The article makes a broader point, but if you insist on focusing on Gessen: she is mentioned in the article because she was interviewed by the leading Israeli newspaper. Is it that hard to believe that she and her friends know more about Israel then ordinary people?
As far as who knows more, the base level facts are well-known: two ethnic groups both want a piece of land with lots of religious and cultural attachments; the weaker one engages in terrorism, while the stronger one engages in strict restrictions on the weaker population and kills more people than them. And if people know anything, they know that, and the difference in opinion is more about moral rules than a factual dispute.
If anything, the people who know more than that tend to be less thoughtful about the conflict, able to recite lists the atrocities one side has committed against the other and obscure historical incidents to justify one side or another, without even making the smallest effort to comprehend why the other side does what it does. I can't say I've ever walked away better informed by reading one of the "well-informed" partisan screeds.
In general states will always put a moral spin on terrorists. But terrorism is always the tool of the weaker party.
In fact all forms of rebellion can be spun as terrorism. As the state gets to frame the debate. Even now people refer to state violence as state terrorism.
I remember some authors arguing that terrorism label is more of a construct for emotional propaganda than anything useful for distinction.
Violence is violence. Who we expect or accept to receive that violence is a matter of opinion and perspective.
Sure. But not all forms of rebellion (or state violence) are terrorism. If rebels (or the state in question) are focused on attacking and killing enemy combatants, it's not really terrorism, while if they are focusing on indiscriminately targeting civilians, it is.
Words have meaning. Not all violence is the same.
EDIT: Even in the most violent of contexts (war), humans have collectively agreed that some forms of violence ("war crimes") are less acceptable than others; saying things like "violence is violence" could be seen as support to the "anything goes" approach to war (which I'm sure you don't support).
You'd be surprised.
Most never get it in person, having never even visited the countries they write about. A journalist covering global affairs might have visited a few of them, have a working knowledge of a couple or so, and the rest only know about superficially (if they're not merely Googling or checking 1-2 books, that could just be biased summaries about those countries and their issues).
And for those that do get it in person, like going there to report, many never get beyond the superficial, or beyond talking to people telling them what they want to hear (or even just people in their ideology/class).
Unfortunately, no. AP, DPA, Reuters, AFP, … — that’s where those news come from.
In any case, the comparison in the article is between journalists Gessen is friends with and unspecified other people who disagree with them. It's basically an attempt to reframe a political conflict as not political in nature at all, but instead rooted in ignorance, so that everyone who knew enough would obviously join the only correct side.