Useful Idiots Condemn Israel

Just a minute. The useful idiots happen to be the rest of the world who at the moment or as the Americans say, at this time all loath Israel. Israel wonderful Israel you are the biggest lie of modern time. The world is gradually discovering the truth about how you have always lied about your creation etc.

Mein Fuhrer,

"Juden vonderful Juden!!. You are Das Grossest lie of modern time. Die Welt is gradually discovering the truth about how you have always lied about your creation etc."

I vant to exterminate you. Ja, ich vill gass you.

If your looking for idiots, look no further than those controlling the agenda in Israel, who have consistently over the decades since 1967, worked tirelessly to alienate Israel’s allies and build up its enemies. Who are the idiots who turned a harmless Amal shia militia in 1982, into a scary Hezbollah today? Who are the idiots who turned a secular and rather ineffectual PLO into a much more formidable Hamas today? Who are the idiots who have undermined Israel’s friends in Europe and the US, and made it almost impossible – except for the most blinkered serial apologists – to defend the atrocities committed by the Israeli state? Who are the idiots who through their actions in covertly building up the Nuclear arsenal, have made it much more difficult to oppose Iranian ambitions in the same area? Who are the idiots who have undermined the moderate Arab regimes, and brought forward the possibility of a much more aggressive environment around Israel? – think of a fundamentalist Egypt as a real possibility over the next decade. One could almost imagine that there was some malign secret society of the powerful in Israel to bring about its own destruction. That’s real idiocy, and not very useful.

The reality is that for individuals like Steve Abbott, there is nothing that Israel could have done that would have met with their approval. Even when they don't believe that Israel was a terrible mistake, that she was born in original sin, they object to any method the Jewish state might adopt to defend herself. As Mark Steyn once put it: "In effect, Israel has become the geopolitical version of the European Jew who’s allowed to operate a store in the town but not to exercise full ownership rights: in the old days, Jews faced property restrictions; now they face sovereignty restrictions."

And do not be fooled for a moment about his lament about Israel's destruction. Such people salivate at the notion that the Jewish state and only the Jewish state of all the nations in the world might be destroyed. That he would also blame Jews for that should not be wondered at for haven't such people always blamed us for the disasters that have befallen us, for anti-Semitism and even the Holocaust. Such people never change. It's the very reason in fact why Israel is so very important to the Jewish people.

But the notion that the citizens of Britain have any right to judge Israel given their nation's shameful history is risible. Let's just look at a few things Perfidious Albion has been responsible for over the last seventy or so years:

-- She collaborated in the Holocaust. Indeed, had Churchill been in the SS and Britain had fought under the Swastika, she could not have done less to help save the Jews of Europe.

-- She murdered as many as one hundred thousand Germans at Dresden.

-- She collaborated with the U.S. in the genocides that were carried out at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

-- She behaved in a manner towards Holocaust survivors in post-war Palestine that would have done credit to troops under the command of Himmler.

-- She did everything she could to prevent the birth of the Jewish state, even openly siding with and arming the Arab nations who were intent on driving all Jews into the sea.

-- She put down legitimate uprisings in Malaya and Kenya with a bloody brutality that even at this remove are considered utterly shocking by decent people.

-- In 1973, when Israel stood on the verge of destruction, and the U.S. was rushing emergency supplies to Israel, she refused that nation the right to overfly her territory.

-- She murdered over three hundred sailors on the General Belgrano during the Malvinas conflict.

-- She has continued her brutal occupation of Ireland.

-- She is directly responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians in Serbia, Iraq and Afghanistan. Britain travels halfway around the world to kill people who have never once harmed her, but Israel is not allowed to defend herself right on her own doorstep.

Compared to Britain at her best, Israel at her worst is a bl**dy angel.

