Summary
This article is basically explaining the continual “Palestinian-Israeli Conflict” in the Middle East and some solutions that experts have come up with to solve it. It is explaining not only that this is – more or less – a “work in progress”, but also that there are several opinions that have just arose. Most of these opinions were based off of earlier ones, but there are 4 new ones. The first one “requires the greatest land exchange between Israel and the Palestinians” because 113 sq. miles of land are being “swapped” with 77 settlements in Palestine and 43 in Israel. The second only includes 103 sq. miles of land to be swapped with 82 Palestinian settlements and 38 for Israel. The third one only “swaps” 89 sq. miles of land with 88 settlements in Palestine and 32 in Israel. The last one is “Geneva’s Option” which only includes a swap of 53 sq. miles and 101 settlements for Palestine with a measly 19 settlements for Israel.
The author of this article is David Makovsky.
He is credible because at the bottom of his article, it actually lists his background information on how and why he decided to write about this specific topic. At the bottom is says, “[He] is the Ziegler distinguished fellow and director of the Project on the Middle East Peace Process at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.” This shows me that he is credible because he has researched specifically in this field and just for this topic alone. The citations for the maps that were in the article are also included at the bottom which shows me they are credible as well.
The context of this piece would definitely be either spacial or causal. It would be spacial because, as by definition, spacial context buds from social and historical aspects of certain events that explain how it became what it is today over a long period of time – like the ongoing “Palestinian Israeli Conflict”. It could also be causal because the solutions that the article introduces actually grew from an historic event and were created and thought of promptly (but not temporally).
The obvious purpose of this article was to propose a set of opinions on how to solve an opinionated event. Basically, it was to show the readers that this is a very controversial issue and that it need a matter of several opinions to solve it and cannot be solve in a literal, single-opinionated answer. It needs more than one thought for it to cease.
The audience for this article was definitely more limited than any other articles that I’ve read before. It was because in order for you to understand the sentiments listed, the intended audience needed to know what the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict was and is today. The audience cannot just be oblivious of what the article is about because the article did not include and preface, preamble or basic narration to introduce readers to the immense background of it.
This article included an abounding amount of rhetorical elements from the “Classical Model”, or classical argument set up for rhetoric writing, outline.
They included:
Introduction: they included an “attention grabber” at the beginning when they said that “a two-state solution is the only viable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.” This is definetly an attention grabber because it is a very strong opinion that can be sought against.
Confirmation: this was included all throughout the piece, especially in the listed statistics in the graphs/maps.
Refutation: the “counter-argument” was probably the most prevalent throughout the entire piece. It was because the article, as a whole, was like one large argument because there were 4 different opinions on how to solve this issue and they were all contradictory towards one another.
Conclusion: the interesting thing about the conclusion is that it wasn’t really there, but in reality, it was there without being physically present in writing. I believe that the “conclusion” was represented by the unanswered question they left you with at the end of the article – “What is the solution to Mapping Mideast Peace?” So, in reality, the conclusion is for the reader to create, however, they lead you right towards the discovery of a conclusion throughout the entire article.
I believe that the author completely accomplished their purpose. They did because their purpose was to inform people about certain solutions for this pre-understood conflict as well as to show different opinions on how it should be solved and make them appeal to certain solutions more than others. As I read, even though they tried to keep the opinions vague, I could definitely see the “draw-in” into the different listed opinions. It’s like as if it forces you to pick a side because there are 4, clear cut “sides” that all have different characteristics that appeal differently to others.
No comments:
Post a Comment