Several issues drive the media debate about the situation in Gaza and Israel. The primary one is inevitable, created by the competing narratives of history that have shaped the conflict since its beginnings. The “Palestine Solidarity” community and their “We Stand With Israel” opponents will always quarrel about who started the violence. They argue further over which side has followed international law, which side is the victim, which side is the aggressor and who lays claim to the land.

I wonder how the conflict is seen by the millions of Americans who don’t immediately identify as advocates for one group or the other and who shape their opinion based on what they see in the news. How do they interpret this barrage of pictures, videos, writings and death counts that stream in daily from the pages of newspapers, TV and Facebook posts? When I am asked about the situation, it is always about the violence that seems so senseless, cyclical and permanent, and this makes sense; it is undeniably human to care about other people, no matter how far away.

Most Americans read about the number of Gazans killed, placed quickly next to the number of rockets fired at southern Israel. They see a woman in Gaza weeping for her dead son, followed quickly by the view of citizens of Sderot clustered into a bomb shelter.

Journalists and their editors are of course shooting for “balance,” as they perceive it, and contrary to what many cynics say, I think in this case, they really are striving for it. They want to explain this bloody, intractable conflict.

As a result, do Americans try to perceive balance? It’s difficult.

They try to identify with an image of a Palestinian woman who grieves for her son, but there is a disconnect because of her brown skin and covered hair. They attempt to identify with a wounded Palestinian man, but then he is quoted — as one man was in The New York Times recently — saying, “I want to be a martyr!” These scenes are hard to compute.

Then come images of the citizens of Sderot, crouched in bomb shelters dressed in Western clothing. Their American-looking playgrounds are deserted and their American-looking streets are smashed by rockets. When an advocate for Israeli actions asks, “Wouldn’t the U.S. respond if Mexico fired like this at us?” it is easy to imagine such a scenario.

On the contrary, it is hard to understand when an advocate for Palestinian rights says, “Imagine being driven from your home, squeezed into a miserable refugee camp for 60 years, only to be invaded constantly and occupied by one of the best-equipped militaries in the world.” We have a hard time picturing the squalor of the refugee camp, the desperation to which it leads or the political decisions in which it results.

And then we remember that this is political and so we “must” pick a side. Every day we are asked to watch FOX or MSNBC. Listen to Falwell or Air America. Vote pro-choice or pro-life. There are always two ideological options, seldom more, and we are always asked to choose.

And so the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, in all of its infinite moral complexity and daunting historical lineage comes along, and we are constantly begged to support what is presented as one “side” over the other. One of these “sides” looks American and the other does not, and I think many choose accordingly, if unconsciously.