I check into, but do not really listen to, KPFA, for much the same reason I only check in with Fox. Reporting with bias I can deal with, but in listening to either, you have to work around chains of buzzwords that the speakers can't help but choke out every time they mention a topic.
That said, there's more value to be found in KPFA than in Fox, by far.
The KPFA program Flashpoints featured a story yesterday about a policy of strip-searching at checkpoints in Israel and the Palestinian territories, with an emphasis on this having been done to children. While I was doing some follow-up reading at If Americans Knew -- the site of the those who compiled that report -- I found an article they'd included that made an interesting point. The problematic yield of American support for Israel is not just a matter of antagonizing Arab nations. It's also a matter of funding industries that compete directly with ours, including arms sales to countries we won't deal with (and given our own armament promiscuity, that may be saying a lot).
In general, this entire line of thinking highlights the lack of good cost-benefit analysis for everyone involved. The checkpointing policies described in the report aren't particularly helpful, and, like many semi-punitive measures, may tend to generate enemies rather than control them. Similarly, we aren't doing a good evaluation of our role vis-a-vis Israel. A friend suggested that our policy would be sounder if we cut our military aid to Israel and replaced it witha promise that we would not fall to an attack from outside. If we then went on to spread some of that money around the area, that would help reduce key pressures that lead to violence, such as poverty and lack of hope. And that, in the end, would even help Israel.