Mark Carney calls for a 'Zionist' Palestine (yeah, he actually did)
-
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.
-
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
-
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
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
-
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, 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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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 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.
-
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.
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?
-
Nuance?! On social media??? Off with his head!!
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.
-
Very charitable but valid interpretation.
Extremely poor choice of a loaded word if so.
Either way, reason to be disappointed with him.
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
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.
-
“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.
That’s where the “when” comes up as well. 10 years ago the narrative about Zionism in the West was different.
-
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.
So that’s kind of the Yugoslavia solution, right? I’d agree, that would do the trick, but I’d like to point out there’s still pockets of Serbians that think what they did was cool. Putting the onus on one side of the current conflict - and the far less powerful side - to smarten up beforehand seems unfair. That’s how your initial comment read.
I’m actually pretty hopeful about the feasibility of ending the cycle. Human history is full of ethnic conflicts, and especially recent human history is full of the sides maintaining an uneasy peace afterwards. People might hate, but they want to live in safety far more; this specific conflict is still ongoing because one side has been empowered to do both.
-
So that’s kind of the Yugoslavia solution, right? I’d agree, that would do the trick, but I’d like to point out there’s still pockets of Serbians that think what they did was cool. Putting the onus on one side of the current conflict - and the far less powerful side - to smarten up beforehand seems unfair. That’s how your initial comment read.
I’m actually pretty hopeful about the feasibility of ending the cycle. Human history is full of ethnic conflicts, and especially recent human history is full of the sides maintaining an uneasy peace afterwards. People might hate, but they want to live in safety far more; this specific conflict is still ongoing because one side has been empowered to do both.
So that’s kind of the Yugoslavia solution, right? I’d agree, that would do the trick, but I’d like to point out there’s still pockets of Serbians that think what they did was cool. Putting the onus on one side of the current conflict - and the far less powerful side - to smarten up beforehand seems unfair. That’s how your initial comment read.
In a sense it is similar, I am not as familiar with that situation. That is always a major issue after extended ethnic conflicts unfortunately. I can see how my initial comment could be interpreted that way only when taken out of the context of the conversation “There is issues on the Palestinian side of the conflict that need to be resolved for lasting peace”.
I’m actually pretty hopeful about the feasibility of ending the cycle. Human history is full of ethnic conflicts, and especially recent human history is full of the sides maintaining an uneasy peace afterwards. People might hate, but they want to live in safety far more; this specific conflict is still ongoing because one side has been empowered to do both.
I am hopeful as well, especially considering the history of conflicts like these maintaining that uneasy peace you brought up. Hopefully the greater international community will step in and do what needs to be done before it is too late to resolve the situation.
-
Very charitable but valid interpretation.
Extremely poor choice of a loaded word if so.
Either way, reason to be disappointed with him.
Seems to me like it’s a good way of trying to make the idea of a free palestine appeal to zionists.
(This is my best attempt at apologism.)
-
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.
That’s valid, for the record these are recent comments.
-
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?
Perhaps if Israel committed to giving up its nukes, withdrawing its illegal settlements, and giving Palestinians civilian trials instead of military trials, the Arab world would be open to cooperation
