This sort of depends on what you're looking for.

Do you just want a listing of facts with no analysis? Probably Reuters or Associated Press (AP).

Do you want facts and context and minor analysis (like historical comparisons, etc.)? That's gonna be BBC and NPR/PBS. Maybe The Economist.

If you want deeper analysis or opinion... That's gonna be tricky. Probably Al Jazeera, The Guardian (maybe), ... I dunno if it's possible to find one balanced need source that will have in depth analysis or opinion. Probably best to pick two that are about the same distance from "neutral" in either direction.

No single source is going to be objective. You have to read a multiple sources and then balance what's written, and what's not written, kind of reading between the lines to infer your own conclusions. Not to mention the added chaos of an active war zone getting accurate data is always difficult

I am curious about ground news, how they're handling this situation.

From personal experience: the economist, the BBC, the guardian, Reuters, AP, Al Jazeera - are reasonable news sources to use to inform your overall opinion, don't rely on a single one though.

I doubt you're going to find truly neutral. We'll not know who is lying to us on any particular article.

For particular Gaza, Palestine news, you can read Al Jazeera. The Washington Post has good coverage of all the news.

Not a great idea to try. It's theoretically possible but fraught with peril. Instead, it's much more feasible to pick two news sources, one pro-whatever and one against, and check both.

There's aggregators like (our sponsor,) ground news (!) that let you sort by stance and affiliation, that can make it more convenient.

If you must go with a shortcut, pick a country that is interested in the conflict, but not particularly on one side or the other, and read how its being reported there. India for instance, has been fairly neutral on this conflict, to the dismay of both sides, as they have economic ties to both Israel and the Arab world. They're being critical of more or less everyone, and especially the British. lol Still not unbiased though, y'know?

So, it's better to just check both sides regularly.

https://israelpalestine.liveuamap.com/

Probably nowhere, to be honest.

Today's Israeli-Palestinian conflict dates back thousands of years and combines politics, religion, race, war, and territory all in one.

If you really want to understand this from a non- biased point of view, your best bet is probably wikipedia, where different people with different viewpoints can debate the facts and non-biased writing is somewhat enforced.

The truth is that it's a very complex conflict with innocent people and some very shitty people, on both sides.

Nowhere.

Neutrality isn't a thing. Everything written about something as contentious as this is propaganda.

For attempts to be neutral, try Western mainstream media or Wikipedia (which mostly just summarizes Western mainstream media anyway).

For one sided propaganda for Israel, try https://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/

For one sided propaganda for Palestine, try https://mondoweiss.net/

Read all those and choose for yourself what parts of which sides you want to believe. Or don't. You can also live in peace and happiness knowing that the conflict exists without thinking about it too much because in the end it doesn't really matter what you think about it anyway.

Just read the news from both sides and ask yourself what's the most logical explanation when you combine those two sources.

It's the closest you'll get to an objective truth as there is one in a conflict older that any other conflict I am currently aware of.

I've found ground.news' layout quite useful in sutuations like this.

noncredibledefense lol