When was this from, and what did he mean by that exactly? The context matters.
He’s been way harder on Israel than Trudeau ever was.
“A Zionist (if you will) Palestinian State that recognizes the right of Israel to exist. Not just to exist but to prosper and not live in fear.”
So he just means a state that doesn’t want to wipe Israel off the map. He may not be aware that “Zionist” is a trigger word in far left information bubbles.
The clip is linked. He’s talking about wanting a Palestinian state that’s pro Israel and pro Israeli flourishing.
I guess he means a state that’s ok with illegal settlements and apartheid treatment.
Maybe he means one that’ll back up Israel’s imperialist and aggressive wars in the region.
The clip is linked, and you went ahead and made up a bunch of shit anyway.
What he actually said was “A Zionist… if you will… Palestinian State that recognizes the right of Israel to exist. Not just to exist but to prosper and not live in fear.”
Understand the the word “Zionist” is only a trigger word in leftist bubble world. You’ve been conditioned to think Zionist = evil demon Jew, but in normal circles it doesn’t mean that.
Why are you against there being a Palestinian state that peacefully co-exists?
A peaceful Israel needs to exist before any moral nation can tolerate it. The one we have is one that expands illegal settlements in Palestinian territory and starts wars of aggression and imperial expansion throughout the region.
No, I don’t want that Israel to prosper, I want it to understand fear.
Violence isn’t working out well for Palestinians. Maybe it’s time to start accepting Israel is going to continue to exist, trying to make it not exist is just getting a lot of people killed.
I guess he means a state that’s ok with illegal settlements and apartheid treatment.
Why would he mean that?
I think it’s more likely that he’s idealizing a future where Israel and Palestine forget their history and trauma and suddenly become best buddies who root for each other’s success because no one is interested in inflicting any more pain on the other. This is a pointless exercise in imagination but it’s probably what he’s going for with this statement.
It was pointless to imagine France and England would ever put aside their differences… until they did. It was pointless to imagine France and Germany putting aside their differences… until they did. I remember when I was young people said The Troubles would never end. I was told the war in Yugoslavia would go on forever.
People can put aside their differences. There is a Palestinian movement in Gaza that wants peace. Israel in the past has tried to make land for peace deals, but guys like Yasser Arafat fucked it up.
There is a willingness for peace on both sides, it’s just the leadership needs to change.
You might be reading too much into what I wrote. Saying it’s a pointless discourse is not the same as saying that I believe a peaceful resolution is forever impossible.
Very charitable but valid interpretation.
Extremely poor choice of a loaded word if so.
Either way, reason to be disappointed with him.
Extremely poor choice of a loaded word if so.
Totally agree. And tone deaf too. I imagine how ridiculous would it be to call for an “American exceptionalist” Canada.
Very braindead to hope for a future empathetic view of the agressor if the aggression hasn’t even stopped yet.
Good comparison.
I believe in an independent Canadian state but it must be a MAGA state!
He should apologies and clarify stuffs. When i heard a zionist palestine i understand that he advocate for an ethnostate which is completely against canadian secularism. He also dismiss that israel do not accept a palestinian state that is on the whole occupied land sized in 67
It was occupied before '67, just by Jordan and Egypt.
Also a big part of Zionism is the need for a Jewish state to be a safe haven in times of antisemitism. I used to think there wasn’t that need, though I was fine with there being a Jewish state because it was already there since before I was born. But now there is no doubt of the necessity to have a guaranteed safe haven for Jews.
This generation failed to resist continuing the cycle of hatred that has existed for centuries. Maybe next century :(
When i heard a zionist palestine i understand that he advocate for an ethnostate which is completely against canadian secularism.
Maybe? I think one thing is defending Canadian secularism because it’s what we believe it’s right for us. Another thing is a Canadian official claiming that a different nation should be secular. I don’t think he’s in a position to do that, even if, like me, he believes that secularism is the better and most humanitarian choice.
In the same they want iran to become a secular democracy. It’s double standard.
