that he genuinely believed that Iraq possessed WMD. But the simple, unavoidable truth is that Anthony Charles Lynton Blair is now a far richer man than he would have been had he followed the example of French President Jacques Chirac and opposed the war.
For Chirac there have been no offers from JP Morgan Chase, no US lecture tours and absolutely no prospect of a Dan David leadership prize. John Howard, the former Australian Prime Minister who, like Blair, supported the Iraq war, has fared rather better: he too has been booked to impart his 'wisdom' on the US lecture circuit.
We know that money has always been a major motivator for the Blairs, as it is for most politicians everywhere. The number of genuinely principled politicians - the Tony Benns and Enoch Powells of this world, who are prepared to put their beliefs before their careers and long-term financial security - is very small indeed. And Washington and Tel Aviv know this.
The message from both the US and Israel to Britain's political elite could not be clearer: if you continue to follow the 'right' foreign policy and take your country into wars which we desire - such as Iraq - you can look forward to a very comfortable retirement.
Today it's Blair who’s reaping the financial benefits for his Atlanticism and his pro-Zionism; tomorrow it will be David Cameron, who also supported the Iraq war and who stayed silent as Israel bombarded Gaza.
After the disaster in Iraq, many Britons would love to see a reorientation of our country's foreign policy. But they are likely to be disappointed until other countries can offer our opportunistic and unprincipled leaders the lucrative pension plans that the US and Israel can afford. ·
Comments are now closed on this article
Comments
I'm sorry to be late on this, but I've only just seen the discussion and wish to correct Rob P on an important point. While he makes some valid observations about Neil Clark's article, I take strong exception to his remark that I "have it in" for Mr Clark and therefore am not a good source. Regardless of views on Mr Clark, no one - least of all Mr Clark himself - disputes that I've written accurately about him. Mr Clark has objected to my pointing out that he has used a wholly disreputable source - specifically a right-wing Srebrenica-denial site - for his information and then misrepresented that source to his editor. But his objection is NOT that my comment is inaccurate, only (correctly) that it is damaging to him that this should become known.
I came here from his blog too, and I know that Oliver Kamm has it in for the author of this piece, they have history, so he's probably not a good source. It is correct to say when he says it is not awarded by the state of Israel, although it is based in Israel. Then when you see, as pointed out, that the prize has also gone to outspoken anti-war Al Gore, outspoken anti-war Tom Stoppard, the Israeli 'dove' writer Amos Oz, a well known Muslim author, Yo Ma, climate change and future energy scientists, and that 10% of the money goes to research students, (and I think all of Blair's prize is going to charity?) I think the politics of Neil Clark's piece, with regard to this particular prize being some sort of right-wing award, is a bit tenuous. Blair only got the award because of his role as this new Mid East mentor. Probably useless and a big waste of money but that's why he got it. As you can see from the other winners.
Is it awarded by Israel, as in, by the government? I was right then.
The Dan David Prize is endowed by the Dan David Foundation and headquartered at Tel Aviv University.
Dan David is a Romanian born Israeli billionaire, who, his biography states, joined a Zionist youth movement at the age of 16. A Haaretz article says: Living his life between Tel Aviv, Rome and London, he insists that he's Israeli and conducted the entire interview in Hebrew.
The first founding Director of the Dan David Prize was Professor Gad Barzilai, a former professor at Tel Aviv University and co-founder and Co-Chair of the Israeli Association of Law and Society.
The board's current chairman is Prof Zvi Galil, President of Tel Aviv University- other board members include Professor Itimar Rabinovitch, a former Israeli Ambassador to the US, and Professor Joshua Jornter, also of Tel Aviv University.
(incidentally also on the board there's also that wonderful man Henry Kissinger and
a former senior partner of Goldman Sachs).
The award will be presented to Mr Blair at Tel Aviv University in May.
So you're right Mojo McClaine- the Dan David awards are nothing to do with Israel at all.
As pointed out by Oliver Kamm for The Times, this award is not awarded by Israel, or the US. Some people who do help award it, are the French. Like French like Jacques Chirac. Nice try Einstein.
And to top it off, the previous winner to 'toe the line' was.... Al Gore. Doesn't quite fit the bill. This was the first article I've seen from 'the first post', and I won't be coming back if this is the normal level of journalism.
