Why do other ethnic and religious groups exist in modern day Israel if they were all supposed to be expelled or exterminated?

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.

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.

Honest question, what gives any country a right to exist?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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?

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 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?

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.

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.

Nuance?! On social media??? Off with his head!!

Very charitable but valid interpretation.

Extremely poor choice of a loaded word if so.

Either way, reason to be disappointed with him.