Fascinating. This guy acts like he has no biases. He sees this as the root: "The Israeli occupation lies at the root of the conflict - and yet, more often than not, journalists fail to remind their readers of it."
Why stop there? What does he consider "The Israeli occupation"? Is it the land that they occupied after 1967? Or after 1948? The latter date isn't meant totally tongue in cheek, since that clearly is how the Palestinean terrorists see it, and perhaps Arafat as well. But if its after 1967, then why stop at the end of that war? Why not go back to its beginning, when Nassar and Assad and others had armies at Israel's borders, preparing to invade? Granted, Israel fired the first actual shot, but what were they supposed to do, being outnumbered as they were? And what exactly were the supposed to do after the war, give back the land they had just conquered so the same story could be run again? Some of the ejected Palestineans went to Jordan, made a ruckus there and the King had to kell thousands of them a few years later, and kick out tens of thousands more. If Israel had done what he did, they would have been called genocidal murderers. If you count every Palestinean death and deportation of the past 20 years inside the borders of Israel0, it still would not equal the numbers of Palestineans killed and deported from Jordan in 1970 (I think it was 1970--the year might be wrong, my memory fails in things like this now, but the gist and the idea is correct; look up Black September in google).
The "outrage" against Israel is, frankly, idiotic, and helps to feed the misplaced Palestineans hopes that they will be able to get the whole loaf. I don't mean to offend you here, and don't mean this personally--it is a hard thing to see this murder continue day after day and not condemn someone, and it is easier to condemn the apparent murderer than the apparent murdered. But at the end of the day, please look at the whole story, not just the part that one side wants you to look at.
Sam
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
