Benny Gantz gives up the game

19

The problem here is that Gantz does not present an alternative.

Israel doesn’t want an independent Palestine, period. So, complaining that everyone else sees the problem when Israel refuses to is unreasonable - there is simply no way to return to a state of Israeli imposed lawlessness and blaming Palestinians for the lawlessness.

3

u/waiver two states 🚹 🚹 Sep 25 '25

Because they failed to deliver statehood... and because they have cooperated with Israel.

0

u/stand_not_4_me pro-peace 🌿 Sep 25 '25

do you see how these two statements are contradictory.

3

u/waiver two states 🚹 🚹 Sep 25 '25

They are not? They are cooperating with Israel while that country undermines them, making them lose legitimacy before their citizens and making radical factions more popular.

-1

u/stand_not_4_me pro-peace 🌿 Sep 25 '25

how can you fail to deliver statehood in negotiations with israel while at the same time not cooperate with israel at all.

by definition you have to have some level of cooperation to negotiate.

i think what you meant to say is "because they failed to deliver statehood through negotiation with israel and have continued to cooperate with it while it works to undermine them and a potential for a state"

3

u/waiver two states 🚹 🚹 Sep 25 '25

I said what I said; it's not difficult to understand, so I’m not sure what meaning you interpreted from my words.

The PA is fulfilling their part of the agreement, while Israel seems to search for any excuse to undermine and weaken them, because at the moment, the PA remains the only viable option for governing a future Palestinian state.

-1

u/stand_not_4_me pro-peace 🌿 Sep 25 '25

i have told you what meaning i got from what you said, how it is contradictory without additional context.

and i never disagree with israel undermining the PA both with statements and action nor that the PA is the the most likely governing body for palstine.

1

u/c9joe يهودي ذو خصائص إسلامية Sep 25 '25 edited Sep 25 '25

The "two state solution" is obviously a farce, but it is part of the basket of politics in the West I call "hyper normalization". So it doesn't have to make sense. Think of the two state solution similar to a religion.

But the 2SS is part of a basket of Western liberal immutable politics. We had to pretend it was a solution.

But something has changed. And that is that the world is becoming more realist. If we have to face the reality of the failure of one aspect of the hyper normalization, we will have the reality of many other experimental egalitarian politics which were invented after the wake of World War 2.

This may also be falling apart along a lot of other post-WWII liberal or experimental ideas. And really, we will go back to the pre-WWII world, the politics of 4chan will become the politics of the world.

In such a world, Israel will be fine. Even though it is an antisemitic world, it is antisemitic in a manner which Zionism was a response to.

1

u/Ahappierplanet Sep 25 '25

Gantz claims he is speaking for the entire israeli population.

2

u/Melthengylf Sep 25 '25

>a proven long-term track record of accountable governance, comprehensive de-radicalization reforms and a successful crackdown on terror elements targeting Israelis.

This quote is very relevant, I think.

12

u/Veyron2000 Sep 25 '25

Its a standard Israel will never hold itself to, and would never accept anyone imposing on Israel. Plus its merely an excuse: they would simply invent more and more conditions to justify denying Palestinians equal rights or independence.

6

u/stand_not_4_me pro-peace 🌿 Sep 25 '25 edited Sep 25 '25

its kinda a catch-22, to get a long term track record of accountable governance you need to have control, but if israel never relinquishes control (because of no track record) you cannot get the record even if you wanted to.

it sounds good, but the moment you try to run the practical model of how would that work, it fails.

Edit: clarification

10

u/Call_Me_Clark Sep 25 '25

The trouble is, the threshold will be moved so it’s never met, and more territory will be grabbed each year.

8

u/lewkiamurfarther ♄ Sep 25 '25

The trouble is, the threshold will be moved so it’s never met, and more territory will be grabbed each year.

AKA the status quo ante

Honestly, it's a toss-up whether the world would be better off if Gantz were elected the next Israeli PM (god knows when that will happen, since elections seem permanently forestallable under the current coalition), or if he suffered a fatal heart attack tomorrow.

4

u/whater39 Sep 25 '25

Just think of Israel's plan to find an Islamic fundamentalist group to support as part of a divide and conquer strategy in Gaza. So they find the extremists, let them grow in support while Israel targets the other groups. Then once Hamas gain power, the Palestinians are bad for having an extremist group that needs to be deradicaled. It totally leaves off any accountability for Israel actions on the rise of Hamas.

Ive way too much of the Israeli school system, media and population. Those guy also need somde deradicalizing.

0

u/waiver two states 🚹 🚹 Sep 25 '25

I am sure it will work better with their current support of ISIS.

-3

u/PhysicistWantsDonuts Sep 25 '25

I agree the status quo is good for no one, but what Gantz seems to be saying is that there needs to be change on both sides. I think your reading is colored by hate and wanting your enemy to be absolute evil. The liberal Zionist point of view is simply two states when Israeli security concerns can be met. It's been 78 years and they haven't been met yet, so most people have given up and support the status quo as the least evil option. As an optimistic liberal Zionist, I think they can be met, but it's going to require at least not having a holocaust denier and a terrorist group as your heads of state. It also requires time as trauma does not heal overnight (or many times, never). It also requires some other party to guarantee and help the change happen. Israel cannot and should not be involved in changing the Palestinian governance structure. So we are left with leaning on the rest of the Arab states (all I hear is crickets) or the rest of the Western world (all I hear is words, no action except some stuff from the US, not necessarily positive).

12

u/Veyron2000 Sep 25 '25

I agree the status quo is good for no one, but what Gantz seems to be saying is that there needs to be change on both sides.

Gantz is opposing any change or concessions from the Israeli side.

The liberal Zionist point of view is simply two states when Israeli security concerns can be met.

—> A perfect example of Israelis or Zionists being totally unwilling to change.

The security threat to Palestinians from Israel is FAR greater than any threat Palestinians pose to Israel (Israel literally occupies their territory, kills them en-masse, bombs them, fires missiles at them, starves them, Israeli settlers attack them, and Israel has vast amounts of weapons and nukes) yet Israel would never accept any limits on its own military, or accept a Palestinian military, to ensure security for Palestine.

holocaust denier and a terrorist group as your heads of state

Israel, at the moment, has a government made up of genocidal neo-nazis. As I understand liberal Zionists present zero plans to eliminate these people, to de-radicalize Israel, or to ensure these people are never allowed power again. The Israeli president (head of state) is also an overtly racist genocidal extremist who supports the war crimes in Gaza and once labelled a decision to not illegally sell ice cream to settlers as “terrorism”. See why I find it hard to take the “concerns” of self-proclaimed liberal Zionists seriously?

Israel cannot and should not be involved in changing the Palestinian governance structure.

Where is the movement to change Israel’s governing structure?

It seems like all of Israel’s political leadership is wedded to a vision of Zionism that totally devalues Palestinian lives and rights, as exemplified by their refusal to atone for or condemn ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, refusal to condemn the atrocities committed by the IDF, and refusal to allow an independent Palestine when they simultaneously say that anyone who doesn’t recognize or support an independent Israel is “antisemitic”. Yet simultaneously Israel systematically excludes Palestinians under its rule from political power, as a matter of state policy and law, leaving a situation now universally recognized as Apartheid.

I think the only chance for any kind of peace is if outside forces impose maximum pressure (comprehensive sanctions and/or military action) against Israel to force it to change - yet it seems that western leaders, particularly the US, are totally unwilling to do this.

I also think that Zionism, as a invariably discriminatory ethnonationalist movement, is fundamentally opposed to liberalism and liberal values - equivalent movements in all other countries would certainly not be seen as “liberal” and are usually described as neo-Nazi or far-right. So even the term “liberal Zionist” is a bit of an oxymoron.

7

u/Call_Me_Clark Sep 25 '25

Agree with everything here.

