Leading article: A legacy worth fighting for

There has been a valedictory tone to Tony Blair's speeches for some time now. Tonight's address to Rupert Murdoch's executives at Pebble Beach, near San Francisco, on the theme of "leadership" is more of a backward-looking farewell than ever. As Westminster packs its bags for other beaches around the world, thoughts turn more insistently to the question of when Mr Blair will pack his bags for good.

Meanwhile, ministerial discipline is breaking down. The Cabinet is in semi-open revolt over Mr Blair's Middle East policy. Jack Straw, the Leader of the House of Commons, still smarting from his demotion from Foreign Secretary, has furiously denounced Israel's attack on Lebanon and described it plainly as "disproportionate". That is the key word, the word avoided even by Kim Howells, the junior foreign minister who opened a split in the Government last weekend by accusing Israel of "going for the whole Lebanese nation".

Two ministers - David Miliband and Lord Grocott - are known to have aired their doubts at Cabinet. Other Cabinet members speak freely - "on condition of anonymity" as American journalists put it - of their dismay at what Mr Blair is doing to the reputation of his party and his country.

Mr Straw speaks for the majority of Mr Blair's party, and his country, when he says that he grieves for the Israeli civilians killed and - pointedly - for the "10 times as many" Lebanese civilians that have died. "One of the many serious concerns I have," says Mr Straw, making clear that this is not the only one, "is that the continuation of such tactics by the Israelis could further destabilise the already fragile Lebanese nation."

Contrast those words with the deadpan response of the Prime Minister's spokesman, when asked by The Independent on Sunday if Mr Blair thought that Israel had sought to avoid civilian casualties as demanded by the G8 communiqué: "We are not getting into the politics of condemnation."

As the end of Mr Blair's time approaches, it is surely worth wondering whether that approach should change. The Prime Minister seems to rather revel in an Americanised self-image as the lantern-jawed hero, unpopular but right, holding out against the mob mentality of the common folk. Of course, as Mr Blair and President Bush point out, television pictures of Lebanese civilian suffering cannot be the only determinant of the international response. This newspaper strongly supports the right of the state of Israel to defend its citizens against murderous and indiscriminate attack. Our dispute with the Israeli government is over whether this disproportionate response is the most effective way to ensure its citizens' long-term security. And our dispute with Mr Blair is over the wisdom and humanity of his uncritical posture when Lebanese children and babies are dying.

The question for Mr Blair is: what does he want to be remembered for? He is not Mr Bush's poodle. As we pointed out last week, the Mr Blair talking - he thought - privately to the US President at the G8 in St Petersburg displayed a sense of urgency about preventing the conflict from escalating that was totally absent in Mr Bush. We can only assume that there have been other differences of emphasis in private, over issues ranging from Guantanamo to the conduct of the occupation of Iraq, but Mr Blair has stuck rigidly throughout to his rule of not criticising the United States in public.

That is a misguided principle of statecraft. Of course, we should refrain from criticising our allies for the sake of it, but when the issue is important enough, self-respect and the national interest combine to require polite but public disagreement. In global alliances, as in personal relationships, people respect tactfully candid friends. The British-American relationship is not only about Mr Bush and Mr Blair. Both of them will, after all, be moving on soon. Mr Bush, in particular, is an aberration. A successor, of either party, is unlikely to be so arrogant about the deployment of US power. And if history judges him an aberration, how will it view the judgement of a British prime minister who forfeited the dignity of this nation by suppressing all doubts about him for a public show of unity?

What does Mr Blair want to be remembered for? He has a choice between sticking by the counter-productive policies of a right-wing US President to the bitter end, or trying to rescue a part of his own and his country's reputation in the dying months of his time in office.