Conduct a thought experiment and imagine the article wasn’t written by that think tank.

What part of the article is wrong and why? I will note, it doesn’t exactly embrace HTS. Please be specific. Happy to agree it is a bad source if you provide reasoned arguments and alternative data/analysis.

The BBC article doesn’t provide any context beyond the following two sentences:

For some time now, HTS has established its power base in the north-western province of Idlib where it is the de facto local administration, although its efforts towards legitimacy have been tarnished by alleged human rights abuses. … Since breaking with Al Qaeda, its goal has been limited to trying to establish fundamentalist Islamic rule in Syria rather than a wider caliphate, as IS tried and failed to do.

The BBC article does not discuss public policy in rebel controlled areas or address HTS’s recent statements.

I am not claiming to know the right answer. I don’t speak Arabic, I’ve never been to Syria and my in-person knowledge is largely limited to Syrian friends and acquaintances with whom I’ve lost contact with.

I am genuinely curious about more in-depth information.

They try really hard rebranding in name, not Ideas. Asad is bad, the people trying to get in power now are not better.

Do you have any specifics on this? Reports, analysis with reference to facts and data. Something along the lines of this article:

How Syria’s ‘Diversity-Friendly’ Jihadists Plan on Building a State

Not saying you are wrong, HTS and the rebels may well fracture. I guess we’ll find out.

For what it’s worth, HTS has seemingly moderated both its public statements and governance (in the areas it controlled) in the last few years.

Not saying we won’t have Islamic revanchism, but it’s too early to tell and there are some signs that moderate governance is not outside the realm of possibility.

Ironically, on Feb. 26, 20[1]1, two days after the fall of Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak to protesters and just before the wave of Arab Spring protests swept into Syria — in an email released by Wikileaks as part of a cache in 2012 — Assad e-mailed a joke he’d run across mocking the Egyptian leader’s stubborn refusal to step down.

“NEW WORD ADDED TO DICTIONARY: Mubarak (verb): To stick something, or to glue something. … Mubarak (adjective): slow to learn or understand,” it read.

This is going to be a strange little footnote in history.

I am looking at it from a more abstract, generic perspective.

When you lose the right to freely travel, work, live in your country. There is going to be a lot of animosity around this. I don’t think it is fair to purely attribute this to a discriminatory attitude.

Netanyahu and other Israeli leaders have condemned ICC Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan’s request for warrants as disgraceful and antisemitic.

Antisemitism does manifest itself in both casual and systematic forms. The region-specific component is also important.

However, claims regarding antisemitism from the Israeli government are increasingly becoming a “reverse confirmation” of sorts. One could almost argue that if they call something antisemitic, chances are it’s actually not and may even be the correct course of action (clear cut cases notwithstanding).

The Senate is due to vote later on Wednesday on a motion of disapproval of loan forgiveness for Ukraine put forward by Republican Senator Rand Paul, a frequent critic of U.S. support for Ukraine.

Rand Paul? Is this the fellow who advocated for taking horse medication against COVID?