That because of the large Jewish population in the US and their very vigorous advocate groups the US hears mainly the Israeli point of view. A very heads-up Israeli lobby is powerful and effective.

I can't fault them. Prior to WWII, for instance, there was no place for Jews to immigrate, or emigrate with any certainty. Certainly not the US. If I were Jewish, I'd want that to never happen again.

It also seems to me that most public statements which reflect upon Israel negatively are rapidly pounced upon as "anti-Semitic" by one or another Jewish defence organizations. I suspect it's just not worth the price sometimes to have to defend oneself, and the media just don't bother.

The Public Broadcasting System often presents both an Israeli diplomat and Palestinian representative. Those are informative, and I don't know that we often hear much of the Palestinian side. I think Zbigniew Brezinski, Carter's National Security Advisor, is brilliant in his analysis and evenhanded assessment of both sides, by the way.

Sometimes it seems as if we get both sides when we may not. The networks are presenting what they can about the Israeli incursion. And, as much air time goes to a suicide bombing which kills 6 as goes into the entire incursion, which is killing many, many more civilians. With the US innate sense of fairness, it's easier to condemn a suicide bombing, which is atrocious, than a vague military incursion with no pictures.

(The odd person who condoned an apparent slaughter f 5 Palestinian males is not the norm. His suggestion that if they hadn't been executed they should have is not what most Americans would think, I'm sure.)

I don't know that we get the balance in our information which is available to Europe. And, maybe, the Europeans get a tilt toward Palestinians similar to our tilt toward Israel.

That's an opinion, anyway.

Arf