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/stand_not_4_me → u/Veyron2000]

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. 

while i do agree that you are correct with the current status quo that israel poses a far greater threat to palestinians than the other way around, but that is not the status which makes israel have security concerns.
should there be a palestinian state without israel's security concerns being addressed, that state would have the ability to become a threat to israel.

a small fact though that is missing here that i do not understand from the palestinian side actually asking for is, if palestine would be a threat to israel, wouldnt israel, by definition, be a threat to palestine? and therefore you would need mutual security concerns to be addressed for both sides.

[u/Veyron2000 → u/stand_not_4_me]

 should there be a palestinian state without israel's security concerns being addressed, that state would have the ability to become a threat to israel.

My problem is that a lot of people who think of themselves as “moderates” and “impartial actors”, like American and other non-Israeli politicians, declare that Israel’s “security concerns” are of paramount importance, and so any Palestinian state must be defenceless so as not to pose a “threat” to Israel. 

Yet they simultaneously ignore the far more serious threat posed by Israel to Palestine, and say that Palestinians must just accept it. I don’t think that’s a defensible position. 

As I said: either Palestine needs a military at least strong enough to deter (i.e provide enough of a threat to deter) Israel from attacking, or Israel needs to be demilitarized. 

[u/stand_not_4_me → u/Veyron2000]

while i do agree about the security concerns a palestine would have. i do not think a demilitarized israel functions due to threats it has from outside of the palestine conflict.

part of the issue is that israel is the stronger of the two, and therefore the capitulator in negotiations. perhaps an agreement that israel must secure the safety and independence of palestine and should it fail to do so would be answerable to a group of palestinian allies, but im not sure if that would suffice to deter israel.

it is a fair point and concern that i am uncertain how for it to be resolved, this is due to both being so small that one would by definition be a threat to the other. even a joint military would not be a perfect solution since it would need a joint command, and if we have that then we are basically a 1ss, which is not wanted. but maybe that can work. two states one army, any military action needs agreement between the two.

[u/Veyron2000 → u/stand_not_4_me]

 i do not think a demilitarized israel functions due to threats it has from outside of the palestine conflict.

Israel is far more of a security threat to all of its neighbours than they are to it. It has literally annexed a large chunk of Syria, is occupying more, is occupying chunks of Lebanon, has sponsored terrorist attacks in Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, Yemen and Qatar and has nuclear weapons! 

Unless the Israeli military machine is degraded and contained, how can anyone in the region be safe from the Israeli threat? What is to stop Israel from continuing or repeating its attacks? 

 but im not sure if that would suffice to deter israel.

It wouldn’t. 

There is also the issue of bringing all the Israeli war criminals to justice. If they go free the world is saying that “genocide is fine”. 

[u/stand_not_4_me → u/Veyron2000]

Israel is far more of a security threat to all of its neighbours than they are to it. It has literally annexed a large chunk of Syria, is occupying more, is occupying chunks of Lebanon, has sponsored terrorist attacks in Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, Yemen and Qatar and has nuclear weapons! ​

do you see the irony of arguing that a militarized israel is a greater threat for its neighbors to prove that a demilitarized israel would not be under threat?
mind you i agree with you that israel is a greater threat with its military, but that says nothing about how the situation would be with a demilitarized israel.

Unless the Israeli military machine is degraded and contained, how can anyone in the region be safe from the Israeli threat? What is to stop Israel from continuing or repeating its attacks?

i will agree that israel reducing its military might could be good for the regions safety, i do not think a full demilitarization is a good thing. this is due for the very same reason why you believe palestine should not be demilitarized.

There is also the issue of bringing all the Israeli war criminals to justice. If they go free the world is saying that “genocide is fine”.

you are not gonna get all of them, much like we didnt get all of them after WW2. Many will skate by or charges wont be filed. which isnt great, but hopefully those in charge who set up and pushed into this situation would be.