Friday, August 19, 2005

I think the New York Times got it right in an editorial on Monday.

"This morning Israel finally began withdrawing from the teeming, thirsty strip of land where it settled nearly 9,000 Jews in the middle of more than a million Arabs. Gaza has always been the ultimate example of the bankruptcy of Israel's settlement policy, and Prime Minister Ariel Sharon should be congratulated for finally doing what he and his predecessors should have done years ago."
I think the Times notes what this story is really about. And I say that because the pullout has gotten way too much media coverage in my opinion. Not because its not an important story, but because the coverage is mostly about the human aspect of the pullout -- "settlers" clinging to their homes. Okay, that's nice for one or two stories, but the rest is overkill. Shouldn't the story be about Israel finally leaving territory it has occupied illegally for 38 years? Even if you don't think the occupation is illegal, shouldn't the story then still be about the decision to pullout and implications for the future of Palestine instead of so many items about soliders pulling people out of their homes? All I'm saying is the historical import of this episode is mostly being ignored in favor of the human spectacle angle and that is a shame but sadly once again not surprising.

# posted 9:19 PM