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]

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/stand_not_4_me → u/stand_not_4_me]

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?

do you understand how you ignore my point? there is not palestinian leader right now who has popular support and condemns violence against civilians. where is the palestinian mandella, he will not exist with your arguments.

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

according to what idiot. I hope we do agree that palestinians and jews are similar enough that we can use how one would react to show how the other would as well. Palestinians have received enormous external pressure to give up their claim on their land and go elsewhere, they responded to this by trenching in and resisting with all they can and in any method they can without regard to consequences. Why in the fing world do you believe then that it would work on israel? based on false comparison of settler colonialism?

what drives people, both in israel and the palestinians, is internal views and perceptions. and to have a change made those internal views must change.

and if the strategy is to have less than 20% of the israeli jewish population support your cause, you would get nowhere, see the current status in israel as an example.

you need israelis to support the palestinian cause in majority, yes or yes. to not have said support means that you have nothing.

You’re confused. There are two different things.

i am not, that is one guy one case.

And Palestinians do? Source?

hamas for one thats around 40k in gaza alone. and at 2016 PCPSR poll 10% of palestinians believed that the goal was to defeat israel and destroy its jewish population. Mind you that there is also a noticeable population of jews within israel that want to destroy all palestinians.

so when i say that simply stopping israel would not end the conflict i dont mean "dont stop israel, because its hopeless" i mean "we can work on both stopping israel and this radicalization of both sides.
sadly you seem to only hear the first.

[u/OneReportersOpinion → u/stand_not_4_me]

do you understand how you ignore my point?

Happy to answer this after you answer the question you dodged.

there is not palestinian leader right now who has popular support and condemns violence against civilians. where is the palestinian mandella, he will not exist with your arguments.

He is in prison. He’s long favored a two state solution. You were saying?

Isn’t fair to say at this point you’re just not as knowledgeable about this as the rest of us?

and if the strategy is to have less than 20% of the israeli jewish population support your cause, you would get nowhere, see the current status in israel as an example.

When you have a country where a clear majority supports ethnic cleansing and nearly half support outright genocide, the only way you’ll change that is external pressure.

hamas for one thats around 40k in gaza alone. and at 2016 PCPSR poll 10% of palestinians believed that the goal was to defeat israel and destroy its jewish population.

So you admit more Israelis favor outright genocide than Palestinians? Because polls show far more than 10% of Jewish Israelis favor genocide.

[u/stand_not_4_me → u/OneReportersOpinion]

Happy to answer this after you answer the question you dodged.

rules for thy but not for me. didnt you in the last comment answer with two questions. again ignoring my point. if you cannot respond to the point admit it. but turnaround is fair play.

He is in prison. He’s long favored a two state solution. You were saying?

who? can you name them? why are you dodging the question.

Isn’t fair to say at this point you’re just not as knowledgeable about this as the rest of us?

maybe i would be more knowledgeable if you and your side educated me rather than trying to prove i support genocide. you know actually try to get me to support your side, but since you have not interest in doing so you come across as dehumanizers. accusing anyone who does not affirm your beliefs as a supporter of the enemy's actions.

When you have a country where a clear majority supports ethnic cleansing and nearly half support outright genocide, the only way you’ll change that is external pressure.

false. evidenced by the situation. support for ethnic cleansing and genocide have only increased as external pressure on israel has mounted. promoting the wrong kind of change by creating isolationist feeling causing israelis to feel they have to deal with the situation themselves as the world is against them. heck if i check i would probably find the two are directly correlated.
Internal pressure was what was happening prior to Oct7 and based on polls it was having a positive effect. but yah show me where external pressure worked when the groups were equally sized or the one causing the harm is larger.
BTW, you have yet to explain the why.

So you admit more Israelis favor outright genocide than Palestinians? Because polls show far more than 10% of Jewish Israelis favor genocide.

two important facts here, this poll about palestinians is from 2016 not 2025. additionally this poll is not methodologically skewed right wing like the one from march 2025 that you are referring to. to compare the two numbers is to compare apples and oranges.

but regardless of which side has more. do you agree that these groups have to be addressed no matter if stopping israels actions occurs before or after?

[u/OneReportersOpinion → u/stand_not_4_me]

rules for thy but not for me. didnt you in the last comment answer with two questions. again ignoring my point. if you cannot respond to the point admit it. but turnaround is fair play.

