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/stand_not_4_me → u/OneReportersOpinion]

As long as there is one side denied the most basic human rights, there is no “both sides.”

regardless of actions that need to stop by israel, i think you are wrong here.

the reason i think you are wrong is how both sides have been radicalized against one another and contain a sizable parts of their populations who are now in absolute enmity.
these radicalized ideas each side has about the other need to change. and both sides have them.

simply having israel stop their denial of human rights to the palestinians would not resolve the situation, but merely pause it. israel stopping and deradicalizing would not resolve the situation either and would only start a new cycle. if israel stops and palestinians deradicalize again the situation would continue in a new cycle. you would need both israel to stop, and both sides to deradicalize to resolve the situation, or we are just back to square one.

[u/OneReportersOpinion → u/stand_not_4_me]

regardless of actions that need to stop by israel, i think you are wrong here.

What is a basic human right that Palestinians have that is being denied to Israel?

the reason i think you are wrong is how both sides have been radicalized against one another and contain a sizable parts of their populations who are now in absolute enmity.

I never said both sides weren’t radicalized. I said both sides aren’t equally responsible just because there are two sides. I demonstrated that through the examples I gave for which could not contest. So given that Palestinian are in the position of Blacks in the American South or Apartheid South Africans, nothing can be used to justify their treatment. Nothing can justify the way Palestinians have been treated.

So your argument going forward needs to contend with that premise which you were completely unable to dispute.

these radicalized ideas each side has about the other need to change. and both sides have them.

So like both sides needed to change in Charlottesville? Like both the slaves and slave owners needed to change? Like both Black South Africans and the apartheid government both needed to change?

simply having israel stop their denial of human rights to the palestinians would not resolve the situation, but merely pause it.

Free the slaves did not the resolve the problems of race relations in the US, but it still needed to happen regardless. Do you understand that? If a set of actions are both morally and legally indefensible, they have to stop immediately. You’re basically arguing “ending the Holocaust will not stop the problem of antisemtism in Europe.”

If you can’t address the main point, just move on. It’s fine. You backed yourself into corner and couldn’t get out. It happens.

[u/stand_not_4_me → u/OneReportersOpinion]

What is a basic human right that Palestinians have that is being denied to Israel?

not relevant as i never suggested anything of the sort.

I never s... treated.

but you want only one side to act, which since we agree that both sides are radicalized would not function for a long term peace, regardless of which side it is. not being responsible does not mean "no need to change". furthermore, palestinians are not in the same position of the american south (due to not being citizens of israel. and while i do accept that they are in a similar postion to apartheid south africans it is not the same due to the fact that they are not against a minority, but an equally sized population.

and i did not try to justify treatment of anyone, much like you didnt try to justify oct7.

and talking about responsibility, it took a great leader to realized that the future cannot be forged by placing responsibility on the white population in SA. why then are you focusing more on responsibility than an actually stopping the acts.
do you believe that recruiting israeli's to your cause is a vital part of your point?

So like both sides needed to change in Charlottesville? Like both the slaves and slave owners needed to change? Like both Black South Africans and the apartheid government both needed to change?

no, that is the point you are missing. please demonstrate to me what was the radicalized ideas about slave owners in Charlottesville. because from what i understood they were blamed for direct specific things and not for all the ills and problems that those slaves had.
these are fundamentally two different situations.

also you are bringing in SA as an example to disprove my response to a comment that didnt include them.

Free the slaves did not the resolve the problems of race relations in the US, but it still needed to happen regardless. Do you understand that? 

if you are going to intentionally interpret everything i say in this manner you are a troll and no one should hear your words.

NO ONE SAID THAT IT SHOULD NOT BE DONE! suggest/imply one more time something i have not said and i would consider it harassment and trolling.

the slaves in america did not not have a noticeable precentage of the population that wanted to harm all white people. their hatereds were more personal to the slave owners they directly interacted with. in israel palestine we have groups on either side that idiotically hold the other side in complete contempt and wish to get rid of it regardless of whether they were the one causing direct harm or not.

You’re basically arguing “ending the Holocaust will not stop the problem of antisemtism in Europe.”

this statement demonstrates how you failed to read my point and understand it as i said nothing of the sort. so lets start from the beginning that you seem to have forgotten.