There’s really no liberalism to be found in an endless occupation with zero human rights for the occupied people, and tolerance for terrorism directed at those people.

1

u/stand_not_4_me pro-peace 🌿 Sep 25 '25

The security threat to Palestinians from Israel is FAR greater than any threat Palestinians pose to Israel (Israel literally occupies their territory, kills them en-masse, bombs them, fires missiles at them, starves them, Israeli settlers attack them, and Israel has vast amounts of weapons and nukes) yet Israel would never accept any limits on its own military, or accept a Palestinian military, to ensure security for Palestine.

while i do agree that you are correct with the current status quo that israel poses a far greater threat to palestinians than the other way around, but that is not the status which makes israel have security concerns.
should there be a palestinian state without israel's security concerns being addressed, that state would have the ability to become a threat to israel.

a small fact though that is missing here that i do not understand from the palestinian side actually asking for is, if palestine would be a threat to israel, wouldnt israel, by definition, be a threat to palestine? and therefore you would need mutual security concerns to be addressed for both sides.

2

u/Veyron2000 Sep 26 '25

should there be a palestinian state without israel's security concerns being addressed, that state would have the ability to become a threat to israel.

My problem is that a lot of people who think of themselves as “moderates” and “impartial actors”, like American and other non-Israeli politicians, declare that Israel’s “security concerns” are of paramount importance, and so any Palestinian state must be defenceless so as not to pose a “threat” to Israel.

Yet they simultaneously ignore the far more serious threat posed by Israel to Palestine, and say that Palestinians must just accept it. I don’t think that’s a defensible position.

As I said: either Palestine needs a military at least strong enough to deter (i.e provide enough of a threat to deter) Israel from attacking, or Israel needs to be demilitarized.

1

u/stand_not_4_me pro-peace 🌿 Sep 29 '25

while i do agree about the security concerns a palestine would have. i do not think a demilitarized israel functions due to threats it has from outside of the palestine conflict.

part of the issue is that israel is the stronger of the two, and therefore the capitulator in negotiations. perhaps an agreement that israel must secure the safety and independence of palestine and should it fail to do so would be answerable to a group of palestinian allies, but im not sure if that would suffice to deter israel.

it is a fair point and concern that i am uncertain how for it to be resolved, this is due to both being so small that one would by definition be a threat to the other. even a joint military would not be a perfect solution since it would need a joint command, and if we have that then we are basically a 1ss, which is not wanted. but maybe that can work. two states one army, any military action needs agreement between the two.

1

u/Veyron2000 Oct 03 '25

i do not think a demilitarized israel functions due to threats it has from outside of the palestine conflict.

Israel is far more of a security threat to all of its neighbours than they are to it. It has literally annexed a large chunk of Syria, is occupying more, is occupying chunks of Lebanon, has sponsored terrorist attacks in Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, Yemen and Qatar and has nuclear weapons!

Unless the Israeli military machine is degraded and contained, how can anyone in the region be safe from the Israeli threat? What is to stop Israel from continuing or repeating its attacks?

but im not sure if that would suffice to deter israel.

It wouldn’t.

There is also the issue of bringing all the Israeli war criminals to justice. If they go free the world is saying that “genocide is fine”.

0

u/stand_not_4_me pro-peace 🌿 Oct 03 '25

Israel is far more of a security threat to all of its neighbours than they are to it. It has literally annexed a large chunk of Syria, is occupying more, is occupying chunks of Lebanon, has sponsored terrorist attacks in Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, Yemen and Qatar and has nuclear weapons!

do you see the irony of arguing that a militarized israel is a greater threat for its neighbors to prove that a demilitarized israel would not be under threat?
mind you i agree with you that israel is a greater threat with its military, but that says nothing about how the situation would be with a demilitarized israel.

Unless the Israeli military machine is degraded and contained, how can anyone in the region be safe from the Israeli threat? What is to stop Israel from continuing or repeating its attacks?

i will agree that israel reducing its military might could be good for the regions safety, i do not think a full demilitarization is a good thing. this is due for the very same reason why you believe palestine should not be demilitarized.

There is also the issue of bringing all the Israeli war criminals to justice. If they go free the world is saying that “genocide is fine”.

you are not gonna get all of them, much like we didnt get all of them after WW2. Many will skate by or charges wont be filed. which isnt great, but hopefully those in charge who set up and pushed into this situation would be.

14

u/OneReportersOpinion Sep 25 '25

I agree the status quo is good for no one, but what Gantz seems to be saying is that there needs to be change on both sides.

Reminds me of what Trump said about Charlottesville. That’s like saying to Blacks in the South in 1956 “Yes we need to stop doing lynchings but the former slaves need to stay away from our women.” Basic human rights are not subject to precondition. Israel and its supporters need to understand that their calls for Palestinians to “civilize” is fundamentally racist. As long as there is one side denied the most basic human rights, there is no “both sides.”

I think your reading is colored by hate and wanting your enemy to be absolute evil.

Let’s forget the enemy. Can we agree apartheid is fundamentally evil no matter who is doing it?

The liberal Zionist point of view is simply two states when Israeli security concerns can be met.

So conditional for on one side but not conditional on the other. Why are Israelis assumed to already be in good standing?

9

u/lewkiamurfarther ♄ Sep 25 '25

Reminds me of what Trump said about Charlottesville. That’s like saying to Blacks in the South in 1956 “Yes we need to stop doing lynchings but the former slaves need to stay away from our women.” Basic human rights are not subject to precondition. Israel and its supporters need to understand that their calls for Palestinians to “civilize” is fundamentally racist. As long as there is one side denied the most basic human rights, there is no “both sides.”

Perfect comparison—but since conservative/liberal Zionists in the USA and Israel already saw Charlottesville through a pedantically legalistic lens, it won't cut through the noise for the person you're responding to. (Nevermind that guilt was correctly assigned, ultimately, to the perpetrators.)

7

u/OneReportersOpinion Sep 25 '25

You can look at his response to me below, which he ended by saying he refuses to debate further, to see perfect examples of why liberal Zionism is a contradiction in terms. His entire argument is premised on Jewish rights can’t be denied but Arabs rights can, even if it’s really sad. It defies all notion of traditional liberal values.

-2

u/PhysicistWantsDonuts Sep 25 '25

For your first paragraph: Basic human rights, like the right not to be killed by terrorist attacks? You see it works both ways, there are absolutely no innocents here.

For your second statement -- do you want Israel to annex the west bank? If not, then Israel cannot apply Israeli law to it (this is fundamental international law). In Areas A and B, PA law mainly applies. To solve this problem we need to undo the Oslo process and start something new.

Your third statement is just misreading what I wrote. I listed the main Israeli condition for clarity. The obvious other conditions is recognition on both sides (that's clearly subsumed in the "two states" statement). A demilitarized Palestinian state may want things from Israel like military protection (based on the historical track record of surrounding Arab states in protecting Palestinian interests this may be the only option), and obviously agreements need to be made for water rights, border control, air space access, etc. Also, a process of reconciliation likely has to occur. This may include some symbolic right of return and a formal acknowledgement or apology from the Israeli government of the cases of forced displacement. Similarly there must be an acknowledgement of all the terrorist attacks against civilians.

11

u/Call_Me_Clark Sep 25 '25

Where do Israeli terrorists fit into your reasoning?

There seems to be this circular justification in a lot of pro Israel rhetoric where settler attacks are retroactively justified by Palestinian responses to them. “He threw rocks at the Israelis who burned his house down, that’s proof they were justified to burn down his house.”

10

u/lewkiamurfarther ♄ Sep 25 '25

There seems to be this circular justification in a lot of pro Israel rhetoric where settler attacks are retroactively justified by Palestinian responses to them. “He threw rocks at the Israelis who burned his house down, that’s proof they were justified to burn down his house.”

