Conservative vs. Liberal Editorials on Israeli Gaza Occupation
This paper analyzes two editorials addressing the Israeli occupation and evacuation of the Gaza Strip: Patrick Buchanan's "Sharon: Hero and Goat of Gaza" and Ann Petter's "Fighting Israel's Wall." By comparing conservative and liberal rhetorical approaches, the paper examines how each author constructs their argument, uses historical context or personal narrative, and critiques both Israeli policy and U.S. financial involvement in the conflict. The analysis concludes that Petter's first-person, morally direct editorial proves more persuasive than Buchanan's fact-heavy but tonally ambiguous piece, offering insights into how editorial stance and voice influence reader engagement with complex international political issues.
- Introduction: American editorial reactions to Israeli Gaza evacuation
- Buchanan's Conservative Editorial: Historical Context and Argument: Buchanan traces occupation history and U.S. financial complicity
- Strengths and Weaknesses of Buchanan's Approach: Informative but unfocused; tone lacks persuasive clarity
- Petter's Liberal Editorial: Personal Narrative and Moral Urgency: Petter's eyewitness account condemns Israeli and U.S. policy
- Strengths of Petter's Approach and Overall Comparison: Personal voice makes Petter more persuasive than Buchanan
- Conclusion: Petter's narrative is more informative and persuasive overall
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper establishes a clear evaluative thesis early — Petter's editorial is more persuasive than Buchanan's — and consistently returns to that claim throughout the analysis.
- It uses direct quotations from both editorials to ground its comparative claims, making the rhetorical analysis concrete rather than abstract.
- The structure is balanced, devoting equivalent attention to each editorial before drawing a comparative judgment, which lends the argument credibility.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates comparative rhetorical analysis: it evaluates not just what each author argues, but how tone, voice, and narrative strategy shape persuasiveness. By contrasting an "observer" stance (Buchanan) against a "participant" stance (Petter), the writer shows how authorial position affects reader engagement — a technique central to media studies and communications analysis.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with background on the broader American editorial context, then introduces the two texts and states a thesis. It proceeds through Buchanan's editorial (summary, then strengths and weaknesses), then through Petter's editorial (summary, then strengths), before offering a brief comparative conclusion. This point-by-point editorial analysis structure is well-suited to undergraduate communications or English composition courses.
Introduction
In the midst of debates surrounding the Israeli occupation and eventual evacuation of the Gaza Strip, American newspapers were filled with editorials reflecting American society's stance on the issue. It became apparent that this issue was unanimously viewed by Americans as overdue — that Israel's decision to evacuate Gaza was not only right, but also just. Americans criticized two important elements in the issue of Israeli evacuation at Gaza: first, the long-delayed nature of the evacuation itself, and second, the fact that despite withdrawing its settlers, Israel had gained more than it lost by ostensibly "giving up" Gaza to the Palestinians.
This paper analyzes two editorials in order to illustrate how Americans perceived and reacted to this important international politics issue. "Sharon: Hero and Goat of Gaza" by Patrick Buchanan and "Fighting Israel's Wall" by Ann Petter are both editorials that offer criticism of the Israeli occupation of Gaza, though each differs in tone. Buchanan offered a more conservative and diplomatic approach in criticizing the Israeli and American governments, while Petter maintained a fiery, liberal tone in her outright protest against Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory.
Given these backgrounds, this paper posits that Petter's editorial emerges as the more persuasive argument because of the liberal and more personalized tone she assumed in expressing her protest. Because of her strong opposition and clear argument against the occupation, Petter successfully communicated that Israelis had done the Palestinians a grave injustice by occupying Gaza despite its being Palestinian territory. The analysis that follows examines in detail the arguments raised in each editorial, along with the strengths and weaknesses of each author's approach.