@Joshua18

"the notion that the citizens of Britain have any right to judge Israel given their nation's shameful history is risible."

this statement implies:

that all the citizens of any country which has 'shameful' features of its past have no right to criticise the actions of other countries. 'shameful' here is defined broadly, but generally seems to mean a country acting brutally, with little or no provocation. for example - 'Britain travels halfway around the world to kill people who have never once harmed her'.

by this definition of 'shameful', then, the Vietnam and Korean wars can be seen as 'shameful' indeed.

so, following the statement, neither Tom Hanks nor Michael Johnson, Obama nor members of The Strokes, can say anything about, say, Stalinist atrocities or the Mugabe regime.

to do so would be hideously hypocritical, given that half a century ago the government of their country enacted 'shameful' misadventures.

it also means that I, an 18 year old Briton who wasn't born during any of the 'shameful' acts mentioned in your bullet-point list, have no right to criticise the actions of any other countries. say, to take an obviously ridiculous but logically viable example, Denmark launches an unprovoked, merciless assault on Finland. due to the fact that before I was born, the leaders of the country I was born in made some 'shameful' decisions, i have utterly no right to criticise.

presumably, to follow the statement to its logical conclusion, the fact that the Roman Empire did some pretty brutal things means that Francesco Totti would be bang out of order to criticise anything Saddam Hussein ever did.

the statement under the spotlight here is just one of many ludicrous aspects of Joshua18's comment, as i'm sure any intelligent reader will have noticed. by focussing on this statement i'm not, by any means, suggesting it is the most ridiculous part of his comment. there are many contenders for that prize.

"by this definition of 'shameful', then, the Vietnam and Korean wars can be seen as 'shameful' indeed."

Even though you analogy is naïve and simplistic, I would say far, far worse than shameful, especially as regards Vietnam.

"so, following the statement, neither Tom Hanks nor Michael Johnson, Obama nor members of The Strokes, can say anything about, say, Stalinist atrocities or the Mugabe regime."

To compare Israel with those two regimes displays just how morally bankrupt you are.

"to do so would be hideously hypocritical, given that half a century ago the government of their country enacted 'shameful' misadventures."

I was pointing out that such wickedness is part of a pattern of behaviour, deep-rooted in your culture, that stretches back very many years (I, of course, could have gone back further, but it was merely the principle I was getting at). And given you are not suffering from some form of dementia, I can take it you remember Iraq and Afghanistan? Perhaps your mum even told you about how brave British pilots killed civilians in Serbia? Oh, what fun they had, and what a fuss your jingoistic newspapers made of "our brave British boys".

"Denmark launches an unprovoked, merciless assault on Finland. due to the fact that before I was born, the leaders of the country I was born in made some 'shameful' decisions, i have utterly no right to criticise"

Once again you betray your blind bigotry and moral bankruptcy.

"presumably, to follow the statement to its logical conclusion, the fact that the Roman Empire did some pretty brutal things means that Francesco Totti would be bang out of order to criticise anything Saddam Hussein ever did."

Oh, dear. What you really mean is "illogical conclusion". Both Rome and her inhabitants are long dead and buried; Britain's brutality continues to the present day.

All the way through your juvenile diatribe you suggest that Israel is being "criticised". She is not. Let me explain further about this and other matters.

1) Whilst Britain continues to engage in foreign adventures and kill, seemingly at will and without any kind of serious rebuke, innocent civilians in places she does not belong, it is deeply hypocritical of her citizens to attack Israel merely for defending herself. Given her shocking conduct in the past, we can just imagine how Bloody Britain would respond to even a small fraction of the assaults that Israel has had to endure. In other words, get your own despicable house in order first.

2) What you term "criticism" of Israel is anything but. In fact, it is for the most part deligitimisation born of a desire to destroy the Jewish state. Of all the nations in the world only Israel comes in for these kind of frenzied attacks, for this level of vituperation and outright hatred. Only about Israel is "destruction" contemplated. And we all know the reason for that. Absolutely nothing has changed in Perfidious Albion since she collaborated in the Holocaust and acted in a manner in post-war Palestine that would have done credit to the SS.

It would also be rather nice if posters would attempt to deal with the substance of the original article instead of taking us into areas totally irrelevant to the matters at hand. Many thanks.

although i agree that we've strayed somewhat off the topic, i feel i have right of reply.