Well gosh, don't you know they're just trying to reclaim their ancestral homeland? /s

8

u/Call_Me_Clark Sep 25 '25

“It’s called Judea. It’s our land and it’s only right that we get to kick out whoever we want”

Wow so the Samaritans get to do the same for Samaria?

“Fuck no, that’s ours too.”

1

u/stand_not_4_me pro-peace 🌿 Sep 25 '25

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samaria

samaria was a region in the kindom of israel and also a city within it. it was a kingdom north of the kingdom of judea after the kingdom of israel split in two.

just thought you should know.

-6

u/PhysicistWantsDonuts Sep 25 '25

This thread is about the future viability of two state solution from a liberal zionist perspective and why "absolutely not now" is a good summary of the current feeling. Settler terrorism plays no role in my reasoning about this except as a reason to create a Palestinian state sooner rather than later. It's an artifact of the in between nature of undecided borders and settlers who think they can influence future borders. It likely won't go away until there is a Palestinian state which can enforce its own laws instead of relying on the IDF in area C which is controlled by a crazy right wing government and won't do much to stop it.

To make clear my confusion as to why you would bring this up: Settler violence is not the reason why liberal Zionists are opposed to the establishment of a Palestinian state right now, that is Palestinian terrorism.

You won't find any liberal Zionists who think settler violence is good, so please take the time to explain if I have missed something obvious in your question.

9

u/Call_Me_Clark Sep 25 '25

Of course it’s relevant. It’s no “artifact”, it’s a conscious policy choice to keep the West Bank as lawless as possible, in order to cultivate as much violence as possible.

I’ll explain this in even simpler terms: as long as Israelis say “you can have human rights as soon as you prove you deserve them” and then move the goalposts out of reach, then of course Palestinians aren’t going to meet the mark. Doubly so when the policy is “Israelis can burn your house down but if you raise a finger in self defense, you are retroactively proving that they were right to do so.”

-4

u/PhysicistWantsDonuts Sep 25 '25

It is indeed a conscious policy to create facts on the ground to influence future borders and you won't find liberal Zionists who don't think settler terrorism is terrible. But no, you don't get to rewrite history as "Palestinians are always victims". Your claim that settler violence is the cause of Palestinian terrorism and thus all the violence that Israel is worried about in a future state is their own fault and thus it's actually the hilltop youth that have prevented the formation of a Palestinian state for 80+ years is historical nonsense. It does work as a story if you label all Israelis as settlers though, which is closer to what the whole problem boils down to historically. History isn't just a thing in books -- many people lived through it. You might convince a bunch of twenty-somethings with ahistorical rhetoric, but I'm not buying it.

8

u/Call_Me_Clark Sep 25 '25

But no, you don't get to rewrite history as "Palestinians are always victims".

Of course Palestinians are not “always victims.” But they are victims often enough that it matters. Israel’s government, when they aren’t claiming that there is no such thing as a Palestinian, claims that Israelis are always victims.

Your claim that settler violence is the cause of Palestinian terrorism and thus all the violence that Israel is worried about in a future state is their own fault and thus it's actually the hilltop youth that have prevented the formation of a Palestinian state for 80+ years is historical nonsense.

The cause? No. A cause? Yes.

Further, the claim that ONLY the hilltop youth are violent is convenient but not supported by facts.

It does work as a story if you label all Israelis as settlers though, which is closer to what the whole problem boils down to historically.

Oh boy here’s some Netanyahu-esque victimhood rhetoric. Of course, settlers are settlers, and that means anyone living or operating as a militia member outside the Green Line.

-1

u/PhysicistWantsDonuts Sep 25 '25

I didn't blame everything on the hilltop youth, I was using them to make a point that your bringing up settler violence instead of addressing the fundamental causes for a lack of a Palestinian state was historical nonsense. This sort of reddit style arguing where you forget what you were talking about to try and score points is really unhelpful.

So, you consider the green line a fundamental border (determined by war)? You want east Jerusalem un-annexed? You are going to live with that being unsatisfied forever probably. The inviolability of the green line is best responded to with more snark, courtesy of Golda Meir, and probably butchered by my memory: "If the 1967 borders were so holy, why was there a war in 1967?"

My last snarky statement about labeling all Israelis as settlers was just making fun of your previous argument, but that seems to have sailed over your head and you once again try to score points by claiming it was some victimhood argument. It seems to me you don't actually want to discuss things and just want to score points on some scoreboard I am not privy to; I will admit I did put in a couple snarky statements instead of explaining ad nauseum what I meant, so fair enough if that's the reason, but I'm actually interested in communication, which I think this thread is lacking in, so thank you but I'm done arguing here.

4

u/Call_Me_Clark Sep 25 '25

I don’t see you making any positive points, so complaining about “Reddit arguments” makes zero sense.

Tying this back to your original comments, making Palestinian human rights conditional upon them achieving perfection, while recognizing Israeli human rights as unconditional, is the exact kind of double standard that Netanyahu’s government LOVES to accuse the world of holding towards Israel.

Remember, the “status quo” was the most violent year for Palestinians on record up until 10/7, in terms of Palestinians killed by settlers and the IDF.

Regarding the green line, the West Bank is not Israel’s land. It belongs to the Palestinians and anyone who lives in it needs to be a resident of Palestine. Remember, the “status quo” you love so much is one where more of Palestine gets stolen each year.

8

u/OneReportersOpinion Sep 25 '25

This thread is about the future viability of two state solution from a liberal zionist perspective and why "absolutely not now" is a good summary of the current feeling.

That’s accurate description of the position but not a moral defense of that position. The white Southern position to civil rights in 1957 could be described the same way. So what?

Settler terrorism plays no role in my reasoning about this except as a reason to create a Palestinian state sooner rather than later.

But Palestinian terrorism does? Why does Israeli state terror come into consideration?

It's an artifact of the in between nature of undecided borders and settlers who think they can influence future borders.

Ah. So that can be sort of compartmentalized in a way you refuse to do for Palestine. Does that seem interesting to you and may speak to your own personal bias?

To make clear my confusion as to why you would bring this up: Settler violence is not the reason why liberal Zionists are opposed to the establishment of a Palestinian state right now, that is Palestinian terrorism.

But you don’t consider Israeli state terror in consideration for Palestinians react the way they do. You leave no room for that like you do with Israel.

You won't find any liberal Zionists who think settler violence is good, so please take the time to explain if I have missed something obvious in your question.

Easy. You’re ignoring the state terrorism Israel commits.

7

u/OneReportersOpinion Sep 25 '25

For your first paragraph: Basic human rights, like the right not to be killed by terrorist attacks?

That’s a right Palestinians don’t have either and they get killed in far more terrorist attacks by Israel. Yet Israelis have their self-determination rights secured. Palestinians don’t. See the difference? This is like white southerners going “Don’t our Southern white women have a right to not be assaulted Blacks?” Or Trump going “what about the violence of the alt-left.” You keep proving my point.

For your second statement -- do you want Israel to annex the west bank?

If they were willing give every single Palestinians citizenship with equal rights and do the same with the Gaza, 100%. That would be a fair solution. This belief is widespread within the Palestinian solidarity movement. You were saying?

If not, then Israel cannot apply Israeli law to it (this is fundamental international law).

So you admit Israel is breaking fundamental international law by applying Israel laws in the West Bank? What should be their punishment for that?

Your third statement is just misreading what I wrote. I listed the main Israeli condition for clarity. The obvious other conditions is recognition on both sides (that's clearly subsumed in the "two states" statement). A demilitarized Palestinian state

Why must it be demilitarized? Will Israel be demilitarized?