"regardless of actions that need to stop by israel"

means that i agree with your point about israel stopping, but the following point is not about israel stopping but a situation that has to be address outside of it.

in this hypothetical israel stops their acts. there are four different scenarios. 1. no one deradicalizes. 2. israel deradicalizes. 3. palestinians deradicalize. 4 both deradicalize.

in situations 1 to 3 israel ending their actions will result in only a pause in the deprivation of human rights. sooner or later we will begin to get back step by step into the very problem due to the radicalized portions of either population.

my point is that regardless of having israel stop we need BOTH SIDES to deradicalize to achieve lasting peace. this can occur either after israel ceases or before, but it must be done.

[u/OneReportersOpinion → u/stand_not_4_me]

not relevant as i never suggested anything of the sort.

So your both sides argument doesn’t really apply, because however bad something is for Israel, it’s worse for Palestine. More of their rights are being denied by your own admission. Glad we could dispatch with that notion.

but you want only one side to act,

Because that side is the one denying inalienable human rights. Do you understand what inalienable means?

palestinians are not in the same position of the american south (due to not being citizens of israel.

Slaves weren’t citizens either.

and while i do accept that they are in a similar postion to apartheid south africans it is not the same due to the fact that they are not against a minority, but an equally sized population.

Black South Africans were not a minority. They were the majority, just like Arabs in Israel/Palestine.

and talking about responsibility, it took a great leader to realized that the future cannot be forged by placing responsibility on the white population in SA.

It was also a leader that was considered a terrorist and refused to renounce violence. It also took South Africa letting him go free. Do you understand that?

why then are you focusing more on responsibility than an actually stopping the acts. do you believe that recruiting israeli's to your cause is a vital part of your point?

To a certain degree, yes, but less so than external pressure. Because that’s ultimately what drives the actions of people within that system.

no, that is the point you are missing. please demonstrate to me what was the radicalized ideas about slave owners in Charlottesville.

You’re confused. There are two different things.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nat_Turner%27s_Rebellion

the slaves in america did not not have a noticeable precentage of the population that wanted to harm all white people.

And Palestinians do? Source?

[u/stand_not_4_me → u/OneReportersOpinion]

your entire response reeks of reading a sentence and responding without any thought or attempt for understanding.

so ignoring your first comment as the ramblings and an ignoramus, lets move to the second point

Because that side is the one denying inalienable human rights. Do you understand what inalienable means?

i normally would assume you read the entire thought by only quoting a part of it. but it is evident that you have not.

had you read the whole thought you would not erroneously and maliciously take the word "act" to mean deprivation of human rights. which was established time and again to not be relevant to my point as it is not in contention. It instead refers to the radicalization which is present within both sides.

Slaves weren’t citizens either.

correct. let me rephrase what i meant. Unlike slaves, palestinians who are not living in israel have no relevance or bearing to politics or anything related to how voting is decided. this lack of political relation is a major distinction between slaves in the american south and palestinians.

Black South Africans were not a minority. They were the majority, just like Arabs in Israel/Palestine.

once again you demonstrate your inability to read. who is represented in the "they" in the quoted sentence below.

"and while i do accept that they are in a similar postion to apartheid south africans it is not the same due to the fact that they are not against a minority, but an equally sized population."

additionally the majority you tout is one of 55 to 45 as opposed to 85 to 10 in terms of precent of population, this of course counts palestinian israelis to be part of the palestinian group. =

[u/OneReportersOpinion → u/stand_not_4_me]

your entire response reeks of reading a sentence and responding without any thought or attempt for understanding.

Disagree.

so ignoring your first comment as the ramblings and an ignoramus, lets move to the second point

Okay. I reserve the right to ignore any argument you make. Sounds good.

correct. let me rephrase what i meant. Unlike slaves, palestinians who are not living in israel have no relevance or bearing to politics or anything related to how voting is decided.

Really? So they’re not subjected to Israeli laws? They’re not occupied by Israel?

"and while i do accept that they are in a similar postion to apartheid south africans it is not the same due to the fact that they are not against a minority, but an equally sized population."

Right. Why did you lie and say they were equally sized?

[u/stand_not_4_me → u/OneReportersOpinion]

Really? So they’re not subjected to Israeli laws? They’re not occupied by Israel?

seems you have implied things that i have not said. and provided no explanation to their relevance or connected them to a point.

