There is a saying, something along the lines of 'politics is the shadow that economics casts over society'. Now obviously there is no one to one correlation between a country's economic and political systems, but rich people often respond to calls for economic reform by trying to make the public fight among themselves. Fascism is one possibility, 'culture war' is another, bread and circuses a third, and so on.
The only consistent components of fascism are an autocratic government and a dictatorial ruler, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible nationalism through suppression of opposition.
This is authoritarian nationalism, not fascism. All fascism is nationalist and authoritarian, not all nationalism or authoritarianism is fascist. Bismarck, Churchill and Erdogan are/were authoritarian nationalists, but I wouldn't call any of them fascist.
It wasn't just religious affiliation. He, and others in the LDP, protected the Moonies in return for their political support. It was very much a political issue (separation of church and state).
I wouldn't call him imperialist, but he repeatedly denied WW2 Japanese war crimes (in particular the Nanking massacre and the use of Korean 'comfort women'). This is the rough equivalent of a German Chancellor denying the Holocaust.
If it is peace that the Israeli politicians want, why do they fund Hamas?
Also, ever wondered where Hamas - living in a place under such a strict embargo that people don't have enough food to eat - gets the explosives for its rockets?
At this point, when someone says they are 'against Israel', what they mean is that they are against the genocide the Israeli army is carrying out in Gaza. Maybe there are some who want the country itself toppled - neo-Nazis, for example, or those detached from reality - but they are a small minority (outside of Iran, perhaps).