Carney supported strike on iran because it’s an autocracy then invite saudis who are as bad as Iran in this specific case
It is the zionism ideology that caused the nekba displacing 750k palestinian. It is zionism that was the motivation to occupy gaza and the west bank in 67, it is because of zionism that the illegal settlements are still build. You should understand why the term zioniat palestine is incceptable
I think you might be jumping to conclusions on what I think and understand about what’s happening. I don’t think the term “zionist Palestine” is acceptable. I think it’s unacceptable for slightly different reasons than you do.
I’m just saying that defending a jewish state is not necessarily at odds with Canadian secularism if the state in question is not Canada. The point is that defending secularism is totally orthogonal to the whole discussion. And yes, obviously if the Prime Minister is indifferent to a Jewish Israel, they should be indifferent to an Islamic Palestine. Just like they are already indifferent to Islamic Saudi Arabia - we don’t see the PM giving interviews saying that Saudi Arabia should become a secular state.
He have an issue with autocratic iran that’s ehy there ia sanctiona but has no issue with saudis because it’s canada ally. Double standard
Iran was developing nukes and Carney is against that.
Instead of watching clips of an interview intercut with someone telling you how you should feel about it and guessing at what was cut out, you could just watch the original interview where he explains his reasoning: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-N0Vf9Djb8
And you could go further and read the report he’s referencing from the IAEA: https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/statements/iaea-director-generals-introductory-statement-to-the-board-of-governors-9-june-2025
Israel has illegally built nuclear weapons for its self defense, why shouldn’t Iran?
Hey zionists. You can chortle my balls.
We need to stand against genocidal wankers!
So he wants them to switch religions and integrate into Israel?
So straight up he is a genocidal fascist then huh?
But did he though…?
Until the majority of Palestinians accept that Israel has a right to exist alongside a Palestinian state, there won’t be lasting peace between the two. An incredibly poor choice of words, but the point is clear to those willing to listen.
I mean, we’re not at the point where they even have a say in it. They’re busy struggling to survive because Israelis don’t accept their right to exist and actually have American hardware to impose their will with.
I agree, Israel has become a major problem. That does not change the problems that exist on the Palestinian side. Things can be wrong simultaneously.
Reading this again, I see you’re not a Zionist but just a person interested in nuance and the actual truth here. That’s good, the source is doing the thing where you cut out a soundbite and make rage bait out of it.
So what’s the solution here? Both sides are human, and will harbour grudges and gravitate to ideologies that legitimise them. Peace has been imposed under similar situations before.
What will happen is a totally different question. A successful and very ironic genocide seems most likely.
Nuance?! On social media??? Off with his head!!
Reading this again, I see you’re not a Zionist but just a person interested in nuance and the actual truth here. That’s good, the source is doing the thing where you cut out a soundbite and make rage bait out of it.
Thank you for understanding where I am coming from.
So what’s the solution here? Both sides are human, and will harbour grudges and gravitate to ideologies that legitimise them. Peace has been imposed under similar situations before.
I think possible solutions get far more complicated the longer everything is allowed to go on.
If I was given the power of decision I would have international boots on the ground, disarm all parties and security would be the responsibility of the international third parties, every single person who committed a crime must be brought before the courts and charged from all sides of this, an extensive deprogramming and education program to de-radicalize the populations, at which point each side will be given the ability to set up their own systems of government and be given more freedoms from the international community regarding personal defense as each state demonstrates its good faith in moving into the international community and following international law. Both states will be recognized by the international community at large, and I believe it is the responsibility of all Governments involved to fund reparations for the civilians who have been impacted or displaced, as well as a right to return for every single person.
Now I know this is an incredibly tall, and even seemingly impossible order. At the end of the day this is the only way I see lasting peace when considering the long and bloody history of this conflict. As you pointed out peace has been imposed before and not lasted, but I think a big mistake is it wasn’t done correctly because it did not address those deep wounds and scars within the communities, or the radicalization present in the populations.
Honest question, what gives any country a right to exist?
All rights are made up. They’re just things that enough people thought were good, so we formed consensus on them.
Thats not a demerit against them, though.
International Law.
That’s circular logic, though. International Law is just a set of agreements between sovereign powers. It doesn’t spring from seafoam, fully formed. What gives any nation a “right” to exist?