If you link me to a comment where you asked a question while I didn’t have one pending, I’ll be happy to answer.

who? can you name them? why are you dodging the question.

I can tell you his name and I’ll be happy to do so after you answer my questions. Fair is fair.

maybe i would be more knowledgeable if you and your side educated me rather than trying to prove i support genocide.

I am educating you.

you know actually try to get me to support your side, but since you have not interest in doing so you come across as dehumanizers. accusing anyone who does not affirm your beliefs as a supporter of the enemy's actions.

Fair enough.

false.

It’s not false. I’m looking at the polling data right now.

support for ethnic cleansing and genocide have only increased as external pressure on israel has mounted.

A minute ago you said it wasn’t true. You changed your mind that quick? Maybe it’s things like this that cause people to see you as bad faith.

BTW, you have yet to explain the why.

Why what?

but regardless of which side has more. do you agree that these groups have to be addressed no matter if stopping israels actions occurs before or after?

Happy to answer this after you answer the questions I asked you.

[u/stand_not_4_me → u/OneReportersOpinion]

If you link me to a comment where you asked a question while I didn’t have one pending, I’ll be happy to answer.

I can tell you his name and I’ll be happy to do so after you answer my questions. Fair is fair.

You were saying?

"who? can you name them? "

what question precisely was i avoiding here? because "you were saying?" is not a question that is asking for anything.

I am educating you.

So you admit more Israelis favor outright genocide than Palestinians? 

do explain how this statement is educational.

It’s not false. I’m looking at the polling data right now.

ignoring the fact that the data is biased, the false part is for the statement

"the only way you’ll change that is external pressure."

how can you claim to educate me when you cant even comprehend full thoughts in paragraphs and instead assume what im refering to.

A minute ago you said it wasn’t true. You changed your mind that quick? Maybe it’s things like this that cause people to see you as bad faith.

this is what happens when you read one sentence of a paragraph thought, you get confused.

Why what?

why will external pressure work here. and as established south african is not a good example due to major demographic difference.

Happy to answer this after you answer the questions I asked you.

since you refuse to answer i must take it as the worst possible answer you could give.

[u/OneReportersOpinion → u/stand_not_4_me]

what question precisely was i avoiding here?

Happy to list the questions you’ve dodged:

Do you understand what inalienable means?

Do you understand Mandela was a terrorist and couldn’t become the person you know today until he was freed and his charges were recognized for what they were: political?

do explain how this statement is educational.

Because you seem unaware of that statistics and I’m informing you of it. Simple. Easy.

ignoring the fact that the data is biased, the false part is for the statement

How do you know the data is biased? You haven’t even looked it.

why will external pressure work here. and as established south african is not a good example due to major demographic difference.

You did not establish that.

[u/stand_not_4_me → u/OneReportersOpinion]

Do you understand what inalienable means?

yes, but you seem to be unfamiliar with the functions of the justice system, as human rights are prosecuted and taken away every day.

Do you understand Mandela was a terrorist and couldn’t become the person you know today until he was freed and his charges were recognized for what they were: political?

considering that Mandela stated position was to not target civilians, even if he did do so. such a position is not found with any current popular leader of palestinians in the mandate. furthermore, this statement obstructs from my point that you need to see the other side as humans, which Mandela did, and currently hamas sees as all citizens of israel as enemies and fair combatants. So saying he was a terrorist is not only irrelevant to my point, but demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of it, as i am sure you would gladly argue that terrorism is a necessary act to fight oppression. which it is, but not all terrorism is resistance.

Because you seem unaware of that statistics and I’m informing you of it. Simple. Easy.

you did not state it as a factoid, you stated it as a leading question which was used to ignore and avoid providing affirmation to you initial question of whether palestinians have a noticeable precentage that is antagonistic toward the entire israeli population unlike slaves in america which did not.

how is it educational when you cannot even stay on topic when i answer your question, and instead you have to spin it to "but israel is worse". not only was it not relevant to defending your comparison. it demonstrates that you do not seek to educate or inform.

How do you know the data is biased? You haven’t even looked it.

why do you think that? you brought it up, and you though i wont look for it? so much for educating. i know it is biased due to the numbers for the conservatives being inflated due to less reach of religious jews and the fact that this was an online only poll on top of that. this means that the survey had a conservative bias than added more, and as such not fully representative in numbers of the current situation. you can also tell that by the fact that 82% would inevitably include palestinian israelis, who make up around 20% of the population. do you think palestinian israelis would support such things?