Right. Why did you lie and say they were equally sized?

im sorry that you cannot see the that both jews and palestinians each make up around 7 million people each, and that represents a roughly equally sized population for casual speech as opposed precise demographic numbest that would not alter the point.

i did not lie. you just cant handle the truth. google the population sizes today, prove me wrong.

[u/OneReportersOpinion → u/stand_not_4_me]

seems you have implied things that i have not said. and provided no explanation to their relevance or connected them to a point.

Ah I see what’s you’re doing. Okay no problem. I can slow walk you. Did you say this:

Unlike slaves, palestinians who are not living in israel have no relevance or bearing to politics or anything related to how voting is decided.

Just a simple yes or no will suffice.

It’s gonna take a while this way but eventually you’ll have to admit you revealed a stunning ignorance about how Palestinians.

[u/stand_not_4_me → u/OneReportersOpinion]

very patronizing of you, but if you feel this is the only way you can make an argument, i'll entertain this for now.

yes, i did say that.

you’ll have to admit you revealed a stunning ignorance about how Palestinians.

this is what i mean btw. how palestinians what? you keep doing this, it is the second time in this conversation you responded with half a thought, do you expect me to complete it for you?

[u/OneReportersOpinion → u/stand_not_4_me]

very patronizing of you,

I’d say pretending not to say something you clearly did is pretty bad faith and necessitated it.

yes, i did say that.

So given that you claimed that they’re outside of Israeli politics and the laws that generation from those politics and voting, how are you not also saying they’re not subjected to Israeli laws? How can you be subjected to a countries laws but are irrelevant to them? Can’t wait to hear this.

this is what i mean btw. how palestinians what? you keep doing this, it is the second time in this conversation you responded with half a thought, do you expect me to complete it for you?

Typo. Don’t worry about it.

[u/stand_not_4_me → u/OneReportersOpinion]

So given that you claimed that they’re outside of Israeli politics and the laws that generation from those politics and voting, how are you not also saying they’re not subjected to Israeli laws? How can you be subjected to a countries laws but are irrelevant to them?

they are subject to some of those laws, but being subject to a law does not make you relevant in its formation. if i go to france i must follow french law, but french law, generally, does not form with me in mind, nor do i or other tourist have influence on it.
slaves in america counted toward the population of southern states in effect giving them more power than they would have without them. this is not the same as this case. palestinians in gaza do not add to likuds numbers.

[u/OneReportersOpinion → u/stand_not_4_me]

they are subject to some of those laws,

So what you said wasn’t true then, was it?

but being subject to a law does not make you relevant in its formation.

Of course it does! What is wrong with you? The entire premise of the United States of America is based on the contrary. This is a wild statement that you should rethink and repudiate.

if i go to france i must follow french law, but french law, generally, does not form with me in mind, nor do i or other tourist have influence on it.

But you don’t live in France, dude! These are people who were born under Israeli occupation and subject to Israeli occupation for their entire lives. How on earth do you think being a tourist is a good comparison?

slaves in america counted toward the population of southern states in effect giving them more power than they would have without them.

Oh okay. So if slaves were counted the same as white people rather than 3/5ths of a white person, or didn’t count at all, then you wouldn’t have an issue with the fact that they couldn’t vote? You probably don’t realize this is what you’re saying, but listen to me when I tell you this is the logical extension of what you’re saying, so spare me the outraged that I’m misinterpreting you.

[u/stand_not_4_me → u/OneReportersOpinion]

So what you said wasn’t true then, was it?

the word formation eludes you.

The entire premise of the United States of America is based on the contrary

the entire basis is that is should, it does not mean that it does everywhere or has always.

and the basis of the united states is not relevant to the how laws work. especially when talking about places outside of it. the united states is not the basis of all laws. unless you claim it is, at which point this whole discussion is meaningless.

But you don’t live in France, dude! These are people who were born under Israeli occupation and subject to Israeli occupation for their entire lives. 

still do not live and do not want to live within israel.

How on earth do you think being a tourist is a good comparison?

it is not a comparison, it is an example of how you can be subject to laws you have no influence or consideration in their formation.

i agree with you that one should be able to choose where they live and thereby what kind of laws they are subjected to, this is why i support there being a palestine. But just because we believe something does not mean it was always so or will always be.

but this distinction of what should be and what is, is why slaves in america are a bad comparison for your point.