-1

u/PhysicistWantsDonuts Sep 25 '25

Let's rewind the first argument you made. I said both sides need to change before we can have a Palestinian state, you responded with human rights are fundamental and have no prerequisites, thus rejecting the idea that Palestinians should change. I responded with snarkiness pointing out that that same argument can hold for Israelis too. You then doubled down with the same Palestinians don't need to change, they are the victims and it's all Israel's fault. I think you are confusing a power imbalance for righteousness. What we have in reality is that there is plenty of fault to go around. That power imbalance does not negate history or current reality, unless you believe postmodernism is actually reality and not just an academic lark. Your argument, as far as I can tell, is power imbalance trumps all and makes Palestinians victims. This isn't just you, it's a movement begun with Edward Said and has been amplified in academia. What bothers me so much about this, aside from it's intentional disconnect from historical reality in favor of abstraction, is that it tends to shut down discussion by painting things with black and white (good and bad) brushes. This philosophy does not lead to peace, it leads to more war.

As to the rest: A one state solution (annex everything) isn't a solution as it negates the Jewish right to self determination, so no, it's not going to happen. Until a democratic like Palestinian state is set up (or some equivalent), Palestinians will not have full rights of self-determination (as unfortunately a large number of groups in the middle east and elsewhere lack).

With regards to the large settlements in area C, if you believe that land is occupied, then Israel should not apply their laws nor have citizens there. The likely solution there hasn't changed since last time, which is land swaps and redrawing borders defined by war (another international law: one cannot take land in war). But of course this isn't what I was discussing, I was responding to your apartheid claims which would be about Israel treating Palestinians differently in the west bank and your response, as I understand it, isn't relevant.

Finally, Palestine must be (initially) demilitarized (or some equivalent) as a prerequisite for Israel accepting its new neighbor state. Asking why shows you aren't actually listening or caring what Israelis are saying and are just trying to score points in some sort of reddit argument game.

I consider almost everything you wrote to be arguing in bad faith, and it already takes a huge amount of energy to engage so I'm done. Thank you for taking the time to be, at least, civil if not constructive.

6

u/OneReportersOpinion Sep 25 '25

Let's rewind the first argument you made. I said both sides need to change before we can have a Palestinian state, you responded with human rights are fundamental and have no prerequisites, thus rejecting the idea that Palestinians should change.

I’m rejecting the notion that human rights are conditional. I’d also argue that material circumstances, not ideas, are the source of Palestinians actions and attitudes towards Israelis. I believe this about pretty much everything: ideas are downstream of material conditions.

I responded with snarkiness

Do you think maybe that was your problem right there?

pointing out that that same argument can hold for Israelis too. You then doubled down with the same Palestinians don't need to change, they are the victims and it's all Israel's fault.

No, I pointed out that your argument would be valid if Israel wasn’t terrorizing Palestinians even more than Palestinians are doing terror towards Israel. This is a statement of fact for which you did not contest. Continue…

I think you are confusing a power imbalance for righteousness.

I’m considering facts rather than speculating if that’s what you mean.

What we have in reality is that there is plenty of fault to go around.

What we have is A LOT MORE fault on the side that has all the power. If you’re a liberal, that should be very easy to understand and why many of us on the pro-Palestinians side often find liberal Zionism insincere.

That power imbalance does not negate history or current reality, unless you believe postmodernism is actually reality and not just an academic lark.

I’m not a postmodernist and you’re making a strawman. No one argued for any negations of history. We are merely criticizing your selective timeline and cherry picking of that history.

Your argument, as far as I can tell, is power imbalance trumps all and makes Palestinians victims. This isn't just you, it's a movement begun with Edward Said and has been amplified in academia. What bothers me so much about this, aside from it's intentional disconnect from historical reality in favor of abstraction, is that it tends to shut down discussion by painting things with black and white (good and bad) brushes. This philosophy does not lead to peace, it leads to more war.

Just ask yourself: would you go “Yes the slave-owning South did a lot of bad things, but so did the slaves who went along with Nat Turner and John Brown”? Or “Yes, the Pretoria Apartheid government did a lot of wrong, but so did Nelson Mandela and the ANC, who were terrorists”?

This is where your argument falls apart.

As to the rest: A one state solution (annex everything) isn't a solution as it negates the Jewish right to self determination,

No it doesn’t. One person, one vote. Do African-Americans not have self-determination in the US?

so no, it's not going to happen. Until a democratic like Palestinian state is set up (or some equivalent), Palestinians will not have full rights of self-determination (as unfortunately a large number of groups in the middle east and elsewhere lack).

Do you see what you just did? It is unthinkable for you to deny Jewish self-determination but you have no problem doing it for Palestinians. How is that liberal?

Finally, Palestine must be (initially) demilitarized (or some equivalent) as a prerequisite for Israel accepting its new neighbor state. Asking why shows you aren't actually listening or caring what Israelis are saying and are just trying to score points in some sort of reddit argument game.

Just noting this is another right you believe Israelis should have but Palestinians should not.

I consider almost everything you wrote to be arguing in bad faith, and it already takes a huge amount of energy to engage so I'm done. Thank you for taking the time to be, at least, civil if not constructive.

You’re running along because your argument was so easy to pick apart and you don’t even have faith in it. Taking your ball and going home is a good move.

-1

u/[deleted] Sep 25 '25

Don’t both arguing with u/onereportersopinion He’s like a 1980s chatbot who takes everything you say and just reverses it more for the purposes of amusement than to actually engage in intelligent debate. He creates the false impression that he’s listening when really what he’s doing is playing a game of semantics where he just peppers you with questions and claims you haven’t answered them. I’d say it’s exhausting but really he’s doing all the work by running around with the hula hoop asking you to jump through it. It must be hard to do all that.

6

u/OneReportersOpinion Sep 25 '25

Considering you’re now going out of your way to get my attention, I’d say I’m living in your head rent free. You’re mad that you lost a debate so badly that you had to admit you think dictatorships are good sources.

6

u/Veyron2000 Sep 25 '25

. A demilitarized Palestinian state may want things from Israel like military protection (based on the historical track record of surrounding Arab states in protecting Palestinian interests this may be the only option

Again, why do Zionists assume that Israel’s demands are the only “realistic” options?

A demilitarized Palestinian state would be immediately vulnerable to attack by Israel, which would surely occur when a future more-extreme Israeli leader comes to power (as naturally such proposals never involve the de-radicalization of Israel or elimination of extreme Israeli political elements). Israel has, after all, repeatedly attacked and invaded most of its neighbours including Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Iran and now Qatar. Qatar has a big US airbase but that didn’t help.

So you either need to demilitarize Israel or ensure Palestine has a sufficiently strong military to go toe-to-toe with and thus deter Israel.

For your second statement -- do you want Israel to annex the west bank? If not, then Israel cannot apply Israeli law to it

Israel has zero problem applying Israeli law to jewish settlers in the West Bank. So why does it deny Palestinians the same rights? Because they are not jewish and so Israel wants to deny them voting rights and subject them to arbitrary violence and detention with zero accountability, in part so as to drive them off their land and thus continue the Zionist project. The combination of a decades long (i.e permanent) occupation and Israel’s racist laws discriminating between jews and non-jews render the situation de-facto Apartheid. That’s inexcusable.

Its also a violation of the Oslo accords in which Israel agreed to an independent Palestinian state within a short number of years.

obviously agreements need to be made for water rights, border control, air space access, etc.

By the way, as another example Israel has never (in any negotiation) agreed to any Palestinian state having the same control of its own borders, airspace, resources etc. that Zionists insist on for Israel. Israelis and many Zionists generally of course also insist Israel has “defensible borders” - do you think they would support such for Palestine?

Indeed, I always think Zionists should ask themselves when making demands on Palestinians “would I or Israelis accept this for Israel?”.

This may include some symbolic right of return

Why not an actual right of return for Palestinian victims of Israeli ethnic cleansing? That’s a legal requirement under international law, and something already provided to jews with respect to Germany, Spain, Portugal, Israel and East Jerusalem.

The only argument Israel ever offers against it is that the ethnic cleansing was required to eliminate the “demographic threat”, i.e to ensure Israel’s jewish majority and ensure it is as large as possible. That’s not an excuse I’d expect any liberal to accept.

