Earlier this week, Mitt Romney visited Israel, and in a speech praised the Israeli healthcare system for keeping down costs. This sounds like an utterly uncontroversial statement (Republican politician praising Israel), until one realizes that Israel has a single-payer, universal health care system.
Yet, oddly, there was very little mention of this in conservative spots. I checked The Weekly Standard, Hot Air, the Washington Times, even The Blaze, but none of them talked about Romney’s statement. Not even Fox News seemed to have an article about it. Instead, places like the Boston Globe, the Washington Post (in particular, Ezra Klein), Matt Yglesias at Slate, and Steven L. Taylor at Outside the Beltway were the ones who seemed to actually notice what Romney said.
Dr. Paul discusses further developments with the disbursement of the bailout funds and the resolution supporting Israel over Palestine.
Dr. Paul continues to try and educate his fellow Congressmen regarding Israel, Palestine, how Hamas came into being and why we should never have gotten involved in the first place.
I’d like to echo the comments of my fellow contributors here at United Liberty in a call for a non-interventionist foreign policy on the part of the United States when it comes to the situation in Gaza. This conflict is complicated and poses no real threat to our national security. The U.S. should discontinue its foreign aid to Israel as well as Egypt, Jordan and all other countries receiving the largesse of the American taxpayer.
Independent of any opinion regarding who is “right” and who is “wrong” in this conflict (I think there is plenty of blame to go around on both sides), I do have to stand up and give Israel a small moment of applause for standing up to the United Nations. Israel is a sovereign nation and has the right to make its own military decisions. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert recently reacted to the UN Security Council’s recent resolution on the situation in Gaza:
By now, everyone is aware that Hamas has attacked Israel, though it was Israel itself which broke the ceasefire. I no longer have a television but I know the story is plastered on every major news network because it is also plastered on every political blog and social networking site. There is an entire network of supporters on both sides of the conflict insisting that their side is blameless and that the concerns of the other side are unremarkable. Both sides are spewing enough hyperbole and anger to warrant concern about fistfights breaking out stateside.
The conflict between Israel and it’s “neighbors” in Gaza and the West Bank is a great big mess that apparently has just one solution - according to a large group of foreign policy geniuses in America and Israel: more fighting.
The recent Israeli military incursion into Gaza has been correctly termed an “invasion”, as put by Congressman Ron Paul. It shows the world, once again, that the policy of preemptive or “preventive” war carries the day with Israel and its policies towards its neighbors. In reality, this is an extension of the U.S. foreign policy of intervention into the internal affairs of other nations, having taken its latest form in the past five years as preemptive war with the U.S. occupation of Iraq. Many staunch (i.e., blind) supporters of the state of Israel somehow believe that the latest military strategy will somehow work in staving off the threats of rockets being fired by members and supporters of Hamas.
Conflict in the Middle East has been part of mankind’s history for many millenia now, and it’s hard to imagine that peace will ever prevail in this tumultuous part of the world. The land occupied by the modern states of Israel and Palestine is arguably the most fought over piece of real estate on earth, with many groups claiming historical and religious precedence to its soil.
The current conflict between Israel’s government and Palestine’s Hamas has sparked the usual war of words between the spin-doctors of the warring countries, with political pundits across the globe chiming in with their take on the matter. Each group has a convincing argument, and most citizens of the world are decidedly on one side or the other.
While most American’s may wonder which side to take, advice from Founding Father Thomas Jefferson begs the question “Should we take any side at all?”
Americans may be growing tired of biannual belligerent escalations in the Middle East, or more Generation X and younger commentators are getting jobs in media and thus publishing views more complex and nuanced than the blind support of Israel that characterized the Baby Boomers. Whatever the case, we now live in a political climate where Wall Street Journal’s op-ed page, a friendly place for neoconservatism, includes articles such as this one by the Palestinian American professor George Bisharat:
Russia Today’s Dina Gusovsky conducted an excellent interview of Congressman Ron Paul on Saturday, January 10. The wide-ranging interview focused most specifically on foreign policy, especially as it pertains to the current situation in Gaza. This interview provides an excellent introduction to Dr. Paul’s ideas of non-intervention to those who may be unfamiliar with his views. Ms. Gusovsky, who has obviously taken the time to familiarize herself with Dr. Paul’s views, chooses excellent questions and allows him to speak at length without interruption. Television journalists of the more familiar news programs would do well to follow her example. This video is an excellent follow-up to Dr. Paul’s previous video statement on the Gaza conflict.
Editors Note: If you have also read Dr. Kennedy’s and Michael Powell’s recent articles on this topic, you’ll find that the opinions and beliefs of United Liberty writers can be quite varied. We see that as one of our strengths on this blog and appreciate the spiritual, political and cultural differences that allow us to see things from a different perspective. What’s interesting to note however, is that despite the different viewpoints represented in these articles regarding the roots and causes of the conflict, one thing that is agreed upon is that the proper course for America is the re-adoption of a non-interventionist foreign policy. And as always, comments are welcome.