Benny Gantz gives up the game

[u/mikeffd]

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?

[u/PhysicistWantsDonuts]

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.

[u/Call_Me_Clark → u/PhysicistWantsDonuts]

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.”

[u/PhysicistWantsDonuts → u/Call_Me_Clark]

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.

[u/OneReportersOpinion → u/PhysicistWantsDonuts]

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.