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 left more than 30,000 dead, which has devastated a territory where more than two million people live and which threatens to cause serious famine.
In the six months since the tragic October 7, the news focus has shifted from the attack against Israel to the consequences of Netanyahu’s decision to completely close the strip and launch an all-out offensive on Gaza to eradicate Hamas at all costs. cost.
Some readers have written to me to express their feeling that in this time the newspaper has drifted toward an “anti-Israel” position. One of them did so this week, directly describing the information line as “anti-Semitic.” Another, weeks ago, declared himself “disappointed” by “the partiality with which the newspaper treats the Jewish-Palestinian conflict.”
From the opposite perspective, there have also been readers who regretted 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 with an opinion article that justified the bombings as part of the right of Israel to defend itself.
Ramon Aymerich, editor-in-chief of the International section, explains that “in the days following the Hamas massacre on October 7, greater attention was paid to the Israeli victims” and that it was later when “attention has focused in 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 and others 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 all times – accompanied by the essential context and analysis – and without any type of bias.
But if in every war it is difficult to “obtain strictly objective information,” in this case it is even more difficult for “it to be perceived that way if readers start from a predetermined idea of ??the conflict,” Aymerich reflects.