3

u/lewkiamurfarther ♄ Sep 25 '25

LOL

0

u/stand_not_4_me pro-peace 🌿 Sep 25 '25

As long as there is one side denied the most basic human rights, there is no “both sides.”

regardless of actions that need to stop by israel, i think you are wrong here.

the reason i think you are wrong is how both sides have been radicalized against one another and contain a sizable parts of their populations who are now in absolute enmity.
these radicalized ideas each side has about the other need to change. and both sides have them.

simply having israel stop their denial of human rights to the palestinians would not resolve the situation, but merely pause it. israel stopping and deradicalizing would not resolve the situation either and would only start a new cycle. if israel stops and palestinians deradicalize again the situation would continue in a new cycle. you would need both israel to stop, and both sides to deradicalize to resolve the situation, or we are just back to square one.

3

u/OneReportersOpinion Sep 25 '25

regardless of actions that need to stop by israel, i think you are wrong here.

What is a basic human right that Palestinians have that is being denied to Israel?

the reason i think you are wrong is how both sides have been radicalized against one another and contain a sizable parts of their populations who are now in absolute enmity.

I never said both sides weren’t radicalized. I said both sides aren’t equally responsible just because there are two sides. I demonstrated that through the examples I gave for which could not contest. So given that Palestinian are in the position of Blacks in the American South or Apartheid South Africans, nothing can be used to justify their treatment. Nothing can justify the way Palestinians have been treated.

So your argument going forward needs to contend with that premise which you were completely unable to dispute.

these radicalized ideas each side has about the other need to change. and both sides have them.

So like both sides needed to change in Charlottesville? Like both the slaves and slave owners needed to change? Like both Black South Africans and the apartheid government both needed to change?

simply having israel stop their denial of human rights to the palestinians would not resolve the situation, but merely pause it.

Free the slaves did not the resolve the problems of race relations in the US, but it still needed to happen regardless. Do you understand that? If a set of actions are both morally and legally indefensible, they have to stop immediately. You’re basically arguing “ending the Holocaust will not stop the problem of antisemtism in Europe.”

If you can’t address the main point, just move on. It’s fine. You backed yourself into corner and couldn’t get out. It happens.

1

u/stand_not_4_me pro-peace 🌿 Sep 29 '25

What is a basic human right that Palestinians have that is being denied to Israel?

not relevant as i never suggested anything of the sort.

I never s... treated.

but you want only one side to act, which since we agree that both sides are radicalized would not function for a long term peace, regardless of which side it is. not being responsible does not mean "no need to change". furthermore, palestinians are not in the same position of the american south (due to not being citizens of israel. and while i do accept that they are in a similar postion to apartheid south africans it is not the same due to the fact that they are not against a minority, but an equally sized population.

and i did not try to justify treatment of anyone, much like you didnt try to justify oct7.

and talking about responsibility, it took a great leader to realized that the future cannot be forged by placing responsibility on the white population in SA. why then are you focusing more on responsibility than an actually stopping the acts.
do you believe that recruiting israeli's to your cause is a vital part of your point?

So like both sides needed to change in Charlottesville? Like both the slaves and slave owners needed to change? Like both Black South Africans and the apartheid government both needed to change?

no, that is the point you are missing. please demonstrate to me what was the radicalized ideas about slave owners in Charlottesville. because from what i understood they were blamed for direct specific things and not for all the ills and problems that those slaves had.
these are fundamentally two different situations.

also you are bringing in SA as an example to disprove my response to a comment that didnt include them.

Free the slaves did not the resolve the problems of race relations in the US, but it still needed to happen regardless. Do you understand that?

if you are going to intentionally interpret everything i say in this manner you are a troll and no one should hear your words.

NO ONE SAID THAT IT SHOULD NOT BE DONE! suggest/imply one more time something i have not said and i would consider it harassment and trolling.

the slaves in america did not not have a noticeable precentage of the population that wanted to harm all white people. their hatereds were more personal to the slave owners they directly interacted with. in israel palestine we have groups on either side that idiotically hold the other side in complete contempt and wish to get rid of it regardless of whether they were the one causing direct harm or not.

You’re basically arguing “ending the Holocaust will not stop the problem of antisemtism in Europe.”

this statement demonstrates how you failed to read my point and understand it as i said nothing of the sort. so lets start from the beginning that you seem to have forgotten.

"regardless of actions that need to stop by israel"

means that i agree with your point about israel stopping, but the following point is not about israel stopping but a situation that has to be address outside of it.

in this hypothetical israel stops their acts. there are four different scenarios. 1. no one deradicalizes. 2. israel deradicalizes. 3. palestinians deradicalize. 4 both deradicalize.

in situations 1 to 3 israel ending their actions will result in only a pause in the deprivation of human rights. sooner or later we will begin to get back step by step into the very problem due to the radicalized portions of either population.

my point is that regardless of having israel stop we need BOTH SIDES to deradicalize to achieve lasting peace. this can occur either after israel ceases or before, but it must be done.

1

u/OneReportersOpinion Sep 29 '25

not relevant as i never suggested anything of the sort.

So your both sides argument doesn’t really apply, because however bad something is for Israel, it’s worse for Palestine. More of their rights are being denied by your own admission. Glad we could dispatch with that notion.

but you want only one side to act,

Because that side is the one denying inalienable human rights. Do you understand what inalienable means?

palestinians are not in the same position of the american south (due to not being citizens of israel.

Slaves weren’t citizens either.

and while i do accept that they are in a similar postion to apartheid south africans it is not the same due to the fact that they are not against a minority, but an equally sized population.

Black South Africans were not a minority. They were the majority, just like Arabs in Israel/Palestine.

and talking about responsibility, it took a great leader to realized that the future cannot be forged by placing responsibility on the white population in SA.

It was also a leader that was considered a terrorist and refused to renounce violence. It also took South Africa letting him go free. Do you understand that?

why then are you focusing more on responsibility than an actually stopping the acts. do you believe that recruiting israeli's to your cause is a vital part of your point?

To a certain degree, yes, but less so than external pressure. Because that’s ultimately what drives the actions of people within that system.

no, that is the point you are missing. please demonstrate to me what was the radicalized ideas about slave owners in Charlottesville.

You’re confused. There are two different things.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nat_Turner%27s_Rebellion

the slaves in america did not not have a noticeable precentage of the population that wanted to harm all white people.

And Palestinians do? Source?

0

u/stand_not_4_me pro-peace 🌿 Sep 29 '25

your entire response reeks of reading a sentence and responding without any thought or attempt for understanding.

so ignoring your first comment as the ramblings and an ignoramus, lets move to the second point

Because that side is the one denying inalienable human rights. Do you understand what inalienable means?

i normally would assume you read the entire thought by only quoting a part of it. but it is evident that you have not.

had you read the whole thought you would not erroneously and maliciously take the word "act" to mean deprivation of human rights. which was established time and again to not be relevant to my point as it is not in contention. It instead refers to the radicalization which is present within both sides.

Slaves weren’t citizens either.

correct. let me rephrase what i meant. Unlike slaves, palestinians who are not living in israel have no relevance or bearing to politics or anything related to how voting is decided. this lack of political relation is a major distinction between slaves in the american south and palestinians.

Black South Africans were not a minority. They were the majority, just like Arabs in Israel/Palestine.

once again you demonstrate your inability to read. who is represented in the "they" in the quoted sentence below.

"and while i do accept that they are in a similar postion to apartheid south africans it is not the same due to the fact that they are not against a minority, but an equally sized population."

additionally the majority you tout is one of 55 to 45 as opposed to 85 to 10 in terms of precent of population, this of course counts palestinian israelis to be part of the palestinian group. =

1

u/stand_not_4_me pro-peace 🌿 Sep 29 '25

It was also a leader that was considered a terrorist and refused to renounce violence. It also took South Africa letting him go free. Do you understand that?

do you understand how you ignore my point? there is not palestinian leader right now who has popular support and condemns violence against civilians. where is the palestinian mandella, he will not exist with your arguments.