It’s just self determination
But international law is more like “is recognized”, if no one recognizes your claim then there isn’t much you can do
This explain really why the question of israel right to exists propaganda talking point https://youtube.com/shorts/k12E7LuD2_4
International Law is just a set of agreements between sovereign powers
And? What’s circular about it? Nations arise from self organizing societies, and these nations come together to define international laws. And then they define the right of self affirmation, and if the main powers recognize a state it is assigned the right to exist. And if the core powers of this world decide that a country does not matter, they’ll look the other way as those rights are bombed. It’s an emergent property of international politics.
It doesn’t spring from seafoam, fully formed.
No rights do, so I don’t understand where you’re going with this.
It isn’t circular logic because international law is what gives a country a right to exist. It isn’t any more complicated than that for the sake of this conversation.
In what way occupying West Bank and preventing people from getting basic needs while trying hard to deport them from their land do you see it as a fight for their right to exists?
I don’t agree with the occupation or Israels current behavior.
Sounds like you’re not Zionist enough to self govern if you lived there. Lucky you’re not Palestinian
Do you have a point to make?
Yes, it’s that if you disagree with Israel and want representation that feels the way you do, then you can’t be a proper Palestinian that deserves to govern himself according to Carney
Not what he said.
The entire point of Zionism is you don’t exist alongside Palestine.
The point of Zionism was to establish a Jewish state in Jewish homeland.
Which couldn’t happen without ethenic cleansing and local people had the right to oppose the idea created by foreigners
Zionism is a fascist ideology based upon building an ethno nation states wherein those of other ethnicities are expelled or exterminated.
Why do other ethnic and religious groups exist in modern day Israel if they were all supposed to be expelled or exterminated?
They are fine as long as arabs are a minority. Israel couldn’t be created without mass displacements of palestinians. It eouldn’t have been a jewish majority state otherwise
And you watched the news for the past year and concluded that Palestinians are the problem?
I mean, of course they are. They murder their own children, they play sounds of crying babies so that other Palestinians come out to find it so they can snipe those idiots, they murder ambulance drivers and the little child that was a witness to that massacre, I mean Palestinians are evil, man!
Oh wait, that was all the IDF.
Yeah, Hamas is an issue and you’d have a point to mention that (because I can already see you furuously scribbling that) of it weren’t for the fact that Hamas is (in good part) funded by Israel just to give the Israeli army an excuse to murder even more Palestinians.
Nazis were the evil monsters of the 1940s. The Israeli government and army are the evil monsters of, well, the past 50 or so years? I remember the news reports fucking 40 years ago where the IDF would snipe murder young Palestinian kids because they throw rocks at them… All of these fucks should be swinging from the highest crane we can find
And you watched the news for the past year and concluded that Palestinians are the problem?
I have been studying this issue since the early 2000’s. I did not just start watching recently like the majority of the loudest ignoramus’ in the conversation.
I mean, of course they are. They murder their own children, they play sounds of crying babies so that other Palestinians come out to find it so they can snipe those idiots, they murder ambulance drivers and the little child that was a witness to that massacre, I mean Palestinians are evil, man!
Oh wait, that was all the IDF.
The IDF is not a saint in this and that is absolutely obvious. This is what happens when leaders with genocidal rhetoric gain power. They use the military for their own purposes, which are usually genocidal.
This does not change the actions of Hamas, or the Palestinians who support Hamas, and those actions do not justify the attacks on civilians.
Yeah, Hamas is an issue and you’d have a point to mention that (because I can already see you furuously scribbling that) of it weren’t for the fact that Hamas is (in good part) funded by Israel just to give the Israeli army an excuse to murder even more Palestinians.
They funded Hamas, and from what I know, no longer fund Hamas. Which was absolutely disgusting. They are also funded by numerous other countries in modern times including Iran.
Nazis were the evil monsters of the 1940s. The Israeli government and army are the evil monsters of, well, the past 50 or so years? I remember the news reports fucking 40 years ago where the IDF would snipe murder young Palestinian kids because they throw rocks at them… All of these fucks should be swinging from the highest crane we can find
Yes, we should deal with everyone who has committed war crimes.
