shadysus

The "funding" was confirmed by him from a past speech. Funding is in quotes because it wasn't all direct funding, and that particular speech was about him signing off on a transfer of funds from someone else to Hamas. But the underlying motivation is still accurate because... that's what he said the reason was. He said he wanted Hamas to have more funding so they would rise in power and keep the people divided.

The rest of it is stuff that can never be proved in favor or against unless you can read minds. However, it seems more than likely if you take into account the wider history of him, his party, and the region.

On the other side of this you have years of massive protests within Israel by Israeli citizens, and ongoing criminal and corruption charges against him and his associates within Israel.

A violent war would help him, and that's not a conspiracy

I've seen this posted elsewhere, and while it's a valid thing to talk about it distracts from the bigger issues

Others here have explained the difference between someone who's taken as a prisoner (they are being held because of something they allegedly did) and someone who's taken hostage (someone who's held as security for some other purpose). From what I can tell, even Hamas isn't saying the hostages are guilty of anything. It seems like those involved in the situation agree that the terminology is appropriate.

The more important discussion imo are:

• Whether the charges against the prisoners are appropriate, or if there's a history of charges, arrests, and detention without justification or evidence. I think this is the point people are trying to make when they bring up hostages vs. prisoners, but if you aren't specific about it you end up going in circles and arguing about the wrong thing.
• Whether those are being held (both hostages and prisoners) are being treated with respect and dignity. If their needs are being met and if they are being tortured / otherwise suffering unjustly.

There is also some more important discussion around terminology, such as one group being called "women" (implies humanity) and another "females" (more formal, scientific, and a term that's also used for animals).

however wrong you may think that is.

I don't think it's wrong, what gave that impression? The people living in that region all deserve peace, fairness, and equitable treatment from the governing body

Also there's a lot more to this article than just the Palestine line

This might just feel like confirmation for those that have been watching the coverage in recent weeks. The CTV journalists and newscasters themselves look uncomfortable too, so it's good that they're now able to share what's going on

The journalists said senior producers and senior editors across the platforms of CTV’s parent company Bell Media have disparaged Palestinian guests, told employees that protests calling for a ceasefire should not be reported on, and blocked or delayed stories that included too much contextual information about Israel’s military occupation and regime of apartheid in Palestine.

The journalists, who are not being identified for fear of retribution, described a widespread bias at the media conglomerate against Palestinians that’s resulted in one-sided, incomplete coverage of the violence in Gaza that does “a huge disservice” to Canadians.

The bit that stood out to me was

We have zero tolerance for antisemitism or the incitement of hate in any form, including false references to genocide, ethnic cleansing, Holocaust distortion

It sounds like they threw in "Holocaust distortion" as an extra thing to make their stance sound more legitimate, since otherwise it sounds awful. Why would anyone ever get in trouble for "false references to genocide, ethnic cleansing" even if we assume it was "false"

End of the century is so far away lmao. We'll see a lot worse than a poor economy by then. Even financial costs of environmental issues will be felt long before then.

People don't care about what will happen to them in the next decade, companies don't care what will happen to them in the next quarter. We need to highlight the changes that are real and immediate too

Could the bigger issue be that him and his party are inflaming the conflict in order to hold on to power and avoid prison?

Likud and Hamas need each other to exist. The party doesn't have a future if there's peace, and now more than ever they benefit from more conflict. That's part of why they were ineffective during the initial attacks by Hamas, the other being they moved troops to the West Bank to support settler initiatives there.

But time for that is yet to come, right now war is going on and bigger issues need dealing with.

This is the bit I have a problem with because that's the exact rhetoric he's using right now. He's said it himself, he'll face responsibility but only after the war. He's also said the war will be long.

It's pretty easy to see what he's doing here

Does that include a way for them to return after the conflict settles?

The story may be true, but regardless we need to link to better sources than this site. There was a problematic article the other day as well.

That's true regardless of which side you're advocating for. Post good sources and the truth will help the innocent people suffering all around.

Edit: looks like DoomBot5 deleted their other comments

Could you explain more about how the "statement is one sided"?

That's the thing

Hamas is awful for putting military installations near civilian infrastructure, and the Israeli military is awful for bombing indiscriminately despite their advanced military tech and resources.

We don't need to pick one or the other

Policies and direct funding

They've openly bragged about funding Hamas in order to keep the Palestinian population divided and prevent any kind of formal government from forming.

Hamas and Likud/Netanyahu need each other to stay in power. Without them, the people in the region may actually move towards peace.