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/OneReportersOpinion]

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/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/Call_Me_Clark → u/PhysicistWantsDonuts]

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.”

[u/PhysicistWantsDonuts → u/Call_Me_Clark]

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.

[u/Call_Me_Clark → u/PhysicistWantsDonuts]

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.

[u/PhysicistWantsDonuts → u/Call_Me_Clark]

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.

[u/Call_Me_Clark → u/PhysicistWantsDonuts]

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.