But you may not want to go back to Nazi Germany to hold your point about the “Peaceful Palestinians” though. In case you didn’t know, the Palestinians worked with the Nazis and made a deal that stated they would help with the war effort if after the war Germany came and exterminated all of the Jewish population in what was then Mandatory Palestine.
As long as israel pretend that the whole land belong to them there is no solution
It kinda does. They have an older claim than the Muslims.
And who has an older claim to the land your house is on?
The native Americans. They’re welcome to try to take it.
They’re welcome to try to take it.
Are they, though? I suspect you don’t really mean “welcome” honestly here, but in the passive aggressive sense of a tough guy ready to defend his property despite saying that they rightfully belong to someone else… talk about cognitive dissonance.
Ah yes, might makes right. Thank you for abandoning a pretence of the moral highground.
It’s true. We’ll see how that goes over the next few decades for you.
What a profoundly stupid thing to say.
Kindly, a Greek who isn’t making ridiculous claims on Marseille, Taranto, Constantinople, Caesarea, Cyrene, Antioch and Alexandria on the motherfucking Indus.
And why aren’t you making those claims? You some kinda charity?
You are American, I presume?
Yes, and you?
Enjoying that AIPAC propaganda that spent hundreds of millions on televising across the US.
Well, given my previous post two comments up the thread, I’m obviously Tunisian.
This is so ridiculous . There was people before Israelites and after them in the land why do you think the jews has the eternal right over all other who lived in the land . You can’t even proof that the Zionists who are foreigners had any connection to the old Israelites. While we know from history that during the Arab conquest of the area there was no major ethnic cleansing so basically part of the Palestinians was jews and Christian converted to Islam and other are the product of intermarriage . 50k of the ethnically cleansing Palestinians in 48 was Christians so stop with your bad intention of making it about Muslims vs jews
Give back Anatolia to Brittany!
That is another part of the very, very complicated issue in the area yes. That does not negate the fact that change is required for lasting peace, and it needs to happen on all sides of the issue.
You really believe that Palestinians will keep attacking Israel if they give back the whole part of the west bank and gaza? Israel should get the hell out of Palestinians land regardless
Yes. I believe peace can prevail if the rest of the world stops fucking around.
Which is why Palestinians need to accept that Israel has a right to exist within the 1967 borders. Israel also needs to accept the fact that Palestine has a right to exist within the borders determined in 1967.
Not all the land is Palestinian land, and that is a matter of fact. Israelis, especially those indigenous to the area, have a right to exist there. Just like Palestinians have a right to exist there.
Most of the Palestinians accept Israel existence and agree with the pre 67 border it is Israel who refuse to accept it and keep building illegal settlements making a two state solution hard to accomplish , every single Israeli prime minister has oppressed Palestinians and believe the land was their either for religious or ethnic supremacy reasons.
Nothing but giving back all post 67 land to Palestinians , giving the right to return to Palestinians who was ethnically cleansing and want to go back to Israel while accepting their laws and also having an army to defend the state for any other potential aggression or a one state solution with equal rights to everybody would be accepted
Nothing but giving back all post 67 land to Palestinians , giving the right to return to Palestinians who was ethnically cleansing and want to go back to Israel while accepting their laws and also having an army to defend the state for any other potential aggression or a one state solution with equal rights to everybody would be accepted
You need to learn to recognize someone who agrees with you before arguing with them in the future. We know what needs to happen on the Israeli side for peace, my point is there is another side that has problems that need solving as well and that Palestinians are responsible for their side.
We do not agree. You make look like both side don’t want peace. I think it is israel who don’t want it because they still believe in jewish supermacy
Victimblaming nicely folded into this comment.
There are people responsible on both sides. I will not argue with you about that fact.
Except there are 5 sides. The US government, the Israeli government, the Israeli people, Hamas, and the Palestinian people.
The Israeli government, the US government, and Hamas can all go fuck themselves. It’s the Palestinian people who are needlessly suffering.
