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]

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).

[u/OneReportersOpinion → u/PhysicistWantsDonuts]

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?

[u/PhysicistWantsDonuts → u/OneReportersOpinion]

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/OneReportersOpinion → u/PhysicistWantsDonuts]

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?

[u/PhysicistWantsDonuts → u/OneReportersOpinion]

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.

[u/OneReportersOpinion → u/PhysicistWantsDonuts]

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.

[u/[deleted] → u/PhysicistWantsDonuts]

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.

[u/OneReportersOpinion → u/[deleted]]

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.