As many others across this nation I have been watching the presidential debates and keeping track of the candidates' movements, statements and anything that will give me further insight as to what they believe, where they stand with regard to economy, foreign policy, domestic policy and social issues. Interesting to see the proverbial mud-wrestling that takes place at this stage in the election cycle. Most recently we have been exposed to varying forms of individual candidates' policies that will affect our country.
Rick Perry, for example, spoke of 7 Constitutional Amendments he would abolish upon being elected president, the most concerning of which would be the plan to give Congress the power to over-rule Supreme Court decisions. Additionally, he gave the names of 3 federal agencies he would do away with: the Department of Commerce, the Department of Education and the Department of Energy, although the name of one of those agencies seemed to escape his memory each time he recited the list.
And who could forget Herman Cain's "9-9-9" plan for economic reparation? It was a plan that would, on top of the current state taxes, introduce a federal sales tax in the amount of 9% while decreasing our federal income tax to 9% for all tax payers. The idea of increasing our sales tax by so much has many scratching their heads. What would such a daring move do to the retail industry? If 50% of Americans are struggling to pay their bills, what will a major increase such as this do to their ability to buy clothes, household items, food? Although his plan was strategically developed with a teller at a Wells Fargo bank, it was an idea that not one respected economist was willing to embrace. Hmmm.
Michele Backmann has proposed taxing every person in the United States, even the poor, because everyone should feel like they have contributed something to our economy even if they don't have the ability to contribute food to their dinner table.
And then there's Newt Gingrich. Recently he made a very inflammatory comment about the Palestinians being an "invented people" drawing sharp criticism by the Palestinian government and the Arab League of Nations. At the moment his comment went viral over the internet you could almost hear a collective holding of breath across face of the world. I have no doubt most people said to themselves, or the person sitting next to them, "did he really mean to say that?" After all the things that had been said throughout the recent debates and in interviews, there have been quite a few incendiary statements made by these republican candidates that have caused large numbers to be taken aback at the insensitivity of the orator, or of the audience reaction. But this one was especially concerning in that it wasn't an idea that affected only the people within our borders. It was an international incident. In fact, you may even call it a hyperventilation-inducing moment.
Many wondered if Gingrich would retract his comments in an after-thought of temporary sanity. So when the topic came up during the debate on Saturday I waited with bated breath to see what he would say. Not only did he back away from what he said but he repeated it again to a round of applause from debate observers. He stated that he's merely telling the truth and then began to recite some textbook jargon, purportedly in every Palestinian school textbook, matter-of-factly discussing math facts that include adding and subtracting the body count of dead Israelis. But it didn't end there. He ended his confirmation by calling all Palestinians terrorists. It was certainly shocking to witness.
Although it wouldn't be hard to believe that Mr. Gingrich had probably made up such ghastly math problems he stated so surely were contained in Palestinian textbooks, it is a well-known fact that Palestine is an enemy of Israel. It is painfully obvious, as well, that many Israelis have been killed by Palestinian mortars and that such mortars are launched regularly into Israel from Palestine. And that, from time to time, the Israelis have felt it necessary to answer such shelling with return fire.
What isn't so clear, however, is whether or not ANY elected official of this country, let alone candidate, has enough information to make such generalized and negatively engaging statements that will do nothing to help the people of Israel. It is also unclear whether a lack of diplomacy will assist or hinder the peace process in the Middle East or if it will instead create an unquenchable inferno.
I agreed with Mitt Romney and Ron Paul when they stated that the affairs between the two warring nations should be dealt with carefully and that, if anyone was going to make such strong allegations it should come from the leaders of those countries, not this country. Are we not yet tired of engaging in the politics of other nations only to become the bastard child of an ugly divorce? Have we not learned that there is more work needed to be done here at home; that we cannot afford another war in another part of the world that we are not already engaged in? Have we not lost enough American lives on foreign soil over the past 10 years to be able to say 'we're tired and we wanna' go home?'
In my opinion, it is unforgivably irresponsible to pick a fight with the Palestinians when the brunt of our actions will be taken out, solely, on the neighboring people of Israel who didn't pick that fight in the first place. Allow them to choose their words and to be as honest or as diplomatic as they care to be. Your words, Mr. Gingrich, are those of a neutered Chihuahua, yipping in the protective shadows to the rear of a Great Dane, and you owe the people of Israel, as well as the people of Palestine, a sincere apology.
No comments:
Post a Comment