WDSmart

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.

Nope Yep. What do you think is causing all the problems?

You asked for a link to my recommendations, so I gave you one.

Here is a link to my recommendations: Rung & Bill: Israel/Palestine Proposed Resolution (billsmart.com)

Why are my recommendations irrelevant? Are you sure they are not being discussed? If so, what ones are? I suggest many of my recommendations, or some like them, are being discussed—or, at least, they should be.

Muslims and Jews can be US citizens, too.

It's not a circle; it's a Moebius strip. Here's my recommendation: 1. Immediate ceasefire and withdrawal of troops; 2. Partial release of hostages and exchange of prisoners (about half); 3. Implementation of a 3rd-party (like the UN) peacekeeping force; 4, Withdrawal of troops and permanent ceasefire; 5. Release of rest of hostages and exchange of all prisoners; 6. Forced talks on a two-state solution. My further recommendation of a two-state solution would be to divide up the land as the UN suggested in 1947 when they created the state of Israel, which divided the land up into about 53% Jewish, 46% Arab, and 1% Common (Jerusalem). Here's a map of that with a link below it. (I'd also include two small "Common" areas, like a large roundabouts, to join the Arab areas and Jewish areas where they intersect just east of Gaza and north of Jenin.) United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine - Wikipedia

I didn't say "the US government." I said, "The USA..." now supports a PERMANENT ceasefire.

Okay, here are two links to my claim that the USA now backs a PERMANENT ceasefire in Gaza... U.S. Polls Show Shifting Landscapes on Gaza Ceasefire - Bridge Initiative (georgetown.edu) Most US Voters Support Permanent Ceasefire in Gaza, New Polling Finds | Truthout

There has never been any of your reading of my posts that are convenient. I've posted details of what I would like to see in an agreement numerous times on this and other topics. I'm not going to list them all here again.

Yes, of course, I know there will be other conditions for an agreement. It's a lie to insinuate that I don't. I hope one of those conditions is continuing talks to work out a two-state solution. I'd suggest something like the 50:50 division of land that the UN designated in the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948.

The USA is now also siding with the Palestinian's call for a PERMANENT ceasefire. And, Israel could not have provoked all these attacks by not sizing and occupying Palestinian land.

That depends on who I was and where and when I encountered them. - If I were a policeman, national guardsman, or in some other group assigned to guard a federal building, and if it was being attacked by people who were armed and firing guns or wielding other weapons that were threatening our safety, yes, I would consider shooting them. - But, if you're talking about me, someone who only watched some of the insurrection on TV, and now, after the turmoil has subsided and some of the "insurrectionists" have been captured and arrested, no, I wouldn't think they should be shot. They should be charged with whatever crimes they are believed to have committed and brought to trial. If found guilty, they should be sentenced to serve whatever time was appropriate. The only situation in which I would agree that they should be executed would be if they were found guilty of murder while engaging in insurrection, and a jury and judge agreed to that.