Zionism is a fascist ideology based upon building an ethno nation states wherein those of other ethnicities are expelled or exterminated.

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.

I mean, we’re not at the point where they even have a say in it. They’re busy struggling to survive because Israelis don’t accept their right to exist and actually have American hardware to impose their will with.

Ah yes, might makes right. Thank you for abandoning a pretence of the moral highground.

It’s true. We’ll see how that goes over the next few decades for you.

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

I agree, Israel has become a major problem. That does not change the problems that exist on the Palestinian side. Things can be wrong simultaneously.

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.

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.

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.

Sounds like you’re not Zionist enough to self govern if you lived there. Lucky you’re not Palestinian

Do you have a point to make?

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.

International Law is just a set of agreements between sovereign powers

And? What’s circular about it? Nations arise from self organizing societies, and these nations come together to define international laws. And then they define the right of self affirmation, and if the main powers recognize a state it is assigned the right to exist. And if the core powers of this world decide that a country does not matter, they’ll look the other way as those rights are bombed. It’s an emergent property of international politics.

It doesn’t spring from seafoam, fully formed.

No rights do, so I don’t understand where you’re going with this.

Yes, it’s that if you disagree with Israel and want representation that feels the way you do, then you can’t be a proper Palestinian that deserves to govern himself according to Carney

Very charitable but valid interpretation.

Extremely poor choice of a loaded word if so.

Either way, reason to be disappointed with him.

They’re welcome to try to take it.

Are they, though? I suspect you don’t really mean “welcome” honestly here, but in the passive aggressive sense of a tough guy ready to defend his property despite saying that they rightfully belong to someone else… talk about cognitive dissonance.

Not what he said.

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.

Extremely poor choice of a loaded word if so.

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.