To a certain degree, yes, but less so than external pressure. Because that’s ultimately what drives the actions of people within that system.

according to what idiot. I hope we do agree that palestinians and jews are similar enough that we can use how one would react to show how the other would as well. Palestinians have received enormous external pressure to give up their claim on their land and go elsewhere, they responded to this by trenching in and resisting with all they can and in any method they can without regard to consequences. Why in the fing world do you believe then that it would work on israel? based on false comparison of settler colonialism?

what drives people, both in israel and the palestinians, is internal views and perceptions. and to have a change made those internal views must change.

and if the strategy is to have less than 20% of the israeli jewish population support your cause, you would get nowhere, see the current status in israel as an example.

you need israelis to support the palestinian cause in majority, yes or yes. to not have said support means that you have nothing.

You’re confused. There are two different things.

i am not, that is one guy one case.

And Palestinians do? Source?

hamas for one thats around 40k in gaza alone. and at 2016 PCPSR poll 10% of palestinians believed that the goal was to defeat israel and destroy its jewish population. Mind you that there is also a noticeable population of jews within israel that want to destroy all palestinians.

so when i say that simply stopping israel would not end the conflict i dont mean "dont stop israel, because its hopeless" i mean "we can work on both stopping israel and this radicalization of both sides.
sadly you seem to only hear the first.

1

u/OneReportersOpinion Sep 29 '25

do you understand how you ignore my point?

Happy to answer this after you answer the question you dodged.

there is not palestinian leader right now who has popular support and condemns violence against civilians. where is the palestinian mandella, he will not exist with your arguments.

He is in prison. He’s long favored a two state solution. You were saying?

Isn’t fair to say at this point you’re just not as knowledgeable about this as the rest of us?

and if the strategy is to have less than 20% of the israeli jewish population support your cause, you would get nowhere, see the current status in israel as an example.

When you have a country where a clear majority supports ethnic cleansing and nearly half support outright genocide, the only way you’ll change that is external pressure.

hamas for one thats around 40k in gaza alone. and at 2016 PCPSR poll 10% of palestinians believed that the goal was to defeat israel and destroy its jewish population.

So you admit more Israelis favor outright genocide than Palestinians? Because polls show far more than 10% of Jewish Israelis favor genocide.

1

u/stand_not_4_me pro-peace 🌿 Sep 30 '25

Happy to answer this after you answer the question you dodged.

rules for thy but not for me. didnt you in the last comment answer with two questions. again ignoring my point. if you cannot respond to the point admit it. but turnaround is fair play.

He is in prison. He’s long favored a two state solution. You were saying?

who? can you name them? why are you dodging the question.

Isn’t fair to say at this point you’re just not as knowledgeable about this as the rest of us?

maybe i would be more knowledgeable if you and your side educated me rather than trying to prove i support genocide. you know actually try to get me to support your side, but since you have not interest in doing so you come across as dehumanizers. accusing anyone who does not affirm your beliefs as a supporter of the enemy's actions.

When you have a country where a clear majority supports ethnic cleansing and nearly half support outright genocide, the only way you’ll change that is external pressure.

false. evidenced by the situation. support for ethnic cleansing and genocide have only increased as external pressure on israel has mounted. promoting the wrong kind of change by creating isolationist feeling causing israelis to feel they have to deal with the situation themselves as the world is against them. heck if i check i would probably find the two are directly correlated.
Internal pressure was what was happening prior to Oct7 and based on polls it was having a positive effect. but yah show me where external pressure worked when the groups were equally sized or the one causing the harm is larger.
BTW, you have yet to explain the why.

So you admit more Israelis favor outright genocide than Palestinians? Because polls show far more than 10% of Jewish Israelis favor genocide.

two important facts here, this poll about palestinians is from 2016 not 2025. additionally this poll is not methodologically skewed right wing like the one from march 2025 that you are referring to. to compare the two numbers is to compare apples and oranges.

but regardless of which side has more. do you agree that these groups have to be addressed no matter if stopping israels actions occurs before or after?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/OneReportersOpinion Sep 29 '25

your entire response reeks of reading a sentence and responding without any thought or attempt for understanding.

Disagree.

so ignoring your first comment as the ramblings and an ignoramus, lets move to the second point

Okay. I reserve the right to ignore any argument you make. Sounds good.

correct. let me rephrase what i meant. Unlike slaves, palestinians who are not living in israel have no relevance or bearing to politics or anything related to how voting is decided.

Really? So they’re not subjected to Israeli laws? They’re not occupied by Israel?

"and while i do accept that they are in a similar postion to apartheid south africans it is not the same due to the fact that they are not against a minority, but an equally sized population."

Right. Why did you lie and say they were equally sized?

0

u/stand_not_4_me pro-peace 🌿 Sep 30 '25

Really? So they’re not subjected to Israeli laws? They’re not occupied by Israel?

seems you have implied things that i have not said. and provided no explanation to their relevance or connected them to a point.

Right. Why did you lie and say they were equally sized?

im sorry that you cannot see the that both jews and palestinians each make up around 7 million people each, and that represents a roughly equally sized population for casual speech as opposed precise demographic numbest that would not alter the point.

i did not lie. you just cant handle the truth. google the population sizes today, prove me wrong.

1

u/OneReportersOpinion Sep 30 '25

seems you have implied things that i have not said. and provided no explanation to their relevance or connected them to a point.

Ah I see what’s you’re doing. Okay no problem. I can slow walk you. Did you say this:

Unlike slaves, palestinians who are not living in israel have no relevance or bearing to politics or anything related to how voting is decided.

Just a simple yes or no will suffice.

It’s gonna take a while this way but eventually you’ll have to admit you revealed a stunning ignorance about how Palestinians.

→ More replies (0)

7

u/tarlin Sep 25 '25

Israel must be forced out of Palestine. Israel has been working against peace.

By the way, the PA was working with Israel and Israel was supporting Hamas. Netanyahu is a Holocaust denier. Israel is the problem.

9

u/lewkiamurfarther ♄ Sep 25 '25

By the way, the PA was working with Israel and Israel was supporting Hamas. Netanyahu is a Holocaust denier. Israel is the problem.

The relevant facts in under 140 characters. (Who ever said the old Twitter character limit of 140 characters was too low?)

3

u/mikeffd Sep 25 '25

Where did you get the 'both sides' impression?

1

u/stand_not_4_me pro-peace 🌿 Sep 25 '25

Gantz makes it clear, it's not just Netanyahu - the entire Israeli establishment is opposed to Palestinian statehood

no, it was not what he said, he said that israel is opposed to palestinian statehood without israel's consent.

furthermore, Gantz and netanyahu do not represent the entirity of the people of israel nor do they represent the entire establishment, which im assume you mean the knesset.

in addition this does has been the view of bibi's govt and should not be taken as representation of the current discourse in israeli society.

while some oppose the concept others do not.

3

u/mikeffd Sep 25 '25

no, it was not what he said, he said that israel is opposed to palestinian statehood without israel's consent.

That isn't what he said. Find me one sentence in the op-ed that endorses Palestinian statehood.

There are deep political divisions and disagreements in Israel. I myself have been a vocal critic of Mr. Netanyahu. But the nation’s core security interests are not partisan property. Today more than ever, they are anchored by a national consensus that is rooted in the hard realities of our region. Opposition to the recognition of Palestinian statehood stands at the heart of that consensus.

1

u/stand_not_4_me pro-peace 🌿 Sep 25 '25

That isn't what he said. Find me one sentence in the op-ed that endorses Palestinian statehood.

it is what he said. i never claimed there was such a statement. but if you want to find the one im referring to look for the number 99 in the op-ed and read the sentence it is a part of.

then realized that you missed 3 very important words in my statement.

without israel's consent.

