> Citing openly anti-israeli sources like BBC and Al-Jazeera is not a way to prove your point.

Are you saying that their numbers are incorrect? If so share another link you trust more.

Attacks or responses to attacks?

You seem to conflate them.

> Attacks or responses to attacks?

Oh come on. I didn't say one side was retaliation and the other aggression. You are saying that. I said there were attacks on both sides. Whether one attack is raw aggression or defensive retaliation is very much in the eye of the beholder.

is it embarrassing when your peers are getting paid to post and you aren’t

I find that concept fascinating and wonder how genuine opinions are on these topics and how that feels to actually harbor opinions that rely on moral superiority, something that the rest of us don’t feel is a useful or relevant distinction for any sovereign in that region

If the BBC is an anti-Israeli source, it sounds like you'll only accept very pro-Israel sources as true.

No. BBC is quite far-left. And far-left is almost 100% anti-Israel.

If you don't think BBC is far-left, count the articles with right-wing perspectives and left-wing perspectives.

To point out the obvious, what qualifies as left and right is subjective.

For instance, someone who honestly believes that the British Broadcasting Company, that is, the state media of the United Kingdom is "far-left" is probably not very left leaning themselves.

Also, probably is an American.

The BBC's bias has been clearly established for decades now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC#Israeli%E...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balen_Report

It's not their fault that you're uninformed and refuse to see it.