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.

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.

“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.

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.

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.

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

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.