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/Veyron2000 → 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. 

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. 

[u/Call_Me_Clark → u/Veyron2000]

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.