The broken system is a genuine problem for me - it was one of the main reasons we entered Iraq under false pretenses. But if the process if broken and all that happens as a result is secretaries get a day of recognition, the consequences are negligible. If we, on the other hand, get involved in an invasion of another country that turns out to kill more Americans than 9-11 and costs us $12B per month for 12 months a year for 7 years and counting, all the while exhausting our military and wearing out our arsenal/equipment so that we are less capable of defending our nation, well, that is significant. Same as if we engage in a foreign policy that is proving to be little more than enabling a perpetual state of war between Israel and virtually all of Israel's neighbors without a debate that establishes that that is our national goal and the strategy for achieving that goal is working, and the cost is something the American people wish to continue.
I agree these are all legitimate issues worthy of debate; but, not with me, hopefully another poster more wonkish in ME politics and power strategies will step up to the plate. I would hate to see the discussion fade off due to my shortcomings.
That you would elect to hide behind a failure of our system, and suggest the rest of the system's flaws be fixed first is hardly a valid defense for the policy - it would not hold up well in a national debate. Try to explain what the benefits to the United States are. If there are any, and they make sense you might have a case we could listen to and possibly support. But to suggest your rationale is you trust the government and you would prefer they concentrate on fixing other errors in procedure first is indicative of someone who has agreed to support something before they thought it out. Happens all the time, but that doesn't make it correct.
I am not hiding, just unqualified to declare our system broken. Yes, the government will make mistakes but on the whole, our elected leaders work for the benefit of their own people. Any other assumption would not be logical. Call that a simplistic mindset but look, I cannot answer and in fact consider myself incapable of answering the question whether our government's current policies in Israel are sound. Sorry.
Since VV posted the images above, I will just bring up one difference between both sides in the war which illicit a visceral response. The exploitation and corruption of the young children by one side as evidenced by the (distorted?) images is unacceptable to me.
So, after putting all those reasons together, yes, I fall on our government's side. On the forum, when I read one sided accounts and propagandistic posts, I feel compelled to respond, which might be why some here would put me in the Israel camp.