There is also Iran, Russia, China, and numerous other countries with skin in the game. The point is there are really only two sides to the issue and it is “Israel and Palestine get to exist or one group gets to leave”. Anyone who does not believe in a two state solution can go fuck themselves back to 1967.
Carefully worded what-aboutism.
The absolute irony of quipping about poor choice of words… Jesus.
Do you believe in a two state solution?
The last 30 years of Israeli state policy after the Oslo accords has resulted in facts on the ground (Israeli phrasing, not mine) to the tune of 700k Israeli settlers in the West Bank.
As the various calls for two states invariably ignore the Israeli facts on the ground, and do not propose any realistic vision for undoing them, at this stage they are merely promoting the creation of a Bantustan within the existing apartheid framework.
In other words, the israeli facts on the ground have killed off the possibility of a two state solution, where Palestine would be an actual state. This means there are only two options:
A) a continuation of the apartheid regime of the present, potentially with a Palestinian collaborationist Banstustan, and with various degrees of Israeli perpetrated genocide and ethnic cleansing thrown in during the inevitable flare-ups of violence.
B) a plurinational post-apartheid democratic state with equal rights for all nationalities and religions from the Jordan to the Mediterranean.
I guess the third option is for Israel to self-ethnically cleanse the settlers from the West Bank, but that sounds even more outlandish than the supposedly idealistic option B.
There used to be an phrase that Israel can be “large, Jewish, democratic, but can only pick 2”. Over the last 30 years since Oslo, successive Israeli governments, more or less dominated by the Israeli Right, and basically by Netanyahu, has forced the choice of “Large”. So now the Israelis have to pick between Zionism and Democracy.
There the other part where between gaza and the west bank there is israel so who will control the land that palestinians need to pass to move from gaza to the west bank and the west bank to gaza
The last 30 years of Israeli state policy after the Oslo accords has resulted in facts on the ground (Israeli phrasing, not mine) to the tune of 700k Israeli settlers in the West Bank.
Which is wrong.
As the various calls for two states invariably ignore the Israeli facts on the ground, and do not propose any realistic vision for undoing them, at this stage they are merely promoting the creation of a Bantustan within the existing apartheid framework.
Anyone who actually agrees with the two state solution agrees that the borders go back to 1967, and everyone on both sides will have a right to return.
In other words, the israeli facts on the ground have killed off the possibility of a two state solution, where Palestine would be an actual state. This means there are only two options: A) a continuation of the apartheid regime of the present, potentially with a Palestinian collaborationist Banstustan, and with various degrees of Israeli perpetrated genocide and ethnic cleansing thrown in during the inevitable flare-ups of violence.
B) a plurinational post-apartheid democratic state with equal rights for all nationalities and religions from the Jordan to the Mediterranean.
The chance for a Palestinian state is not gone, and Israel is not alone in making that harder. Even if you ignore Israelis and Palestinians, plenty of other groups don’t want peace and sabotage it when it is close.
Neither one of your solutions is viable, and it isn’t that black and white.
I guess the third option is for Israel to self-ethnically cleanse the settlers from the West Bank, but that sounds even more outlandish than the supposedly idealistic option B.
This is not helpful or useful in this conversation.
There used to be an phrase that Israel can be “large, Jewish, democratic, but can only pick 2”. Over the last 30 years since Oslo, successive Israeli governments, more or less dominated by the Israeli Right, and basically by Netanyahu, has forced the choice of “Large”. So now the Israelis have to pick between Zionism and Democracy.
At least you can admit it isn’t all Israelis.
It seems to me that you are contradicting yourself:
- On the one hand you are saying that “who actually agrees with the two state solution agrees that the borders go back to 1967”.
- On the other hand you are saying that the removal of the settlers from the West Bank is “not helpful or useful”.
I am very confused what you are proposing here. 1967 borders with the settlers in the Palestinian side of the border? Or did you flinch at the term “ethnic cleansing”, assuming wrongly that I meant “killing people”? When I wrote “Israel to self-ethnically cleanse the settlers” I meant to say that in this scenario, Israel would forcibly remove its own citizens from the colonies in the West Bank. A forcible removal of 700k jews from an area can be reasonably described as a form of ethnic cleansing. That’s all I meant.