Buchanan's Conservative Editorial: Historical Context and Argument
Buchanan's editorial delved into the history of Israel's occupation of the Gaza Strip and the political dynamics surrounding the alleged occupation and eventual evacuation of Palestinian territory. He first established the historical background of Israel's presence in Gaza. Buchanan appropriately summarized Israel's actions in the following passage: "For his resolve in removing the settlers, despite threats on his life, Ariel Sharon deserves credit. But for the settlers' being there, where they never belonged, he bears full blame. Both the tragedy and the debacle of this past week are Sharon's doing."
This passage rested on the historical fact that Gaza was originally Palestinian territory, and that Israeli presence there became possible only after the Six-Day War in 1967. Over the years, Israelis effectively usurped the Gaza territory, damaging the Palestinian economy and eventually leading to the construction of the Separation Wall. What had once been a localized issue of illegal occupation grew into an international conflict marked by extreme violence between Israelis and Palestinians.
According to Buchanan, a central concern was the benefit Israel stood to receive from the United States in exchange for evacuating Gaza. By withdrawing from the Gaza Strip, Israel — under the leadership of Sharon — would receive $2.2 billion, the financial sum required for him to make this supposed goodwill gesture to Palestine and to the U.S. The injustice behind this transaction, Buchanan argued, lay in rewarding Israel financially despite its illegal occupation of Gaza. It was Israel's own actions that had severely damaged its political relations with Palestine, yet Israel would receive financial assistance from the U.S. for undoing a conflict it had itself initiated. In this way, the U.S. government became an accessory to Israel's offense by tolerating and funding its behavior.
Petter's Liberal Editorial: Personal Narrative and Moral Urgency
Ann Petter's editorial offered a distinctly different perspective and tone. In contrast to Buchanan's analytical distance, Petter's article expressed a deeply personal engagement with the issue, drawing on her own experiences while covering the evacuation. Whereas Buchanan assumed the role of an observer, Petter became a direct participant, positioning herself not merely as a reporter but as an eyewitness to the injustice committed by Israelis against Palestinians.
Her article was more narrative than report, recounting her experience as a witness to the Israeli evacuation of Gaza. Her purpose in traveling there was not only journalistic — she also sought justice for Palestinians, whom she regarded as the primary victims of Israeli occupation. In communicating with her readers, Petter emphasized the relevance of the conflict not only to Israelis and Palestinians, but to all people who have experienced injustice. She wrote:
"Why did I come from outside Israel to participate in political activity here? The first and simplest answer is because it is the right thing to do. The international community needs to insist on justice for all, for the sake of all. Secondly, I came from outside Israel to engage in political activity here because my country, the United States, bears the greatest responsibility for perpetuating violence here."
Petter also related recent events demonstrating how U.S. aid to Israel had contributed to the deterioration of Israel-Palestine relations — a conflict that had produced countless casualties while resolving little for either people.
What Petter found particularly ironic was the contradiction in U.S. foreign policy: the United States had long positioned itself as a champion of international human rights law, yet its continued financial support for Israel undermined that very claim. U.S. foreign aid, she argued, effectively became a source of funding for violence, injustice, and atrocities committed against other peoples and nations.
Petter also described the personal cost of her activism and reporting. She noted that for daring to witness and report on the brutal effects of the wall on the Palestinian population, she had been designated a "security threat" by the State of Israel. Her narrative remained open-ended, reflecting the unresolved and ongoing nature of the conflict between Israel and those who advocate for Palestinian rights.
Conclusion
Though Petter's personal tone may work against her conventional role as a journalist, the circumstances under which she wrote her narrative make it sufficiently compelling for readers to empathize and agree with her thoughts and opinions. Her clear moral stance, firsthand perspective, and direct engagement with both Israeli policy and U.S. complicity give her editorial a rhetorical force that Buchanan's more detached, fact-laden piece ultimately cannot match. Taken together, the two editorials illustrate how tone, narrative choice, and authorial positioning significantly shape the persuasive impact of political commentary on complex international issues.
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.