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.
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...
Ah I think I misunderstood which part of the comment the /s was referring to, not sure why
That's my bad, I guess I can't read
How about we don't bomb things based on ideology, even if the ideology is atheism...
It's a bit ironic to call out the issues with organized religion, and then go "I'm ok with bombing the buildings of those I consider 'other' "
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