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

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.

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

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...

The motion calls comments made by Hamilton Centre MPP Sarah Jama last week “antisemitic” and “discriminatory.” If passed, it would call on the Speaker not to recognize Jama in the House “until the Member retracts and deletes her statement on social media and makes an apology in her place in the House.”

Didn't she already retract and apologize?

It also demands that the MPP “desist from further conduct that is inappropriate and unbecoming of a Member of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.”

From what I saw, the issue with the statement in the first place was the timing and that it didn't call out every group that needed to be called out. That's what the issue was. They're also saying the NDP is an "antisemitic party" and that 'Jama is not fit to be premier'. The statements are all wild, it almost makes me think they're trying to use this as a distraction.

They're intentionally making wild controversial claims to direct attention away from the greenbelt controversy

Another aspect of this is when western media and politicians are hesitant to call out Netanyahu's administration right now, despite so many Israeli people wanting him gone and months of massive protests in the country.

As for Ireland, they've actually long been different from other European counterparts about Israel/Palestine in both public opinion and government policy. The reasoning given is that they felt a shared sense of struggle against a powerful neighboring regime early on, and that helped them focus on the human rights aspects of the issue

Yep, news sites also post about Canadian's killed or harmed in Gaza

https://london.ctvnews.ca/london-ont-doctor-trapped-in-gaza-volunteers-at-hospital-urges-entry-of-medical-aid-1.6599751

CTV News has its issues, but they do report on both

There was also this from CBC, which is generally better for coverage

Canadian shot in Gaza says he was 'clearly marked' as a doctor (CBC)

Not too experienced with it but my understanding is:

1. RD caches files. You aren't torrenting directly, but rather you ask for the file associated with a link, and then download it directly

2. Pretty sure you can travel all you want. It's only a problem if two locations are using it at the same time?

3. that should be fine, but check their site for a list of approved VPNs

Yea especially when tourists often don't know about the local risks. Warning signs are mostly for people who aren't from a particular area

Don't want a 'boy who cried wolf' situation

I agree people should have the right to burn it.

What's important I think is that burning ANYTHING that people like / consider culturally important is going to make them upset, regardless of what the contents actually are. People absolutely shouldn't get violent over that, but I don't like how some comments (not yours) on these threads are fanning the flames to the conflicts. Hoping for things to escalate just to prove a point is... a bad look.

This next bit is opinion on the burnings: I don't think the burnings are that productive and they don't get much of a meaningful dialogue. Instead they just escalate tensions, deepen divisions / resentment, and when it happens it undermines the goals of the entire thing.

That's not the point of the recent discussions, which are around if it should be legal. I guess I'm trying to say "it's legal, but the act still harms everyone involved"

related example: Burning the Canadian flag is a valid form of protest, and it's legal to do / should stay legal. However, it's usually not productive