Well that's one way to see it.
The company has attracted controversy for reports of political corruption, cronyism, fraud, financial manipulation, and exploitation of its customers, Indian citizens, and natural resources.[11][119][13][14][120] The chairman of Reliance Industries, Mukesh Ambani, has been described as a plutocrat
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliance_Industries#Criticism_and_controversies
8 subsections for 'Criticism and Controversies'
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
I'm not American and not the commentor, I'm observing from far away.
I agree, people should vote for the best possible candidate. Even single issue voters. The alternative is worse for this single issue. If I was American, I'd vote strategically like people on this thread are saying.
However
There are Americans that had friends, family members, and colleagues killed in this conflict, and they can't stomach going to the polls and voting for Biden after how he's acted throughout this conflict. I won't hold it against those people for not voting.
I can't even imagine what it would be like to have that happen and be told "go vote for him anyways". As true as it might be, it's not my place.
Which parts of it?
I don't think Netanyahu orchestrated it if that matters. Same idea as Bush
We should investigate when leadership benefits from a tragedy. We should investigate the decisions that allowed a tragedy to take place. That's how we prevent future tragedies
Sorry, I will highlight the important bit
Removed from power through legal means, by the people they state they represent. Removing either group with violence will beget more violence. A new entity with the same ideology will fill the gap.
Hamas as an organization has its own problems, and they share a lot of the same issues as Likud. They both hold on to power through violence and fear.
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:
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).
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?
Could you explain more about how the "statement is one sided"?