No, it doesn't. As a moderator, I enforce the clearly marked mission statements of the community.

Where those mission statements conflict with your notion of what is of is not appropriate in the discussion of Israel is not relevant.

When someone breaks the rules of the community, regardless of the position on Israel, the rules of the community come first.

Putting my opinion of "Yeah, but Israel are assholes, this time it's OK" would make me the bad moderator everyone accuses me of.

The reason communities have rules is to take the personal opinion out of it.

So, someone makes a post:

1. Is it a banned topic? (Posting US internal news in World for example).

2. Is it a banned category? (Blog site, twitter, youtube, self post, image post).

3. Is the source a legitimate source? Tools to identify legitimate from illegitimate provided.

4. Does it link to the original source and does the headline match?

Pass all four bars and we are all good. These are incredibly simple "Yes/No" gates, the rules are posted and documented.

Le Monde is one of three French "Newspapers of Record":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_of_record

As for who put AllSides, MediaBias Fact Check and Ad Fontes in charge of determining real from fake news on the Internet? Well, the same people who put Snopes and FactCheck.org in charge of fact checking.

It's a collective decision made by most thinking people on the Internet including other news organizations and institutions of higher education.

Which makes sense that you would reject it.

So when someone like this says "Go here:"

https://library.skagit.edu/medialiteracy/journalism

You can pretty much take them at their word. And when 2 out of three bias sites call you out on your bullshit and the only reason the 3rd one doesn't is because of a paywall, you have two choices:

1. Find a better source, as offered.

OR, your choice:

2. GTFO