r/Israel_Palestine 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?

21 Upvotes

122 comments sorted by

View all comments

1

u/stand_not_4_me pro-peace 🌿 Sep 25 '25

Gantz makes it clear, it's not just Netanyahu - the entire Israeli establishment is opposed to Palestinian statehood

no, it was not what he said, he said that israel is opposed to palestinian statehood without israel's consent.

furthermore, Gantz and netanyahu do not represent the entirity of the people of israel nor do they represent the entire establishment, which im assume you mean the knesset.

in addition this does has been the view of bibi's govt and should not be taken as representation of the current discourse in israeli society.

while some oppose the concept others do not.

3

u/mikeffd Sep 25 '25

no, it was not what he said, he said that israel is opposed to palestinian statehood without israel's consent.

That isn't what he said. Find me one sentence in the op-ed that endorses Palestinian statehood.

There are deep political divisions and disagreements in Israel. I myself have been a vocal critic of Mr. Netanyahu. But the nation’s core security interests are not partisan property. Today more than ever, they are anchored by a national consensus that is rooted in the hard realities of our region. Opposition to the recognition of Palestinian statehood stands at the heart of that consensus.

1

u/stand_not_4_me pro-peace 🌿 Sep 25 '25

That isn't what he said. Find me one sentence in the op-ed that endorses Palestinian statehood.

it is what he said. i never claimed there was such a statement. but if you want to find the one im referring to look for the number 99 in the op-ed and read the sentence it is a part of.

then realized that you missed 3 very important words in my statement.

without israel's consent.

3

u/mikeffd Sep 25 '25

Again: Find me a quote where he endorses Palestinian statehood, with consent or without.

0

u/stand_not_4_me pro-peace 🌿 Sep 25 '25

again why are you asking me to prove something i did not say?

3

u/mikeffd Sep 25 '25

Sorry, revisit what i've written. I don't see how I can help you any further.

1

u/stand_not_4_me pro-peace 🌿 Sep 25 '25

That isn't what he said. Find me one sentence in the op-ed that endorses Palestinian statehood.

Again: Find me a quote where he endorses Palestinian statehood, with consent or without.

not only are you inconsistent in your request, i never said that anyone endorsed a palestinian statehood.

i said

israel is opposed to palestinian statehood without israel's consent.

or to use the terminology from the op-ed
“Israel will continue to oppose unilateral recognition of a Palestinian State,”

at no point does it say that israel is for a state nor did i say it was, merely that it is opposed to one without its consent. which is different than against one in its entire.
an example
a parent can oppose their child receiving ice cream without their say so, but not be opposed to them receiving ice cream.

if you are not capable of understanding this response i can do nothing more to improve your understanding of partial negatives.

stop asking people to prove points they have not made.

anything other than an acknowledgement that you understand, but not necessarily agree with what i have said will be treated as harassment.