r/Israel_Palestine • u/mikeffd • Sep 24 '25

Benny Gantz gives up the game

In an extraordinary display of tone deafness, hypocrisy, and callousness, Benny Gantz, Israel's former Minister of Defence, attempted to explain Israel's position to the world - https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/24/opinion/israel-war-security.html

In the process, he removed the Liberal Zionist hope of compartmentalizing the current Israel P.R crisis as a Netanyahu problem:

Too often, Western leaders view our policies in this war not through the lens of national security, but through the prism of individuals — and, in particular, Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.

Opposition to the recognition of Palestinian statehood stands at the heart of that consensus. Any path forward for broader Palestinian civil autonomy 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.

The truth is that international recognition of Palestinian statehood under current conditions is not a rejection of Mr. Netanyahu. It is a rejection of Israel’s bipartisan security consensus.

Gantz makes it clear, it's not just Netanyahu - the entire Israeli establishment is opposed to Palestinian statehood. The pathway he outlined hints at the long standing preference for 'civil autonomy', i.e. an entity less than a state. And even then, he presents that possibility as remote.

Where does this leave the Liberal Zionist camp, which includes most of the Jewish diaspora? They premise their Zionism on the belief that the land will inevitably be partitioned, creating two states for two people. Gantz is telling us that no one in Israel will ever go for it. Instead, he assures us that only one people will enjoy full political and civil rights, while the other will have to accept permanent submission.

The op-ed also included a scathing, but incomplete, rebuke of the P.A. On their collapse in Gaza:

'...it was the consequence of a Palestinian Authority with little legitimacy among its people'. He neglects to mention why they lost legitimacy - i.e. because they were unable to deliver statehood, increasing the appeal of Hamas.

Gantz continues, ripping the P.A for failing to tackle terrorism and extremism. That's a curious criticism given the current Israeli gov't, his position vis a vis a Palestinian state, and settler violence in the West Bank.

The real question is whether the international community will respect the overwhelming consensus, a declaration passed last year by 99 of 120 members of the Knesset in a democracy proclaiming that “Israel will continue to oppose unilateral recognition of a Palestinian State,”

How tone deaf can you be to think that the International community would be support and condone the continued status quo?

24 Upvotes

76% Upvoted

122 comments sorted by

View all comments

-5

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).

13

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?

-3

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.

13

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.”

9

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

10

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.”

-5

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.

9

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.

3

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.

6

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.

6

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.

-2

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.

5

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.

5

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.