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.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.