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.

The native Americans. They’re welcome to try to take it.

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

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

Very charitable but valid interpretation.

Extremely poor choice of a loaded word if so.

Either way, reason to be disappointed with him.

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.

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.

The last 30 years of Israeli state policy after the Oslo accords has resulted in facts on the ground (Israeli phrasing, not mine) to the tune of 700k Israeli settlers in the West Bank.

Which is wrong.

As the various calls for two states invariably ignore the Israeli facts on the ground, and do not propose any realistic vision for undoing them, at this stage they are merely promoting the creation of a Bantustan within the existing apartheid framework.

Anyone who actually agrees with the two state solution agrees that the borders go back to 1967, and everyone on both sides will have a right to return.

In other words, the israeli facts on the ground have killed off the possibility of a two state solution, where Palestine would be an actual state. This means there are only two options: A) a continuation of the apartheid regime of the present, potentially with a Palestinian collaborationist Banstustan, and with various degrees of Israeli perpetrated genocide and ethnic cleansing thrown in during the inevitable flare-ups of violence.

B) a plurinational post-apartheid democratic state with equal rights for all nationalities and religions from the Jordan to the Mediterranean.

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.

I guess the third option is for Israel to self-ethnically cleanse the settlers from the West Bank, but that sounds even more outlandish than the supposedly idealistic option B.

This is not helpful or useful in this conversation.

There used to be an phrase that Israel can be “large, Jewish, democratic, but can only pick 2”. Over the last 30 years since Oslo, successive Israeli governments, more or less dominated by the Israeli Right, and basically by Netanyahu, has forced the choice of “Large”. So now the Israelis have to pick between Zionism and Democracy.

At least you can admit it isn’t all Israelis.

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

Yes, and you?

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.

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.