I disagree. I don't see it as an either/or zero-sum situation... either we deal with serious injustices like Palestine; or else we hold criminals to account, but we can't do both.
We can (and should) do both.
So long as western leaders can act with impunity in ways that see non-western leaders facing charges at The Hague, then the underlying causes of the world's great injustices will never be addressed, whether that be Palestine or anywhere else.
One of the two great (and I'd argue, fatal) flaws in modern democracy is the complete failure of the system to hold individuals and governments properly to account for the things they do in power. If they can act without real consequence* then we are guaranteed more situations like Palestine, or Iraq, or Syria.
So I agree that the likes of Bush and Blair will never be punished by the systems they helped shape and define. I understand the despair and the resigned pessimism. But I don't agree with your assertion that Blair "is not important anymore".
People like Blair (or Thatcher, for instance) retain their importance - in my view - because they become powerful symbols. And it matters hugely how we treat such symbols. The very fact that Blair is still taken seriously by the western establishment sends a pointed and unambiguous message to the rest of the world. If that were to change, it would arguably be more important than any single policy change or Palestinian initiative. IMO.
* getting voted out after half a decade with a massive pension and a half-dozen "executive directorships" doesn't really count as a negative consequence in my view.
|
