Introduction
“At the Boiling Point With Israel” by the New York Times’ Editorial Board discusses the peace deal between Palestinians and the Israeli government, an issue that has been under the magnifying glass of the global community and directly affects the image of the US government in the final months of the President Obama’s office. Despite the controversy of the topic as well as the massive coverage of the global media, the problem remains unresolved and may escalate even further if no actions on the part of the international community are administered.
The importance of establishing peace in the region is one of the key themes of the editorial, although it is worth to further dissect the authors’ opinions to find gaps in their arguments since presenting a partial picture of the problem may be the greatest mistake one could make when creating a compelling piece of journalistic work. While the key idea of the editorial is supporting the imposition of a peace deal between the Israeli and Palestinian governments, in some instances it fails to mention key points of why such a deal cannot be administered, backing up the argument with substantial scientific and statistical data.
Principles for a peace agreement between the government of Israel and the Palestinians
After dissecting the editorial piece into three elements of ethos, pathos, and logos, it became obvious that some of the claims made by the authors were unsubstantiated due to the lack of evidence. The element of ethos includes the aspects of credibility and reliability; however, there were practically no statistical data presented on the issue. While the authors argue that the United Nations Security Council should lay down specific guidelines for a peaceful agreement between the Israeli government and Palestinians (The Editorial Board par. 3), they failed to present scientific data about what the conflicting governments think about such an agreement.
Discussing the importance of a peace treaty without referencing actual data concerning Palestinians and Israelis may be counterproductive since no Security Council will be able to help establish peace if the conflicting parties want to continue their struggle. In this sense, there is certain one-sidedness to the story, which limits the readers from seeing both perspectives of the argument and forces to engage in outside research on the issue.
There is obvious rationality (logos), which authors presented in their article. Since the conflicting parties seem to be unable to come to a mutual and peaceful agreement, it is rational to argue that a third party can play a ‘peacemaker’ role and help resolve the problem. However, authors fall into the trap of suggesting that Obama’s office along with the United Nations Security Council are the key players in mitigating the conflict, which is not quite logical.
While the global community can facilitate a dialogue between the conflicting parties, emphasizing the US’s role means diminishing the opinions of the Palestinian and Israeli governments. More evidence as to why the conflict persists and why no peaceful agreements have worked may have been beneficial for presenting readers with a fuller picture of the situation.
When constructing their argument, the authors seemed to have forgotten about an important mode of persuasion, which is associated with emotion or imagination (pathos). Although they offered a logical explanation as to why it is important politically to help Palestinians and Israelis develop a peaceful agreement, the emotional aspect of the problem cannot be determined. Armed conflict is a sensitive subject that may be upsetting enough, so evoking some negative emotions in readers was probably a tactical decision. After all, the editorial is dedicated to examining the political environment surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian struggle, and there is no place for emotional persuasion.
Despite this, the article did evoke the feeling of distance from the issue at hand, and there has been no desire to find a solution. It is unfortunate that the discussed conflict is not the only one in the world and that the attention of the entire global community cannot focus solely on it. Therefore, the editorial lacked an emotional side that may have affected readers on a completely new level, although it may have spun some discussion between those interested in international affairs and how the US government should establish peace in regions that have been enthralled into a struggle that seems never-ending.
After dissecting the editorial into separate components to understand how the authors wanted to persuade readers about the importance of the topic at hand, it can be concluded that some of the presented arguments were not substantiated enough. While putting the US government and the United Nations Security Council on the pedestal as key players in resolving the conflict, the authors failed to present another side of the story that should have included opinions of the conflicting parties as to why the peace agreement is not an option for them, especially if the global community interferes into their affairs. Even though there was a logical explanation as to why peace should be established, the article lacked scientific data that might have persuaded the readers and backed up the claims.
Conclusion
In my opinion, the article was successful in raising awareness of the issue and reminding the public about the conflict, which many of us have forgotten. Despite this, there was a lack of the emotional component that the readers could have regarded as a ‘call to action’ as to what they should do to help or at least get the discussion going. In light of the recent global events, conflicts that occur far from us can rarely capture attention and make us care.
We should never forget about the fact that innocent people died and continue to die because two governments cannot seem to come to a peaceful agreement for the sake of their citizens. I think that the politics are important when it comes to mitigating violent conflicts such as the Israeli-Palestinian war; however, we as people should understand that we must put more pressure on our governments and force them to stop the violence.
Works Cited
The Editorial Board. At the Boiling Point With Israel. 2016. Web.