A savage terrorist attack against Israel with more than 1,200 dead and more than 240 kidnapped, of which 130 remain captive. And a merciless military reaction against the Gaza Strip that has killed more than 30,000, that has devastated a territory in which more than two million people live and that threatens to cause serious famine.
In the six months since the tragic October 7, the news focus has shifted from the attack perpetrated against Israel to the fallout from Netanyahu’s decision to completely close the Strip and launch an all-out offensive on Gaza to root out Hamas to any cost
Some readers have written to me to express their feeling that in this time the newspaper has drifted towards an “anti-Israel” position. One of them did so this week, directly describing the news line as “anti-Semitic”. Another, weeks ago, declared himself “disappointed” by “the partiality with which the newspaper deals with the Judeo-Palestinian conflict”.
From the opposite perspective, readers have also expressed their regret that the demonstrations held in the main cities of Spain against the invasion of Gaza did not receive enough coverage or others who were outraged by an opinion article that justified the bombings as part of Israel’s right to defend itself.
Ramon Aymerich, editor-in-chief of the Internacional section, explains that “in the days that followed the massacre by Hamas on October 7, more attention was paid to the Israeli victims” and that it was later when “the “attention has been focused on Gaza and the Palestinian victims due to the disparity of forces and the suffering of the civilian population”.
The contrast in the assessment of some readers is a reflection, he observes, of how “the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the current international issue that has caused greater polarization”. Despite this clash of opinions, the newspaper’s effort continues to be to offer the most relevant information at every moment – accompanied by the indispensable context and analysis – and without any kind of bias.
But if in every war it is difficult to “obtain strictly objective information”, in this case it costs even more that “it is perceived that way if readers start from a predetermined idea of ??the conflict”, reflects Aymerich.