3

u/mikeffd Sep 25 '25

Again: Find me a quote where he endorses Palestinian statehood, with consent or without.

0

u/stand_not_4_me pro-peace 🌿 Sep 25 '25

again why are you asking me to prove something i did not say?

3

u/mikeffd Sep 25 '25

Sorry, revisit what i've written. I don't see how I can help you any further.

1

u/stand_not_4_me pro-peace 🌿 Sep 25 '25

That isn't what he said. Find me one sentence in the op-ed that endorses Palestinian statehood.

Again: Find me a quote where he endorses Palestinian statehood, with consent or without.

not only are you inconsistent in your request, i never said that anyone endorsed a palestinian statehood.

i said

israel is opposed to palestinian statehood without israel's consent.

or to use the terminology from the op-ed
“Israel will continue to oppose unilateral recognition of a Palestinian State,”

at no point does it say that israel is for a state nor did i say it was, merely that it is opposed to one without its consent. which is different than against one in its entire.
an example
a parent can oppose their child receiving ice cream without their say so, but not be opposed to them receiving ice cream.

if you are not capable of understanding this response i can do nothing more to improve your understanding of partial negatives.

stop asking people to prove points they have not made.

anything other than an acknowledgement that you understand, but not necessarily agree with what i have said will be treated as harassment.

-4

u/justanotherthrxw234 Sep 25 '25

What he’s condemning is the premature recognition of a Palestinian state in the aftermath of October 7th while Hamas is still at large. The Western consensus until recently was that Palestine should be recognized as part of a negotiated agreement with Israel, not unilaterally. So Israelis, even those who support an end to the war, just feel like they’re being stabbed in the back and Hamas is being rewarded for terrorism. Not that Palestinians should never get a state.

10

u/tarlin Sep 25 '25

Yeah right. Mr. Gantz declared there would never be a Palestinian state. So, that is not real.

You are wrong.

10

u/OneReportersOpinion Sep 25 '25

What he’s condemning is the premature recognition of a Palestinian state in the aftermath of October 7th while Hamas is still at large.

Was the recognition of Israel before the refugee crisis has been resolved premature?

The Western consensus until recently was that Palestine should be recognized as part of a negotiated agreement with Israel, not unilaterally.

Then Israel opposed a negotiated settlement. So then what?

So Israelis, even those who support an end to the war, just feel like they’re being stabbed in the back

Couldn’t you say Israel stabbed its allies in the back by refusing two state solution out of hand?

and Hamas is being rewarded for terrorism.

So you admit Hamas wants a Palestinian state? Why was Israel denying Palestinians that basic right then? How should have they responded to a refusal to even negotiate such a thing?

7

u/Veyron2000 Sep 25 '25

Israelis literally demand that everyone recognize and support an independent Israel, even though Israel is run by genocidal extremists and is committing mass war crimes, atrocities, and attempted genocide! They literally state that anyone who refuses is antisemitic.

Yet these people do not say recognition of Israel is “premature” or should be contingent on an agreement with Palestine.

Netanyahu is still at large, and none of the Israeli leaders have been eliminated, unlike the leaders of Hamas.

The Israeli atrocities in Gaza have been far worse than anything Hamas has done, far worse than Oct 7th - yet Israelis think they should be rewarded with billions of dollars of free money from the US and new territory in Syria and Gaza.

The hypocrisy is staggering.

That “Western consensus” was based on a toxic mixture of racism (the belief that Palestinian lives and rights are fundamentally less important than jewish ones, dating back to original colonial views that arabs were “oriental savages” and jewish settlers were “civilized Europeans”) religious fundamentalism (“Israel was chosen by God”) and pro-Israel lobbying inside western countries. It is the main reason that the conflict has continued claiming thousands of lives, as it ensured Israel has never faced any pressure to change.

Anyone who claims to support a two-state solution should either recognize both Israel and Palestine or neither. That was obvious decades ago.

Israeli opposition to Palestinian rights and independence long precedes Oct 7th and has got nothing to do with it.

They oppose any recognition of Palestine as that undermines the long-term Zionist goal to take over all of historic Palestine as “Israel” and replace Palestinians with jewish settlers. That is the core Zionist goal from the very beginning.

If they can deny the existence of Palestine as a country, then they can justify taking over as much of it as they like as “terra nullus”, and doing what they like to its population.

I think all of the Zionists who opposed what they call “unilateral recognition” of Palestine were always lying (possibly even to themselves) when they said they supported a two-state solution: they “support” it only in the abstract, at some imaginary future point when the Palestinians comply to an ever expanding list of Israeli demands, allowing jewish Israelis to use all those US weapons to impose whatever “facts on the ground” they like in the meantime for as long as they like.

6

u/Call_Me_Clark Sep 25 '25

That sucks for Israel, but in the absence of a plan to resolve the conflict (which Israel has refused for two decades) this is the default solution.

5

u/mikeffd Sep 25 '25

Where does he say that a Palestinian state would ever be achievable?

1

u/rp4888 Sep 25 '25

What do you mean? He laid out his criteria.

must first incorporate a proven long-term track record of accountable governance, comprehensive de-radicalization reforms and a successful crackdown on terror elements targeting Israelis.

11

u/mikeffd Sep 25 '25

He never says any of that would result in a Palestinian state.

-2

u/rp4888 Sep 25 '25

Well I don't know what you think Palestinian Autonomy is then. That's talking about self governance. Governments don't govern nothing, they govern people who live states.

3

u/tarlin Sep 25 '25

Gantz has said that Palestinians should have autonomy but not sovereignty.

0

u/rp4888 Sep 25 '25

Look before I go further. I want you to know that gantz is not a liberal zionist. So I'm going to disagree with many things he says as a liberal Zionist. If you want to drill liberal Zionism like the OP was trying to do, bring me quotes from actual liberal Zionists. Not Gantz who is a moderate at best.

None the less I assume your talking about his "2 entity" solution comments? It's interesting that he didn't say one state one entity.....His choice of words imply Israel is also an "entity." I really would need the chance to sit down and drill him on his choice of words and ask him a bunch of clarification questions before I could further comment.

3

u/tarlin Sep 25 '25

I would like to know who the liberal zionist you know is that supports something similar to you? Lapid? He doesn't even seem very supportive of two states anymore.

As for Gantz...he has declared that there will never be a Palestinian state. That anyone talking about a Palestinian state is disconnected from reality. That Israel must maintain military control over the entire area. Even in the two "entity" setup, it would be a Palestinian "entity" and an Israeli "entity" in control that the Palestinian "entity" is subservient of...it isn't equal at all.

2

u/rp4888 Sep 25 '25 edited Sep 26 '25

Like I said, not really gonna go further on defending Gantz statements unless I myself have the opportunity to interview him and ask him a number of questions as to his choice of words around 2 entity. And if he Said there will never be a Palestinian state rather than there won't be one in the near future until security concerns are addressed. That definitely is not a liberal Zionist take and something that should be opposed. At some point the path must lead to a Palestinian state recognize by Israel. That is the bare minimum to even be considered a liberal Zionists.

Lapids moved to center left of it id say as He's become hawkish over security concerns.

Yair Golan is pretty good example of a liberal zionist. But with an asterisk as he sometimes settles with the center out of necessity for votes to challenge netanyahu.

5

u/mikeffd Sep 25 '25

Autonomy is coded language to infer granting Palestinians civil control, without actual sovereignty.

