In the end, the Bronner story is not that significant. He will either remain in Israel or be reassigned. Other than for the Bronner family, life will go on as before.

But here's the real story. Suddenly the New York Times feels the need to deal with its critics who argue that the Israeli position should not be the default position. Journalists should no more mouth Israeli talking points than those of the Palestinian Authority or Hamas.

This is new. Until very recently the assumption was that the Israeli position was, by definition, the neutral, disinterested position.

Read any Tom Friedman column on the Middle East. The underlying assumption of any Friedman column is that if it's good for Israel, it's good for America. It's right.

Friedman is classic. On any issue -- Thai economics, Chinese reform, or Slovak separatism -- he will invariably find a friend, who happens to be an Israeli, to comment on it.

Until now, that was okay.

But since Gaza, everything has changed.

Israel has suddenly become a foreign country. And if the New York Times' correspondent's son, joins a foreign army, it matters. I mean, imagine if Bronner was covering Latin America and his son joined the Columbian defense forces!

I am not happy with this turn of events. Before Israel went off the deep end, I too thought it was appropriate for Americans to identify with it almost as if that identification did not conflict with being an American.

But that was never true, and it certainly isn't now. Those who emigrate to Israel or whose children do (or join its army) have a vested interest in Israel that conflicts with the role of a journalist.

This would apply to France, Japan, or even Canada. It always has.

The difference now is that the bloom is off the rose. Israel may be a foreign country many Americans love, but it is a foreign country. Those who quit the United States for Israel do not "make aliya," they emigrate.

All that is fine. But not if your job is to be objective.

And even the New York Times sees it. Everything is changing. The internet has made a huge difference with few (other than far right or Jewish organizational) blogs adhering to a pro-Israel line. They are neutral, some lean pro-Israel, some lean pro-Palestinian. But virtually none support the occupation.

Note: I do not expect this change in the zeitgeist to be manifested in policy because, no matter what, the donors will continue to demand that the politicians adhere to the AIPAC line. And they will.

I am referring to those who are immune, more or less, from the need to kiss up to single-issue donors. Policy will catch up later when today's 25-35 year olds have the money and the influence. The kids, thank God, just can't relate to the scare politics of ethnic lobbies. The kids, the smart ones anyway (the ones who believe in government and politics) are like EU kids. Good. But bad for the lobby and the future of scare politics. And for small-minded ethnic politics in general.