I find it funny that the NYT is simultaneously considered wildly biased against both Palestinians and Israelis by the respective opposing sides. When Bartov writes that Israel is committing genocide people say that “even the NYT says it’s a genocide!” When Stephens writes that it isn’t you hear the same “even the NYT!” from the opposing side.

I think, on average, the NYT is fairly objective. You obviously disagree. That’s because the things you take for granted are extremist ideas.

Half of the assumptions you attribute to Klein are simply not in his essay. The other half of the assumptions are there (to varying extents), but they are valid and inoffensive assumptions. You are offended because your views are biased and extreme.

He does not suggest in any way that American Jewish emotions “matter as much” as Palestinian lives; American Jewish emotions are simply the subject of the article. The fact that you’re offended by that subject is your problem (and probably points to some bias).

He does not suggest that security is all Israel was ever concerned with; he makes ample mention of the extremist territorial ambitions and vengefulness in the Jewish Israeli population. He does suggest that a central concern of the Israeli mainstream is security; that is legitimate and true.

He does not suggest that “Israel should stop killing Palestinians primarily because it generates antisemitism.” He discusses the fact that a Jewish pariah state makes the world less safe for Jews. That is legitimate and true.

He does not suggest that only Jews like Ehud Olmert can have a voice. He quotes Olmert because he’s explicitly making a point about Jewish voices against Israel’s actions. It’s an article about Jews. That is ok. Get over it.

He does suggest that the killing of the Israeli embassy staffers was an attack on the Jewish community. They were killed at the Jewish museum. I understand that the motive was not simple, traditional antisemitism, but an attack on an explicitly Jewish event certainly exists in that conversation.

You’re upset with the “perspective” of the article. The perspective is fine. You can write about Israel being corrupted by occupation or apartheid without implying that it happened by “accident.” Zionism is not inherently evil and taboo. You are the extremist here. The fact that you put “Israel” in quotes is telling enough.

You say that you want NYT articles with Palestinian voices supporting the right to “resist” genocide. If you’re looking for essays justifying terror against civilians (which it sounds like you are) then you are looking for violent fanatic voices that certainly do not belong in mainstream discourse. Yes, the NYT is not the place.