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.

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 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.

I’m just saying carney is a hypocrite and have lot of double standards. He know very well what he is sayin in that video he blame Palestinians for the tragedy and how there is no two solution because of them because Israel is the west ally

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?

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.

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

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

“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.

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.

Israel has illegally built nuclear weapons for its self defense, why shouldn’t Iran?

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.

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?

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.

If the United States occupied most of Ontario’s territory and displaced Canadians to do so, then it continued to exert control over the rest of Canada and gradually demolished Canadian homes to build American homes, then it started allowing American civilians to terrorize, murder, and loot Canadian towns, and so on… Would you say Canadians need to just chill out and enthusiastically support the US?

People do seem to come to social media to be affirmed regardless of whatever the truth is. That’s inevitably a road to ruin, though. Ditto for the people that come looking for conflict.

That’s where “when from” becomes significant as well. The political calculus around Zionism was pretty different 10 years ago - being anti-Zionist was basically a fringe ideology in the West, and in the mainstream was conflated with being anti-Jewish.

Saying “Zionism” but interpreting it as a two-state solution was kind of a moderate-left take on things.

Israel in the past has tried to make land for peace deals, but guys like Yasser Arafat fucked it up.

I mean, some of the current Israeli cabinet assassinated a prime minister to scuttle a peace deal. Let’s not pretend one side has had worse faith than another continuously over many generations, because that’s fairly impossible.

Nonviolence has yielded even less fruit.

In actuality, they’re like cattle in a slaughterhouse as long as the US supports Israel the way it does. There is no right way to act.

That’s where the “when” comes up as well. 10 years ago the narrative about Zionism in the West was different.