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.

Good comparison.

I believe in an independent Canadian state but it must be a MAGA state!

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

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.

I think you might be jumping to conclusions on what I think and understand about what’s happening. I don’t think the term “zionist Palestine” is acceptable. I think it’s unacceptable for slightly different reasons than you do.

I’m just saying that defending a jewish state is not necessarily at odds with Canadian secularism if the state in question is not Canada. The point is that defending secularism is totally orthogonal to the whole discussion. And yes, obviously if the Prime Minister is indifferent to a Jewish Israel, they should be indifferent to an Islamic Palestine. Just like they are already indifferent to Islamic Saudi Arabia - we don’t see the PM giving interviews saying that Saudi Arabia should become a secular state.