You don't seem to see any irony at all in the fact that you ask me to read an openly left-leaning publication for a fair and balanced view?
First of, Haaretz can only be described as leftist in a country as strongly schewed to the right such as today's Israel is (wasn't always, Israel is the product of the Labor party, almost all the great names in the making of Israel were secular liberal leftists; Likud and Shas came decades later). In any other Western country (bar the US, for much of the same reason), it would be described as liberal centre, or at most left-of-centre (something similar to Spain's El País).
But the elephant in this kitchen is not the above, it's a second issue:
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not about right and left, it's about Israelis and Palestinians. That should be obvious, yet you clearly fail to see it. A major Israeli newspaper, no matter what it's ideological leaning, is first and foremost Israeli. Truly wanting to hear the other side of the issue would demand your reading what the Palestinians themselves are saying. But seeing your reaction to the suggestion that you take up a newspaper from the very same side you are always defending (Israel), only because it is less radical in its views and is often capable of portraying a fairer interpretation of Palestinian opinions and demands, simply leaves no room for expecting you to actually go to Palestinian sources. The only irony here is that you are so biased on this, so bigoted, that you feel threatened by the more nuanced opinions of moderates on your own 'side', and react like if they were the 'other side'.
I think you are falling into the same abyss as abraxas here, by assuming correct opinions and your opinions are one and the same.
Or could it be that maybe we make the effort (imperfectly, but at least we try) to balance arguments from all sides, while you seem to go pale just at the idea of reading different opinions?
That is not merely rethoric in my case. I started life in a very conservative, monarchist, deeply religious setting. Right-wingers for me are not distant, menacing figures out to cheat the working classes, they are my grand-parents, parents, uncles, most of my sisters, cousins, and old school friends. I don't have to make a huge effort to understand what they are thinking, it comes quite naturally, I've been there. No, I do not believe they think that way because they are greedy monsters. And no, union trust leaders and Marxist ideologues are hardly 'my people'.
Reading, living and meeting people. That is what made me start drifting away from the right towards the centre at first, and then to the moderate left. I have never been Marxist, but I'm not prejudiced enough to fail to see that Marxism does have its valid arguments, and that many of the finest people I have ever come across are or had been Marxist (no, they don't have horns nor adore the devil, and I believe they never have served roasted child in any of the dinners I've shared with them... or at least I hope so!).
But my own history is irrelevant here. I only bring it up because, you are right, there is indeed irony in all of this, and it is that, if I hadn't made the effort to explore what others were thinking, I'd be far closer to at least some of your own ideas. So that I find it quite funny that you choose to attack me for hearing only 'my own propaganda'.
Of course, it's perfectly possible that you have also changed your own views during your lifetime. But somehow I doubt it. People with the capacity to change may or may not do so -it's perfectly acceptable to fail to be convinced by the ideas of others, no sense in 'changing' just for the heck of it-. But those people would never react to the possibility of finding out what others are saying in the way you do. Whether one takes that road or doesn't, for ideas to evolve curiosity must prevail over prejudice. And, sorry, but until proven wrong, I think I have grounds to believe that that is not your case. Would be delighted to be proven wrong.