Isn't it all amazing. This clown doesn't mention the rockets fired indiscriminately by Hezbollah and their weaker cousin Hamas. I suppose that, to these people, any dead Israeli, no matter the age or sex, is better than a live Israeli. As for the looney left's fondness for Obama, we are still hoping that he fulfils all our dreams of being the best thing for the US since sliced bread. It's funny that he doesn't seem to have the slightest hesitation in welcoming Howard, Blair et al with open arms in the US, and they are drawing huge crowds.
We seem to have a preponderance of funny men on this website, and no serious writers who examine facts before they spout off.
Two highly respected Jewish authors - John J. Mearsheimer & Stephen M. Walt, have pretty much confirmed what Neil Clark is saying. Their book : The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, goes into great depth and detail on how the Iraq war, was really Israel's war & how the Jewish Lobby executed a tremendous campaign in both the media and the corridors of power. Please note, both authors are passionate supporters of Israel, & correctly argue that in a free and healthy democracy, a lobby such as the Jewish Lobby, that has huge sway over US Foreign Policy and Aid Expenditure, which for Israel totals several hundred billion (more than what is given to the entire North and SubSaharan Africa), should be open to the same democratic scrutiny and free debate, as any other lobby would be. This sadly is not the case, and so John J. Mearsheimer & Stephen M. Walt, like other Jewish intellectuals, are arguing that this will damage both US & Israeli long term interests. Finally the controlled media has been utterly complicit in this pre-planned international thuggery, from which Blair has now got his little cut.
Tut, tut Irene, what a hysterical outburst! You are clearly seeing things diferently from the rest of us. I have a problem with anyone who genuinely believes that the Iraq war was not an unmitigated disaster, and that Blair participated for altruistic reasons. Such naivety is rare in today's informed world, please do not blame the First Post for publishing the popular view.
A brilliant piece by Neil Clark. I can think of nothing which causes me more angst than seeing Tony Blair going around the world sanctimoniously preaching to all daft enough to listen. I think that he is the most discredited ex head of state around (yes including GWB, because we expected better of him) He is also a very bad example to third world leaders, especially those in Africa, some of whom ape Britain and things British at every turn.
Bullocks. The Iraq War, while not clean or dainty or safe, was also not illegal or disastrous. Has Mr. Clark bothered to pay any attention to the last two years, or recently to the regional elections, which went off in Iraq without glitch?
All this sour grapes bullshit from our British press, I'm so utterly sick of it. It's engaged, biased crap and the journalists who promulgate it ought to be sacked. Blair sided with the U.S. because of his belief in liberal intervensionism; he sides with Israel because he recognizes that they are a beleaguered democratic state within a practical war zone, with enemies who would see them expunged from the map. To ignore all this and tow the typical pro-Palestinian, anti-American line is just irresponsible, and nauseating frankly.
Why can't First Post get some balance on this issue??
At last! I have been saying this, for several years now, to anyone who was prepared to listen, ever since he gave the game away - remember those multi million pound mortgages, even with his wife's salary they needed the income from bush and co. Our servicemen and women were dying for the Blair's mortgages. US service personnel were dying for Halliburton et al. Bill, ex-serviceman.
Yes very good article and oh so true.Blair should be tried as a war criminal along with Bush.He does not show his face in England these days.I often wondered what could be Blair`s motivation for being totally supportive in the Iraq war and I must admit I did not realise that monetary reward could be the reason.Israel and The Bush Govt were obviously in league with Blair over this and refused to listen to any and all opposition.
Now both of these flawed leaders have left the stage please let us be lead by more enlightened people.
Fine article. It was said at the time of the start of the invasion of Iraq that one of the outcomes of the U.S./U.K. invasion would be the "rebuilding of Iraq's infrastructure" - to the advantage of British based companies. So of course, along with all the other lies that Blair & Co. peddled, the majority of MPs and the media in general kept quiet. But what has happened in reality ? The U.S. company giants guided by one Donald Rumsfeld have embezzled billions of American dollars in their greed. And the British companies, promised all that Government money : left out in the cold. Let's tell it as it is - Blair did what he did for personal gain, & not the good of our country. He sold us all a lie, but by siding with the Jewish lobby he has come out of all not only wealthy but an "honoured international statesman". The whole affair makes me sick to the teeth.
A pretty poorly written polemic, I expect better from First Post articles. I'm not sure how a donation to charity can be interpreted by any reasonable person as "payback" or a donation to a "pension fund". It seems bitterness and a very partisan view of the Middle East has inspired this piece of writing.
Well done Neil Clark, an excellent article! At long last it has been pointed out that the reason so many politicians follow certain policies for their own personal benefit and to the detriment of the best interests of the people they were elected to represent!
Let's have more of the same please!