WDSmart

Accuse the other side of which you yourself are extremely guilty! No, I can see the pro-Israeli side of this conflict. It is, IMO, based on the fervent belief that Jews have been "promised" that land by "God," so they are entitled to it. And, again, IMO, Palestinians believe that since their forefathers lived there, they too are entitled to it. And then on and on it goes.

No, because that is exactly the goal of Netanyahu and his right-wing, nationalistic cronies (I can't use a certain word I normally use here anymore - I've been warned about that). They want total control of what they believe to be the "Promised Land." That's the entire argument. Both sides want full control of the land that used to be called "Palestine."

I asked a question, and all you did was try to run around it. My answer would be If a publisher believes their Arab journalists who show pro-Hamas/anti-Israeli sentiments on social media can't be trusted, then they should also use that same scrutiny on their Jewish journalists who have shown to be pro-Israel/anti-Hamas on social media.

I don't think you're all "daft," but I do think you are all biased and blinded by that. I don't live in the past, but I don't discount what was done in the past as being a large part of what is causing this current, ongoing conflict. I have never made any excuses for the terrorist activities of Hamas on Oct 7. I've only tried to put it in perspective for those who think that attack came suddenly out of nowhere. I also don't make any excuses for the indiscriminate revenge bombing of Gaza that has occurred since.

Bad faith comparison. Seeks to establish a false equivalence between disparate entities using a binary view of something with a great degree of variability. Kind of like did you ever lie? So your as bad as Putin. Common tactic in support of hard line terrorists. So, your answer would be "yes." And, no, it's not the same as you noted above. That's a false equivalency. The equivilency would depend on the ramifications of the lies.

This was in Dec 2023, but after the Israeli terrorists had started bombing Gaza. Poll shows Palestinians back Oct. 7 attack on Israel, support for Hamas rises Poll shows Palestinians back Oct. 7 attack on Israel, support for Hamas rises | Reuters

Incoherent statement. Okay, how about... "IMO, I think it is really dumb and simple-minded to think that this entire conflict started on Oct 7. There is a lot more history behind the conflict than the horrible events that occurred on just that day." And most of the Israeli-supporters on this topic do just that.

IMO, a REALLY "dumbed down and simple minded terms" would be Oct 7!

Tens of thousands protest Netanyahu government, call for elections Tens of thousands protest Netanyahu government, call for elections (msn.com)

Just another example of how much we differ. If I'm asked a direct question, especially on social media, I ALWAYS answer it. I might answer, "I don't know," but most times, I will answer first with a simple "yes" or "no" and then, if necessary, explain my answer in more detail. Just sayin'...

So Bkk Brian, please answer me just one question: No, got better things to do with my time. It won't take much of your time. A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.

I make of it what it is—one-sided. I expected nothing else from you. So Bkk Brian, please answer me just one question: - If you think that Arab journalists who seem to be pro-Hamas/anti-Israel on social media cannot be impartial, do you think Jewish journalists who seem to be pro-Israel/anti-Hamas on social media can be impartial?

I make of it what it is—one-sided. This has nothing to do with Al Jazeera. It now has to do with a "problem" the BBC might have if it really wants to enforce impartiality on its journalists. But I don't suspect they will even try to enforce the impartiality of their Jewish pro-Israeli/anti-Hamas journalists when writing stories about Hamas. This sounds a lot like many of you on this forum. You can only see one side, and any explanations or accounts from the other side's perspective are considered lies, anti-Jewish, or trolling. That's just not true. There is another side to this conflict, and until that's recognized and dealt with, there will be no end to it.

What is the point of this story? Is it insinuating that the story about the Israeli terrorists beating and humiliating medics is false? Or is the concern just because the journalists writing the story seem to be pro-Hamas/anti-Israel? And if that's the case, will the BBC also consider it a problem if any of their journalists write stories condemning Hamas but later prove to be pro-Isreal/anti-Hamas?

Yes, that's exactly what I'd do...if I were Hamas. As soon as they turn over all the hostages, Israel will invade Gaza, killing everyone they think is or has been connected with Hamas while killing many more that are civilians in the process. And then they will probably do something similar, only probably not so outlandish, in the West Bank.

Any thoughts on this question yet?

Yes, If I were Hamas, I'd keep the "most valuable" hostages until last. They are the most valuable bargaining chips. Hamas started this phase of this 80-plus-year-old war, but the war itself was a result of two peoples wanting to own the same piece of land. It's only logical to keep a hold of your most valuable assets until the very end of the bargain. All this is done using what I think would be a Hamas perspective. If it were me, I wouldn't have attacked Israel or taken hostages in the first place.

😴 from last night. Time to move on What do you mean, "Time to move on"? Those talks are just beginning today - now.

Yes, this was reported on CNN this morning. As I posted earlier, we may get released or leaked reports on what is being discussed, but we won't get anything specific until there is a proposal from one side or, although very unlikely, an agreement is reached,

Well, you're the one always demanding links to the discussions. I'm glad you've decided to quit spreading your Brians and admit that you are not so Smart in this situation. Let me clarify it for you: there are no links to the actual discussions. Sometimes, there are links to the discussions' topics, and sometimes there are links to the discussions' results—the proposals.

They were released after being discussed, not during the discussion. And, are you going to answer my question of what you think is the leading or primary cause of this conflict?

The discussions are private. Reports like this have been released or leaked from time to time, but they don't give any details on the actual discussions. They highlight areas of agreement or, like this one, obstacles.

@Jingthing or @Bkk Brian or any other of those here who are ardently pro-Israel... I previously posted that I believe it is Israel's continual invasion and seizing of Palestinian land that is the leading cause of this conflict. Would a few of you tell me what you think is its cause? I think your answers will be very, very interesting.

There are no links to the actual discussions. They are private. You know that.

The mediators are discussing recommendations like the ones in my link. They are only irrelevant if you would only support one side's ultimatum.