The statement was that Jewish people would not be safe anywhere without Israel

There are Jewish people living safely in many parts of the world, and those people are protected and loved by the communities they live as a part of.

The irony is that the statement was made to Jewish people in such a community outside of Israel. The other bit of irony is that statements like this are further divisions. Divisions that make life unsafe for everyone

Even if it wasn't intentional

• he directly stated in a speech that he approved funding transfer to Hamas to help them grow in power to keep the people divided

• they moved soldiers away from the border to the west bank to help with settlements

• as this article suggests, they had a lot of warnings

Those 3 points alone should be enough to send him and his party away, and until that happens (and until Hamas is also removed from power), that region won't see peace.

We need to let the legal system do its job, and for both Likud & Hamas to be removed from power through LEGAL MEANS by the people they say they represent.

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).

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"

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

I agree with that Hamas needs to go, and with the general idea in this article, but we could use a better source for the story

In what seems like the slightest of signs that the BBC has decided to veer away from its near-constant anti-Israeli narrative, it conducted an interview with [...]

What even...

The US spends more than any other country on healthcare, on TOP of what individuals pay for things like insurance.

The reason it all looks so expensive is because of how much money goes to shareholders and corporations. So yep, it could be a whole lot cheaper

That is a current problem with Twitter as well:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/sep/08/twitter-saudi-arabia-human-rights-abuses

Saudi authorities illegally requesting data from Twitter / flipping twitter employees to figure out who is posting opposing views. Some of which lead to arrests, torture, imprisonment, and death sentences.

al jazeera is a wholy qatari owned propoganda mouthpiece for ismalic jihadis

... yea lol what?

Al Jazeera is Qatari, and so I don't go to them for content about Qatar in case there's a bias. However it's a pretty large organization and they do decent investigative work on stuff happening in South America, Africa, & Asia. New organizations pick topics they think the readers want to see, and so in Canada (and likely the US) there's usually little to no coverage on stuff in these parts of the world. Al Jazeera puts out decent investigative pieces and documentaries about these places.

TLDR: Al Jazeera isn't unbiased, and I avoid them on certain topics. However I DO go to them for other stuff. It's definitely not a "mouthpiece for ismalic jihadis [sic]"

What happened in this article is a bad thing:

had his Facebook profile deleted by Meta 24 hours after the programme Tip of the Iceberg aired an investigation into Meta’s censorship of Palestinian content

do you think it'll be enough evidence to convince

No, nothing ever will

You cannot reason someone out of something they were not reasoned into