I more or less like the more recent direction Cyclops has taken, even if the execution is sometimes off. It makes sense to me, given how he was raised and the pressure put on him from an early age, would respond to the events they've built over the last few years. I think he's both reasonable and sympathetic to a degree. I think the dichotomy Aaron built between Cyclops and Wolverine is believable and compelling, if a little unexpected. I'd even go so far as to say that he's hypothetically a more interesting character now than he was in Morrison's run. Unfortunately, due to the volume and fluctuating quality of the writers handling him, he's not as consistently well written as he was in New X-Men. And I think AvX is the low point for his handling.
I also think AvX could be a compelling premise. I know it's not a new one but in the past it's always been "this superhero team fights that superhero team", but the series' are now uniquely positioned to tell an interesting story. One is a militant micro-nation that sees themselves as Israel sees themselves, a persecuted minority surrounded by enemies that has every right to defend themselves with hard right militarism. And there's a legitimate question of how justified they are in considering their long-term survival. They aren't a racial or ethnic group. They don't have an established culture. Really, the only thing that defines them is that they have super powers, and given the fact that they've hardly used those powers to push forward a new global renaissance, it's hard to justify that they're the next step of evolution. There could be a strong theme drawn of natural/evolutionary transhumanism (X-Men) vs. technological/self-induced transhumanism (Avengers). The latter seems a more justifiable and cautionary path to sustainability, after all.
Even Cyclops and Captain America have potentially interesting parallels. Both represent the two strains of transhumanism to a tee. Both were young, skinny kids who are poster children for the inception of their groups (both the teams and superhumans/mutants respectively). Both were groomed to be the commanders for their people and one could argue that any differences in philosophy are defined by the size and circumstances of the groups they now lead.
The problem is, they're terrible written. I'm not talking about the dialogue (which is still bad), but the actions. Hey Steve, what's your strategy to extract this potentially world devastating threat from this militarized island nation, directly off our coast, populated by walking, talking weapons of mass destruction who are potentially the equivalent to radical zealots and, if so inclined, could do significant damage to your nation? "Well, we're going to load a bunch of our guys up in a flying ship. I'm going to tell this guy we're taking the girl and if he disagrees, our guys will punch their guys and take the girl". Hey Scott, you know these Avengers are coming. They outnumber you, and you can see their nation, which has the most powerful military in the world, from your bedroom window. They intend to take away your token messiah who you're holding out will save your species against all evidence to the contrary, and really guy, it's a pretty tenuous hope, but that's cool I guess. What's the plan? "Well, we keep her here and we lock her in a room. Then when those guys come, we punch them. Lots."
Genius.
Edit: The original phrasing of the Israel made it sound like I was justifying the actions of Israel. I just want to make it clear, that wasn't intended. No moral justifications intended there, just a political comparison.