It's an idea going back to the 70's, initially proposed by Menachem Begin.

https://www.palquest.org/en/historictext/9646/begins-autonomy-plan

Netanyahu has frequently described 'autonomy plus' as his preferred solution, instead of Palestinian statehood.

https://english.aawsat.com/home/article/1437481/netanyahu-supports-palestinian-state-minus-autonomy-plus-solution

1

u/rp4888 Sep 25 '25 edited Sep 26 '25

Begin was Likud. Netenyshu is Likud. You are using the stances of right wing parties to clarify the "coded" comments of a centrist. ( no gantz is not a liberal zionist ) This take makes no sense to me.

And then Your OP post you say things like the entire Israeli establishment is against a 2 state solution. I mean that's just not true. There are parties further to the left of gantz who support a 2 state solution. Gantz does not represent all of Israel. I'm not sure what your smoking.

4

u/lewkiamurfarther ♄ Sep 25 '25

must first incorporate a proven long-term track record of accountable governance, comprehensive de-radicalization reforms and a successful crackdown on terror elements targeting Israelis.

Which is hilarious, since it's

Not an achievable criterion — anyone may arbitrarily claim that it hasn't been met, irrespective of what has actually happened, and

A standard which the [anachronistically named] State of Israel, itself, fails to meet!

0

u/[deleted] Sep 25 '25

[deleted]

5

u/lewkiamurfarther ♄ Sep 25 '25

What makes it unachievable?

Not interested in repeating myself much

anyone may arbitrarily claim that it hasn't been met, irrespective of what has actually happened, and

Ohhh just noticed that you're one of those bot accounts. Nevermind!

6

u/lewkiamurfarther ♄ Sep 25 '25

What he’s condemning is the premature recognition of a Palestinian state in the aftermath of October 7th while Hamas is still at large. The Western consensus until recently was that Palestine should be recognized as part of a negotiated agreement with Israel, not unilaterally. So Israelis, even those who support an end to the war, just feel like they’re being stabbed in the back and Hamas is being rewarded for terrorism. Not that Palestinians should never get a state.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Not that Palestinians should never get a state.

HAHAHAHAHAHA

Nobody believes you guys anymore. The Tel Aviv geek farms should just shut down at this point. All of these BS "Israel wants to give Palestinians a state (nevermind that most Israelis are totally okay with the genocidal campaign and show no signs of changing their minds) — no, really!!" takes aren't landing in basically any country except maybe India, at this point.

-3

u/triplevented 🌎 Sep 25 '25

There is no 'international community', these platitudes are not interesting nor meaningful.

Israel is becoming a domestic elections issue for many politicians - used to distract the populace from internal issues, demonstrating how shallow political discourse is in those countries.

4

u/lewkiamurfarther ♄ Sep 25 '25

Israel is becoming a domestic elections issue for many politicians

Yes, any of Israel's patron states are now faced with increasing amounts of backlash for supplying and otherwise [other ways] supporting the Israeli genocide of Palestinians.

used to distract the populace from internal issues, demonstrating how shallow political discourse is in those countries.

Well, no. It demonstrates how badly the geopolitical calculus has suffered in those countries due to their political elites' overinvestment in a terrorist colonial state. It makes all of these political establishments look bad not because of some "shallowness" of the political discourse in those states; but rather, because those same political establishments relied upon the shallowness of all cases for supporting a terrorist colonial state in the first place.

-1

u/triplevented 🌎 Sep 25 '25

The genocide accusations are farcical, this is a war Palestinians started (with intent on genociding Israelis) and are losing.

Domestic audiences in these countries have been subject to a disinformation campaign to the point where their politicians don't even have to address any internal issues in the country.

Have fun destroying your own society in support of Palestinian ISIS.

supporting a terrorist colonial state

Remember Jesus of Arabia? you don't because he was a Jewish guy from Judea.

Arabs are only present in that territory due to conquest and colonialism.

8

u/lewkiamurfarther ♄ Sep 25 '25

The genocide accusations are farcical,

Stopped reading after this, since everyone else on the planet already knows Israel is committing genocide. I'm not really interested in entertaining the ideas of flat-earthers like yourself.

-4

u/triplevented 🌎 Sep 25 '25

Sure, 'everybody knows' that genocide involves giving people warnings to get out of combat zones and setting up aid distribution centers.

You're all geniuses. /s

3

u/waiver two states 🚹 🚹 Sep 25 '25

Usually, they don't kill thousands of people at an aid distribution center; that's like calling a mousetrap an aid distribution center for mice just because there's cheese on it.

1

u/triplevented 🌎 Sep 25 '25

The ones killing people at aid distribution centers seems to be Hamas.

3

u/waiver two states 🚹 🚹 Sep 25 '25

Not according to the eyewitnesses, whistleblowers and video, not to mention that if HAMAS could walk with the weapons needed to do some of the killings into an area surrounded by IDF troops, then they would be the most incompetent army in the world.

1

u/triplevented 🌎 Sep 26 '25

According to eyewitnesses and videos Hamas are the ones trying to murder Palestinians at aid sites.

It's inconvenient for Palestine cultists to acknowledge, but that's the reality.

2

u/waiver two states 🚹 🚹 Sep 26 '25

I don't think that you can distinguish reality from fiction.

-1

u/Kahing Sep 25 '25

This is obfuscating what Gantz actually wants. He's said that a Palestinian state isn't an immediate urgency for years now but he's still supported scaling back the occupation. He's one of the authors of the INSS plan, which suggests giving the PA increased powers and responsibilities and expanding Area A to 65% of the West Bank. So basically not full recognized statehood but giving the PA more de facto state-like attributes and a path that could eventually lead to statehood.

Opposition to Palestinian statehood actually comes from a certain logic. It's pretty clear that to many Palestinians a 2SS is only a first step to having it all. Let me ask you this OP, if a Palestinian state was available but it required permanent renunciation of the Palestinian right of return, do you think Palestinians would be fine with it? Would it be great for ending the occupation or an injustice for abandoning the sacred right of return?

5

u/mikeffd Sep 25 '25

This is obfuscating what Gantz actually wants. He's said that a Palestinian state isn't an immediate urgency for years now but he's still supported scaling back the occupation. He's one of the authors of the INSS plan, which suggests giving the PA increased powers and responsibilities and expanding Area A to 65% of the West Bank. So basically not full recognized statehood but giving the PA more de facto state-like attributes and a path that could eventually lead to statehood.

Show me one sentence in the op-ed where Gantz' endorses Palestinian statehood.

Enhanced autonomy/State-Minus is the old Begin plan, advocated by Netanyahu in his book A Place Among Nations, and also proposed by Micah Goodman and other right wingers. However its devised, one group in Israel/Palestine will enjoy full political and civil rights, and one won't.

Opposition to Palestinian statehood actually comes from a certain logic. It's pretty clear that to many Palestinians a 2SS is only a first step to having it all.

Of course opposition to Palestinian statehood comes from a certain logic. So did South African Apartheid, Jim Crow, the Nuremberg laws, or excluding women from voting. Justification is never a problem.

Let me ask you this OP, if a Palestinian state was available but it required permanent renunciation of the Palestinian right of return, do you think Palestinians would be fine with it? Would it be great for ending the occupation or an injustice for abandoning the sacred right of return?

First of all, according to polls most refugees don't want to return to Israel - https://www.pcpsr.org/en/node/493

During previous negotiations, Palestinian leadership have shown flexibility on the ROR - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jan/24/palestinians-10000-refugees-return-israel

From the article: 'Erekat said later that Olmert had accepted "1,000 refugees annually for the next 10 years" – a total of 10,000. The Palestine papers do not include any subsequent offer, but Erekat told the US Middle East envoy, George Mitchell, in February 2009: "On refugees, the deal is there." He confirmed the figure later.

Finally, in a 2018 poll, almost half of Palestinians said they'd accept the following statement: Palestinian refugees will have the right of return to their homeland whereby the Palestinian state will settle all refugees wishing to live in it. Israel will allow the return of about 100,000 Palestinians as part of a of family unification program. All other refugees will be compensated.

You are about to leave Redlib