this post was submitted on 25 Jun 2025
84 points (88.9% liked)

Canada

9999 readers
701 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] villasv@lemmy.ca 12 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (3 children)

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.

[–] leftytighty@slrpnk.net 8 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Very charitable but valid interpretation.

Extremely poor choice of a loaded word if so.

Either way, reason to be disappointed with him.

[–] villasv@lemmy.ca 16 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] leftytighty@slrpnk.net 4 points 9 hours ago

Good comparison.

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

[–] rumimevlevi@lemmings.world 1 points 10 hours ago (2 children)

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

[–] villasv@lemmy.ca 2 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] rumimevlevi@lemmings.world 1 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (2 children)

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

[–] villasv@lemmy.ca 1 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] rumimevlevi@lemmings.world 0 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] villasv@lemmy.ca 1 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] rumimevlevi@lemmings.world 1 points 4 hours ago

I'm just saying carney is a hypocrite and have lot of double standards. He know very well what he is sayin in that video he blame Palestinians for the tragedy and how there is no two solution because of them because Israel is the west ally

[–] SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca -1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] leftytighty@slrpnk.net 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Israel has illegally built nuclear weapons for its self defense, why shouldn't Iran?

[–] SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 hours ago

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?

[–] SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 hours ago

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 :(

[–] SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 0 points 4 hours ago

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.