| September | 05 |
| 2006 |
Melanie Phillips hits the nail on the head:
Yet that still doesn’t explain the exit frenzy gripping the party just over a year after Blair led it to a historic third election victory. Such a triumph has been vitiated by the real poison in British politics, the war in Iraq and Blair’s support for American foreign policy, President Bush and Israel. This is what’s really driving the comrades demented. It’s impossible to exaggerate the climate of virulent anti-Americanism and hatred of Israel which, extending way beyond the left into the centrist heartlands of Middle Britain, has so distorted British politics — and indeed, all but destroyed British rationality....The crucial question at this point in world history is whether the British government post-Blair will be as staunchly Atlanticist as he has been. The Tories have become alarmingly flaky in this regard, although a fight to resolve this within the party has yet to take place. Gordon Brown is known to have stars and stripes in his eyes, although ominously he has also let it be known that he would ditch support for certain aspects of US policy. For all his faults, Blair has displayed astounding courage and clear-mindedness in never wavering from his support for American foreign policy, despite the fury this has engendered among the voters and the consequent damage this has done to his whole political career. The key issue now in British politics is whether his successor — whoever it will be — will do the same.

MessageSpace
I think you are right to highlight this concern. If the following piece from Toryhome is correct, then it seems increasnigly likely that David Cameron is going to take the Tories down the "UN" road, explicitly repudiating any approach to tackling rogue regimes whihc is not endorsed through that institution
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/torydiary/2006/09/beijing_deserve.html (Beijing deserves no veto of British National Interest).
Interesting idea this. That the most important issue in British politics is whether or not our Prime Ministers slavishly follows the foreign policy of an American president whose popularity is falling by the day, and whose judgment is suspect to the point of laughable. Why, for example, is Rumsfeld still Secretary of State for Defence?
I don't know what Cameron would do different, and he certainly looks flaky, but Blair has turned a perfectly sound foreign policy into an indefensible position by his deceit, Tiggerish enthusiasm and careless lack of attention to detail.
None of this actually helps Israel one whit. Which is a shame.
Why go for Blair? I couldn't agree more, but - as an aside - for different reasons.
"None of this actually helps Israel one whit. Which is a shame."
Like you give a shit. When we Jews need lessons from British gentiles on how best to survive, you'll be the first to know.
Had it been up to Britain, the Jewish State would been have been eliminated decades ago.

