Praising the New York Times

Two days ago I bashed the New York Times. Today, it's time to praise them for their praise of Ariel Sharon in today's editorial.

Some quotes:

This page has never been shy about criticizing Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. But this week the last Jewish settlers left Gaza, completing Israel's withdrawal from the desert it took control of 38 years ago. And yesterday, Israeli soldiers completed the evacuation of four much smaller settlements among the hundreds on the West Bank. This is the first time Israel has abandoned communities in lands the Palestinians claim for their future state, so it is incumbent upon us - and all of Mr. Sharon's many critics - to reflect on this extraordinary accomplishment.
...
Mr. Sharon can take pride in his own actions. He was resolute in the face of condemnation from extreme right-wing members of his own Likud Party, which may well fracture from the strain of the Gaza pullout. As the father of the Israeli settlements and a member of the bloc that has always favored a greater Israel, Mr. Sharon has nevertheless demonstrated that he is able to carry out a territorial compromise, a necessity if there is ever going to be any chance for peace.

Maybe I'm just knitpicking but doesn't it seem odd to only praise the man who made the decision and not the thousands of people who carried it out, the almost ten thousand people who were the victims (so to speak), and all the others involved, i.e. the people of the State of Israel?

I'll take praise of Sharon over bashing him any day-at least they acknowledge that they often criticize him and are capable of praising him sometimes-but why couldn't they go just a tad further? Am I being a tad too greedy? Perhaps. But is that so unreasonable? I don't think so.