----"by this definition of 'shameful', then, the Vietnam and Korean wars can be seen as 'shameful' indeed."
Even though you analogy is naïve and simplistic, I would say far, far worse than shameful, especially as regards Vietnam.
"so, following the statement, neither Tom Hanks nor Michael Johnson, Obama nor members of The Strokes, can say anything about, say, Stalinist atrocities or the Mugabe regime."
To compare Israel with those two regimes displays just how morally bankrupt you are.-----

you miss the point entirely. i'm not comparing israel with anything. the whole comment is a criticism of the statement i quoted at the top - "the notion that the citizens of Britain have any right to judge Israel given their nation's shameful history is risible."

the logic of the statement is that, because britain has a history of brutality (which, clearly, i'm not denying), no-one from britain can criticise other countries for their brutality.

i was then following the logic of that general statement, in general terms, which leads to the conclusion that Tom Hanks couldn't say anything about the Mugabe regime. i'm not comparing Mugabe with the regime in Israel, i'm merely stating that, if the logic of the statement is followed, because America has done some brutal things, Tom Hanks has no right to criticise other country's actions.

"I was pointing out that such wickedness is part of a pattern of behaviour, deep-rooted in your culture, that stretches back very many years (I, of course, could have gone back further, but it was merely the principle I was getting at). And given you are not suffering from some form of dementia, I can take it you remember Iraq and Afghanistan? Perhaps your mum even told you about how brave British pilots killed civilians in Serbia? Oh, what fun they had, and what a fuss your jingoistic newspapers made of "our brave British boys"."

did i anywhere deny that britain has done some horrible things, committed some sickening atrocities?

i pointed out myself that the Denmark example was ridiculous, but was apt for addressing the logic of the statement, which was that nobody from a country with a 'shameful' past can criticise other countries' actions.

anyway, all of this is beside the point:

- the main point is: the idea that I, or anyone in America or anywhere else that's done some shameful things, have no right to criticise Israel or anyone else who seem to act questionably is utterly ridiculous. to start, it clearly goes against basic ideas of free speech, that all have the right to criticise all.

your statement also implies that everyone in Britain is somehow responsible for Iraq and Afghanistan, despite the fact that:
a) it was an executive decision made by government without us having any say
b) you'll say 'oh but you voted for Tony Blair'. firstly, millions didn't vote for him, and those who did clearly didn't expect him to launch a foreign invasion.
c) thousands, such as myself, went out onto the streets protesting against it, doing all we could to stop it happening.

by your statement, because the temporary occupants of state positions in my country decide to do bad things, i therefore have no right to criticise other country's behaviour.

the fact of the matter is that everybody, all people, should critically-rationally reflect on the actions of their own governments, and those of other governments, and do all they can to prevent shameful acts.

if we are to achieve anything like 'democracy', people need to criticise the actions of those with power, regardless of where they are from.

people from britain have every right to criticise actions of other country's governments if they see them as reprehensible, people from israel have every right to criticise the actions of other country's governments, people from america have every right to criticise the actions of other country's governments.

people should do everything to stop their own governments, and those of other countries commiting shameful acts.

Sorry Joshua18, there is something very simple and uncomplicated Israel could have done that would have met (for what its worth) with my full approval. Let the ships dock and discharge the aid cargo. Oh, and then lift the blockade. I do not object to Israel defending itself, but since 1973, she really has not had to do any such thing. All the wars and lesser conflicts since then have been Israel either invading the surrounding states, or bombing them, and/or attacking the Palestinians in areas controlled by the Jewish state. In point of fact, Israel proper has not been invaded since the 1940’s – though it has of course done plenty of invading itself.

And joshua18, you have not told me who the idiots are in Israel who have so grievously damaged the interests of the Jewish state over the last decades, and as we have just seen off Gaza, continue to cause terrible damage still?

And for yours and any other blinkered ‘Israel right whatever it does’ fans out there, I do not wish the destruction of Israel. I believe there is much to admire in Israel, but sadly it has lost its way terribly. I would like Israel to be renewed – peace with its neighbours, justice and statehood for the Palestinians, an economic and cultural renaissance for all Israelis and their neighbours. It is still just possible, but only if it’s international backers talk some sense into it.

It’s a strange notion that one cannot criticise Israel if one’s own country has done terrible things also. I note your list joshua18, and yes I can’t disagree that much of what you say is true – but why does that disqualify me from expressing a view on the actions of another state doing terrible things? On a practical level if nothing else, it is perfectly appropriate for citizens of the UK to judge Israeli actions, because what you do, and our government’s collusion with it affects us all.

And I tell you what wins the prize for risible – the idea that somehow Israel labours under restrictions of sovereignty. What planet are we discussing here? Israel can, and does, do exactly what it wants. It even exercises full sovereignty over the US in matters of the Middle East – how does that work by the way?