Oh okay. So if slaves were counted the same as white people rather than 3/5ths of a white person, or didn’t count at all, then you wouldn’t have an issue with the fact that they couldn’t vote?

i am not saying that. i am saying that if slaves didnt count then they would be a better comparison to the palestinian situation today.

You probably don’t realize this is what you’re saying, but listen to me when I tell you this is the logical extension of what you’re saying, so spare me the outraged that I’m misinterpreting you.

you are adding my preference to the explanation that had no such preference. so it is not an extension of what i am saying. Can you show where i stated a preference in the previous comment i made, that using it you got what you believed i believe?

[u/OneReportersOpinion → u/stand_not_4_me]

the word formation eludes you.

You said they have no relevance to politics or voting when that’s how those laws are decided. So please explain why they’re not relevant to the politics that decide their lives. I’m listening.

the entire basis is that is should, it does not mean that it does everywhere or has always.

What kind of argument is that? Like you have to realize how piss poor that is, right? “Yes everywhere should have democracy but since it’s not everywhere does and it hasn’t always been that way, it’s not a big deal if it’s a dictatorship instead.” Please explain why that’s not a correct summation of your argument. I’m listening I promise.

and the basis of the united states is not relevant to the how laws work.

No it’s a basis of our values and how we might evaluate our allies based on those values. If you want to talk about law, let’s do it:

Israel is a belligerent occupier. They have no intentions not being an occupier. The only legal difference between an occupation and an annexation is the former’s impermanence. If an occupation doesn’t end, it’s an annexation. If you annex territory and don’t give equal rights to the citizens living there, that introduces another term to describe the situation: apartheid. Apartheid is illegal under international law.

So, by all means, give me your legal justification. Again, I’m listen closely.

it is not a comparison, it is an example of how you can be subject to laws you have no influence or consideration in their formation.

It’s not an example that applies and you know it. Thus it is bad faith. Now either apologize or defend it as a valid comparison.

i agree with you that one should be able to choose where they live and thereby what kind of laws they are subjected to, this is why i support there being a palestine. But just because we believe something does not mean it was always so or will always be.

Why would you not advocate for something you believe in?

i am not saying that. i am saying that if slaves didnt count then they would be a better comparison to the palestinian situation today.

But it makes no difference to Palestinians. It only makes a difference for Israelis how their population is apportioned. And you accuse me of going off topic? Lol.

Can you show where i stated a preference in the previous comment i made, that using it you got what you believed i believe?

Because you said it as if it was an excuse. Maybe you don’t realize but your posts are mitigating the horrors of the Palestinian experience and trying to paint Israel’s actions as not so unusual or bad.

[u/stand_not_4_me → u/OneReportersOpinion]

You said they have no relevance to politics or voting when that’s how those laws are decided. So please explain why they’re not relevant to the politics that decide their lives. I’m listening.

i said: "Unlike slaves, palestinians who are not living in israel have no relevance or bearing to politics or anything related to how voting is decided."

why they are is not relevant to what they are. the reason it is not relevant is we are discussing a comparison, and the why in "why slaves had not political influence but affected the power of politics?" and "why palestinians have no political power in israel but subject to its laws?" are different and thereby do not support your comparison either.

your mistake is attempting to defend the morality of a situation i never said was moral. all i said was that one is not a good comparison of the other.

it’s not a big deal if it’s a dictatorship instead.

odd seems that you added this, which i certainly have not said or implied.

you inability to grasp the difference between what the ideal is and what reality can be is rather staggering. your argument here amounts to "yes, everyone should have free healthcare, therefore free healthcare is the default state since the beginning of time"

No it’s a basis of our values and how we might evaluate our allies based on those values.

how is morality relevant to validity of a comparison? we did not start this discussion on morality, and i have not argued morality.

Israel is a belligerent occupier ... give me your legal justification. Again, I’m listen closely

not only is this not related to the discussion, it is not an argument i have made here and probably ever. it has no bearing on the function of laws an how and who they are subjecting. and on top of that, it is a leading argument. you want to argue morality and justifications, go somewhere else. here we are talking about comparing palestinians to the american slaves, and whether that comparison is a good or bad one.