Sipping your Starbucks, wearing your denim and listening to the late, great Michael Jackson – American imports seem to sit almost indistinguishably amidst British society. And with no language barrier, and the cosiest of political alliances, the similarities of the British and American cousins are clear for all to see. Even military mishaps are labelled ‘friendly’ fire.

Sitting down to watch England’s very own Hugh Laurie as the maverick diagnostician Dr. House in a humdrum American hospital is hardly radically different from the British equivalents of Casualty and Holby City. Maybe it’s a bit slicker, maybe the actors are all more beautiful and have nicer teeth, but essentially, nothing is lost in translation, except for the nonsensically rare diseases which puzzle Stephen Fry’s sidekick. And even the high emotion of US television can just about be reconciled with British reserve.

However, these outward similarities deceptively mask massive cultural differences behind the ‘Special Relationship’. The debate that has erupted in America over President Obama’s proposed healthcare reforms – essentially helping America’s 47 million uninsured citizens have access to potentially life-saving medical treatment which they would otherwise not qualify for – illustrates these differences explicitly.

The scale of the American debate is huge, and is itself a foreign concept to twenty-first century British politics. Nationally, town hall meetings are taking place where ordinary people on either side of the debate meet to argue their case with the high passions that we’re familiar with from Hollywood. Everyday Sarah Palins across America are espousing their values, while ordinary Bill Clintons rebut with theirs.

To British ears, these arguments are strangely alien. Our NHS sits as a cornerstone of the British establishment – questioning its existence would seem as futile as debating gravity. Only very few individuals on the right-wing of our politics dare to do such a thing—Daniel Hannan, a Conservative MEP is at the forefront of the British arguments against the NHS.

On America’s FOX News, he labelled the NHS a “60 year mistake”, an opinion which has led politicians of every allegiance back in Britain to hastily distance themselves from his view and pledge their support for Nye Bevan’s brainchild. But it would be wrong to dismiss all scepticism out of hand. Neither American sceptics nor Hannan are uncaring people, wishing to cheat the poorest out of healthcare for some outdated class-based discrimination. They argue that the ‘socialized’ system leads to systemic waste, to abuse from every part within, and results in a generally lower quality of care for all. The recurring ‘postcode lottery’ issues of the NHS are evidence of the reality of their concerns – bodies such as NICE have a tough job to do in deciding which medicines are financially viable given the benefits that they provide, and different people with different conditions in different areas may be left worse off. In America – you just pay for what you need.

On the whole, however, these arguments fail to convince British minds. Though the waste that pervades in the NHS presents a stick to beat governments of every stripe with – and attempts to deal with it have involved part-privatisation of some of the NHS’s activities – the benefits of the system outweigh the costs. That healthcare is absolutely free at the point of use in this country, no matter who you are, ought to be a source of pride for each and every British person. The system has flaws, but on the whole, people do seem to recognise the greatness of the institution – its unquestionable presence is quiet testament to this.

This then, is not the blind spot that we have. We recognise the value of the NHS; it is the huge difference in approach that exists between Britain and the USA that we can often fail to acknowledge. It is easy, with this particular debate more than others, to paint Obama as the ‘good guy’ in the British press, but we must remind ourselves that American debates begin with entirely different premises. Though we wear the same clothes and sip the same drinks and watch the same television, our individuality lurks beneath this outward appearance. Americans (to date, at least) have viewed healthcare as a privilege, as fitting within their over-arching commitment to the free market and the value of the private sector; Britain has instead seen healthcare as a fundamental right for its citizens, similar to the services provided by the Police or the Fire Service.

It may seem odd to us that in the wealthiest nation on earth, 47 million individuals are without the provisions that western medicine can provide; but it is our perception of this oddity that it is crucial to recognise and celebrate. We are still Bevan’s children, and his legacy looks after us well. It may not be House, but, as long as every single man, woman and child in Britain can claim medical care free at the point of use, we’ll be happy enough to check into Holby City.

The Middle East is undoubtedly the most discussed landmass in the world, especially in the press. Since time immemorial, world opinion has vacillated first in support of one side in the conflict, then in support of the other. In 1947 the UN voted in favour of a Partition Plan and the creation of the State of Israel and the press almost unanimously supported the newly-born state as a victim through the 1948 War of Independence that followed. Fast forward several decades, exactly the opposite can be said of the War in Gaza, with almost unanimous support being given to the Palestinians, who are viewed as being as much a victim as the Israelis were in 1948. To support the underdog is a natural instinct, but is there really any fair reporting in this support if it neglects to examine every side of an argument? In the examples cited, the 1948 support of Israel failed to appreciate the Arab nations’ possible motives for fighting, whilst the present decade has seen a complete failure to acknowledge the eight years of illegal bombing of the Israeli town of

Sderot.

Cherwell’s recent online feature ‘Our Man Abroad’ falls prey to the same prejudice. Whilst it provides an illuminating insight into Jordan and Syria, comments such as ‘the view on the other side of the water [not being] so pretty’ are effectively rendered invalid, given the lack of research undertaken. Of course each should be entitled to its own opinion, but is this opinion really acceptable given this tour of the Middle East does not include Israel? Upon visiting Quneitra the author comments, ‘As an exercise in anti-Israeli propaganda it is awfully successful’, illustrating by his own example that viewing the conflict from one side only is insufficient. In truth, Quneitra is a town on the border, which exchanged hands four times between 1967 and 1974, and was the site of devastating combat fighting. Far from displaying Israeli ‘wanton vandalism’, it simply highlights the destructive effects of warfare, in much the same way as Ypres might with regard to the First World War, or Stalingrad with regard to the Second.

Facts are easily obscured and neither side is innocent. However, in the current stalemate that has characterised the Middle East for some time, attitudes must change. Progress will not be made whilst bold statements built on bias continue to be made on both sides, in particular those expressed in the media. Writing has the power to influence opinion – it can breed anger and hatred, but it can also spread hope and affect positive change, and this is what the media should be aiming to do. A traveller who writes about the Middle East should attempt to understand the Middle East as a whole, sunbathing on both shores of the Dead Sea, visiting Quneitra as well as standing on the hilltops facing it to hear the post-67 story from the mouth of an Israeli, making it possible to form an educated opinion that is constructive, inspired by truth and an appreciation of the struggle on both sides.

In 1983, Jan Svankmajer won first prize at the Animated Film Festival for Dimensions of Dialogue, beautifully illustrating the consequences of conflicting ideologies that refuse to see the opposite point of view. The best hope for the future would be to allow development to take the place of destruction, to absorb culture from every corner of the Middle East and to engage in dialogue that is truly open-minded. At this point in time the question who is right and who is wrong is not important. Rather, we should concentrate on drastically overhauling each and every one of our attitudes and we should avoid jumping to conclusions that are both hasty and invalid.