So quick to pass moral judgements on others but blind to themselves. They criticize the US for changing a policy about recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, while they are negotiating removal from the EU. They change the policy of Europe in actual substantial form, while the US changes a mere form: much of the city called Jerusalem is within the 1967 borders of Israel and that is what the US has recognized. Now of course the Arabs don’t want to recognize Israel at all, so they conflate ‘Jerusalem’ with the Old City and they, of course, threaten violence if they don’t get their way (because they are the people incapable of sharing), but that has nothing to do with what the US recognized, which is the label of Jerusalem inside Israel. So what gives Britain the right to criticize the US over a change in policy that was a sham? If you go to visit the Israeli government, as Britain does, you go to Jerusalem. If you give a speech in Israel, it is in Jerusalem. That’s different from the actual, substantial withdrawal from the European Union, meaning the British (typical) pass judgement on others while being unable to look in the mirror to see themselves. That is what they are. That is what they always have been.
I tend to harp on this because Americans don’t grasp the essence of actual ‘American exceptionalism’. It isn’t ‘we’re the greatest’ but that our Founders decided after much discussion and argument that it was important for the American people to be responsible for our own moral destiny. That is what Lincoln referred to at Gettysburg: government of the people, by the people and for the people. That is what he meant about fighting a war to see if that form of government could survive. Britain, by contrast, gave its moral sovereignty to the Crown and through the Crown to Parliament. It is no accident the British were ruthless imperialists, ruthless slavers, ruthless exploiters of the Chinese drug trade, ruthless occupiers of Ireland: they as individuals are ‘moral’ if they follow the ‘moral’ directives of the Crown, when they do their duty as Englishmen or whatever as the Crown morally imbues them with the obligation and power to do. By contrast, when the US took over the Philippines, that was only because Germany would have taken it if we hadn’t and we gave it up after some years of unhappy rule because we as a people are uncomfortable morally with imperialism. We decide our moral destiny. People – especially the British of course – like to refer to the American Empire but it’s not one of occupation at all or of ‘Empire’ in the colonial sense of Britain. It’s influence and trying to do the right moral thing. We put troops in W. Europe, almost entirely at our expense, because we didn’t want Europe overrun by the USSR. That was in our interests but it was also rather obviously about spending the money because we were morally invested in freedom.