A word on the effectiveness of criticism:
A political analyst observed, "The radical leftists in this country ... seem to have permanently disengaged from any meaningful political process. There can be passion from within the political process. Just because most of the apples are rotten doesn't mean we need to uproot the tree."
As a realist, I've come to the conclusion that many liberals have lost track of objectivity and have given way to emotion. A realist tries to think about what will and won't work, rather than polarizing issues and using extremes and ideals.
Also, I personally believe the people best-equipped to discuss and debate issues are the voting citizens of the country.
As popular as it is to bash Bush in Romania and Greece (the most recent places I have visited), I don't think it's as effective as dissent within the American citizenry.
In fact, it may be feuled by anti-American sentiment, whether justified or not.
Isn't anti-Americanism is a bad thing?
The political analyst I quoted before is right, though. What good is it when people with such passion disengage from the political process? How can they effect change from outside of the system?
The same holds true for Israel. Policy-makers respond to the citizens of the country. I'm not saying international opinion doesn't matter at all, but the members of the Kinesset will answer to their citizens first.
Is this unreasonable? Or would Israel-bashers have them respond first to the liberal babble coming out of the U.S. these days?
Is it hypocritical to have its citizens' interests at heart?
