It was Netanyahu who kept Hamas in power, in order to keep Palestine divided so he could claim there was no overall Palestinian government to negotiate with.
Natahnyahu funded Hamas indeed with the goals above, but that was not all i was saying, yu see that happens often in this topic people have a certain tunnel vision and then they start saying the same thing over and over thinking it somehow get more credible.
But the thing is, if Nethanyahu funds Hamas it does not mean it rules out Iran funding them aswell and/or supplying them with weapons. At the same time, Many rumors suggest they did, some suggest with or without Isreali knowledge.
The UN role in situations like this is always a bit difficult, but there have been multiple occasions this war Hamas run/controlled buildings have been overrun exposing that Hamas was harvesting UN supplied aid, and it's also not the first time weapons storage has been found in UN run schools
Now for an ngo's like the UN to operate they often have to make deals with organisations like Hamas because otherwise they wouldn't be able to supply any help at all, but to date they deny this in their reports. which is just wrong in my view.
So, @dutch, can you now answer the above question please?
Do you think and estimated 60k deaths that contains an unknown number of fighters for hamas and fractions who fight in civilian clothes(a war crime) out of an population of an estimated 2 million constitutes to wanting to ''eliminate'' the whole population?
No, he was entirely accurate in his reporting. There was a citation missing from one point, and a reluctant admission that stupid people might not have had sufficient information.
as a journalist he should account for ''stupid poeple'' and those deliberatly Stupid, that why he gets paid for writing/reporting about things.
There was no mis-reporting. Stop making things up that aren't true. We have enough of that already.
the bbc claims it does right? or at least leaving away something that make it possible to be explained in a different way.
By reading them. They were minor. The sense of the article was not incorrect. The historicity of the article was not incorrect. The article was not factually incorrect.
it was not said or implied
Supporting evidence? I would contend that once an issue is known about the BBC are very good at researching it. They even produce political or documentary programmes about an issue while it is being investigated and report it on their own channel. You wouldn't see that in a Murdoch owned outlet.
Yeah murdoch owned outlets are not very good, but that doesn't say anything about the quality of the BBC's own. it may sounds great but does it really? i'm not to convinced, yes when the topic is ''Trump, far right, Isreal, etc.'' they generally do a good job but when it's left, pro hamas/gaza etc. it seems to turn an blind eye to things.
They weren't off. You can't investigate a thing until you know it's a thing. Also both Brand and Saville's offending were very historical and the BBC has learned a lot of lessons.
After Saville they said it wouldn't happen again, yet Russel Brand was at least when generation futher, so a other example of saying they weren't off whilst they where.
But they did correct them, didn't they? Isn't that the point?
Location, location, the corrections are hidden away on the website, whilst the original claims arein big letters on their homepages, televised new and printed media.
Als Cliff Richards won a court case against them for the very same reason.
And yet you are the one nitpicking about an article because the same journalist wrote something 15 years ago which had some minor flaws exposed due to a raving lunatic complaining about it.
Just keeping you lot honest, you known damn well you would be doing the same if the topic of his article was something you don't politically like.