“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.
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.
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
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.
I don’t understand where you want to go with this and I think it’s better we stop here but one last thing to note is that autocracy and church-state separation are different things. We started this off with secularism but you’re now talking about autocracy so I’m a little confused, but regardless of semantics nitpicking I think what matters the most is that we want Israel aggression to stop and we want Carney to plainly demand so.
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
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 :(
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.
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.
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.
Very charitable but valid interpretation.
Extremely poor choice of a loaded word if so.
Either way, reason to be disappointed with him.
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!
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.
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
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
I don’t understand where you want to go with this and I think it’s better we stop here but one last thing to note is that autocracy and church-state separation are different things. We started this off with secularism but you’re now talking about autocracy so I’m a little confused, but regardless of semantics nitpicking I think what matters the most is that we want Israel aggression to stop and we want Carney to plainly demand so.
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?
Because the world isn’t fair, and this isn’t a sport.
In a fair world there would a nuclear exchange killing millions on both sides. Is that what you want?
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 :(
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.