The news coverage that I've seen is much more balanced than it was the last time Israel used air raids to bomb Gaza. I've long been accustomed to pro-Israel bias in the American media, but my impression is that this time around, the conditions on the ground have been given a lot more scrutiny. (I get that this view is not shared by that faction of Zionists who have decried outlets like the New York Times for years as examples of the "pro-Palestinian Left", for not slanting their coverage 100% in favor of Israel.)
In particular, I have to single out the news reportage of the Washington Post on Gaza, which I've found to be competent, detailed, and balanced. Quite a contrast with the WaPo op-ed pages.
I'm also basically in favor of the Jewish population of the region being allowed to live in peace and freedom, in a modern liberal democracy. Unless the supporters of "Palestine free, from the river to the sea" can convincingly demonstrate that whatever polity they imagine should supplant Israel could actually have the character of a modern secular pluralist liberal nation rather than a "democratically supported" Muslim Bortherhood theocracy, it looks to me like the nation-state of Israel is the only means of maintaining the safety of the Jews living there. I'd prefer a multiethnic pluralist Palestine, but I've seen little evidence that the prospect is anything other than a pipe dream of Trostskyist romantics and their callow acolytes. It grieves me to say this, but history shows that once the ball goes up for grabs under conditions of revolutionary disruption, the people who end up grabbing it tend to be the most unscrupulous and intractably authoritarian.
The news coverage that I've seen is much more balanced than it was the last time Israel used air raids to bomb Gaza. I've long been accustomed to pro-Israel bias in the American media, but my impression is that this time around, the conditions on the ground have been given a lot more scrutiny. (I get that this view is not shared by that faction of Zionists who have decried outlets like the New York Times for years as examples of the "pro-Palestinian Left", for not slanting their coverage 100% in favor of Israel.)
In particular, I have to single out the news reportage of the Washington Post on Gaza, which I've found to be competent, detailed, and balanced. Quite a contrast with the WaPo op-ed pages.
I'm also basically in favor of the Jewish population of the region being allowed to live in peace and freedom, in a modern liberal democracy. Unless the supporters of "Palestine free, from the river to the sea" can convincingly demonstrate that whatever polity they imagine should supplant Israel could actually have the character of a modern secular pluralist liberal nation rather than a "democratically supported" Muslim Bortherhood theocracy, it looks to me like the nation-state of Israel is the only means of maintaining the safety of the Jews living there. I'd prefer a multiethnic pluralist Palestine, but I've seen little evidence that the prospect is anything other than a pipe dream of Trostskyist romantics and their callow acolytes. It grieves me to say this, but history shows that once the ball goes up for grabs under conditions of revolutionary disruption, the people who end up grabbing it tend to be the most unscrupulous and intractably authoritarian.