So, to get around the words with mean connotations, I am not at all clear what scenario you are propagating. In your imaginary Two State Solution, what happens to the Israeli settlers?
- Do they get forcibly removed to Israel? Because if you believe that any Israeli government could do that to 700k voters, I have some magic seeds to sell you.
- Do they become Palestinian citizens, disarm and become subject to Palestinian law and subject to the legal monopoly of state violence by the army and police of Palestine? Because if you believe that is politically feasible, I have a whole warehouse of unicorn feathers to sell you.
On the other hand, a post-apartheid democracy would indeed have the political structures to slowly undo the damage, e.g., by mandating integration policies, establishing reparation schemes, etc.
The chance for a Palestinian state is not gone, and Israel is not alone in making that harder. Even if you ignore Israelis and Palestinians, plenty of other groups don’t want peace and sabotage it when it is close. Neither one of your solutions is viable, and it isn’t that black and white.
You are not explaining or giving any kind of argument why (a) you think that “my” solutions are not viable (b) the two state solution is viable.
You are just asserting that, without any rationale. My post above contains a specific reasoning. Where is my reasoning wrong? What is your reasoning?
At least you can admit it isn’t all Israelis.
What do you mean “at least”? If you want to start throwing spurious accusations of antisemitism, do it now and get it over with. I have no interest in bad faith discourse.
I made my points and you are choosing to not respond to them or understand them. Try asking good faith questions, and stop trying for bad faith tactics.
I only responded to the things that either I disagree with or genuinely don’t understand. For anything else, sure, thumbs up, what else is there to say?
Edit: in the meantime, you left my questions unanswered. What part of my reasoning is questionable? And what is your reasoning that the 2SS is attainable?
I don’t. It is and always has been a stalling tactic for the purpose of ethnic cleansing. The only viable solution always has a been a one state solution of equal rights for all.
Now if the Palestinians want to accept a two state solution out of desperation, sure I can live with that. Coming from anyone else? Get absolutely the fuck out of here. No ethno states, period. And Israel must abide by international law and allow the right to return of refugees.
It is absolutely insane for Carney to suggest a Zionist Palestine.
Why you needed to edit this 3 times in a couple of minutes, and then repost it after I responded, I can only assume you actually were hoping to get an out of context response, so I still won’t bother responding to your genocidal rhetoric about a 1 state solution, or continue this conversation further as I see you as a major part of the problem and do not have the energy to deal with you.
I still won’t bother responding to your genocidal rhetoric
Get lost hasbara. Israel has no legal right to exist.
Not anymore.
There can be no peace as long as the Zionist genocidal terror state of Israel continues to exist; Destroy it as Rhodesia was destroyed and let the people form a new fairer country.
deleted by creator
Why you needed to edit this 3 times in a couple of minutes I will never know. Likely hoping to get an out of context response I assume so I won’t bother actually responding to your genocidal rhetoric about a 1 state solution, or continue this conversation further as I see you as a major part of the problem and do not have the energy to deal with you.
Please tell this jew how a one state, of equal rights, solution is genocidal. Go on.
The one state solution is the best solution. The hell are you talking about. A two state solution would mean 2 millions Palestinians will be kicked out of Israel and 700k settlers will be removed from the west bank. A one state solution will give equal rights to both Israelis and Palestinians what genocidal about it?
How would you get some equivalent of reconstruction (the term as in US history) in order? Even with 10 years of radical reconstruction and sending the big-ass federal army into states to tightly enforce the rights of black people, they still got Jim Crow’d over with all kinds of abuse. Even with the 60s Civil Rights acts they’re still substantially disadvantaged and discriminated against today. This’d be even worse in Palestine’s rubble. Wealth is power, and if you just simply have a one-state solution, the rich will quickly eat the poor. On what basis can you make a reconstruction, since Israel has already resisted global “resolutions” (security council or not) time after time, and Palestine doesn’t seem to have a chance at scoring the victory the Union based its reconstruction authority on?
That is not at all what a two state solution should look like.
Tell me how it would look like
Fine here I reposted it as a single post.
