Political Editorials

¶ … New York Times and the Dallas Morning News The print media has become an effective means to discuss important issues in the society today, especially with the prevalence of newspapers that cater to various audiences or readers today. Political editorials, in particular, serve as the people's daily reference in knowing what is the political stand or position that the newspaper assumes given a particular current issue to discuss.

These editorials, however, do not dictate to their readers what position or stand to take on an issue; rather, they serve as another viewpoint at which readers are able to think about the issue. In effect, editorials serve as additional information that lets people understand all facets of a social issue being discussed. In this paper, I discuss how political editorials from different areas in the United States offer different focus and perspective in bringing into lucidity the issues that society contemplate at present.

The political editorials from the New York Times and the Dallas Morning News prove this assertion -- that is, every print medium offers a different perspective in discussing a social issue. In the case of the comparative analysis, the political editorials by both newspapers dated last October 28, 2004, and the editorials centered on the news that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's Gaza plan has been approved by the Israeli Parliament.

Both papers discuss the ramifications of this news to the security of Israel, as well as the success towards the peace power that both Israel and Palestine have been trying to broker for many years already. In the New York Times editorial, the author puts into the context of the current war against terrorism Sharon's decision to implement the Gaza plan.

The Gaza plan proposes that Israeli settlements be withdrawn from Gaza, a plan of action that will benefit the Palestines, who assert that they are the rightful inhabitants of the said area, and will bring anger to Israelites, who have also claimed to be the rightful 'owners' to this "thirsty strip of land." The author offers a critical view of Sharon's Gaza plan -- that is, the plan is far from brokering peace between Israel and Palestine, but is merely a first step towards Sharon's primary objective: "...a central purpose of the Gaza withdrawal plan was to take Palestinian statehood off the table indefinitely." This assertion is supported by bringing back the history of the Israel-Palestine conflict over the two groups' settlement of the West Bank.

The author expresses conviction that the Gaza plan is just a plan to avert the attention of the Palestineans to discussing the issue of autonomy.

He cites previous instances in which Sharon tried to deviate from discussing peace talks with Palestine, resorting to violence as a way to solving the "settlement policy." What the author of this editorial is trying to extend to his audience is the message that Sharon's Gaza plan will become ineffective; or if it does, as the author says, "the road map for peace" is yet to be seen in the near future.

This is because the Israeli Prime Minister has consistently shown that the Gaza plan negates or contradicts Sharon's actions and policies in the past. Thus, the author concludes that perhaps the only inspiration for the plan is to decrease, as much as possible, U.S. intervention on the said issue, a strategy crucial if Israel wants to preserve peace and security in a period where national security of all states are constantly threatened, especially those nations allied to the United States.

Thus, the Gaza plan illustrates that Israel is capable of handling its own problems and conflicts with other nations, and that U.S. intervention is not a necessary solution to solving these problems. The editorial of the Dallas Morning News, meanwhile, expresses the same "mixed emotions" that the NY Times editorial had expressed. However, the editorial primarily expressed a positive attitude, in fact, an approval, of Sharon's Gaza plan as the first step towards brokering peace in a "peaceful manner" between Israel and Palestine.

While the NY Times editorial has applied the issue in the context of the current state of terrorism and U.S. intervention to foreign policy-making, the author of Dallas Morning News' editorial focused on Sharon's "realistic" resolve to end the conflict between the two nation-states. The author argues that the Gaza plan is a realistic step towards achieving what Israel wants -- lower levels of political conflict against Palestine and the stability of Israel as a nation.