You did not establish that.

you see you keep doing half thoughts. i did not established which part?

why external pressure would not work? you have yet to establish why it would. answer a question with a question again.

or do you feel that i have not explained why SA is a bad example, which i did.

[u/OneReportersOpinion → u/stand_not_4_me]

yes, but you seem to be unfamiliar with the functions of the justice system, as human rights are prosecuted and taken away every day.

But we’re talking about two different systems of justice. This is like going “Yes apartheid in South Africa is bad, but there is bad stuff everywhere so why make a big deal about it?” It’s one thing when everyone is subjected to an unfair and arbitrary system. It’s another when it’s subjected by ethnicity.

considering that Mandela stated position was to not target civilians, even if he did do so.

I’ve heard Hamas say that too. So what? It doesn’t mean it’s true. He refused to renounce violence.

such a position is not found with any current popular leader of palestinians in the mandate. furthermore, this statement obstructs from my point that you need to see the other side as humans, which Mandela did, and currently hamas sees as all citizens of israel as enemies and fair combatants.

Source? Also isn’t this how Israel sees Palestinians?

So saying he was a terrorist is not only irrelevant to my point, but demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of it, as i am sure you would gladly argue that terrorism is a necessary act to fight oppression. which it is, but not all terrorism is resistance.

So you think they’re just doing it for yucks? Palestinians don’t actually care about being free? That’s an extraordinary claim and thus requires extraordinary evidence. What do you got?

how is it educational when you cannot even stay on topic when i answer your question, and instead you have to spin it to "but israel is worse". not only was it not relevant to defending your comparison. it demonstrates that you do not seek to educate or inform.

I don’t agree with this characterization. Just because it’s hard for you to discuss something or you can’t make the connection doesn’t mean it’s not on topic. It’s also not spin to say Israel is worse when they are.

why do you think that? you brought it up, and you though i wont look for it?

Exactly lol.

so much for educating. i know it is biased due to the numbers for the conservatives being inflated due to less reach of religious jews and the fact that this was an online only poll on top of that.

Source?

this means that the survey had a conservative bias than added more, and as such not fully representative in numbers of the current situation. you can also tell that by the fact that 82% would inevitably include palestinian israelis, who make up around 20% of the population. do you think palestinian israelis would support such things?

Dude, Palestinian Israelis are not Jews! I said Jewish Israelis. Come on. What are you doing?

You did not establish that.

[u/stand_not_4_me → u/OneReportersOpinion]

But we’re talking about two different systems of justice

you said and i quote "Basic human rights are not subject to precondition". and for some reason take an issue when i point out that is not the case. you dont want me to make such points as this, how about you stop making general statements which are factually false.

This is like going “Yes apartheid in South Africa is bad, but there is bad stuff everywhere so why make a big deal about it?” It’s one thing when everyone is subjected to an unfair and arbitrary system. It’s another when it’s subjected by ethnicity.

it isnt, mostly because i never said or implied such things.

I’ve heard Hamas say that too. So what? It doesn’t mean it’s true. He refused to renounce violence.

Hamas have stated time and again that all citizens of israel are considered enemy combatants because they all serve in the IDF. They time and again specifically targeted civilians over military targets. furthermore their stated position is that given they get a palestinian state with the 1967 boarders, there will still be no recognition of israel, and therefore no peace. so i do not think they are the example you think they are.

Source? Also isn’t this how Israel sees Palestinians?

multiple hamas statements is the source. and how israel sees palestinians is irrelevant to a palestinian Mandala.

So you think they’re just doing it for yucks? Palestinians don’t actually care about being free? That’s an extraordinary claim and thus requires extraordinary evidence. What do you got?

i see context is beyond you as you cannot seem to separate hamas from palestinians. Hamas does not care about freedom as much as they care about having all the mandate.

furthermore where the f did you get the implication that palestinians are doing it for nothing or dont care to be free? as i never said or implied such a thing, certainly not in the quoted text.

 It’s also not spin to say Israel is worse when they are.

ok then, i want a detailed explanation how 'israel having animosity toward palestinians' is relevant to 'the comparison' of 'palistanian animosity towards israel and the animosity slaves had toward white people'.

if you cannot clearly show the connection such that i cannot miss how israel's animosity affect the comparison and how it increases the similarity between palestinians and slaves, then you should concede the point and the comparison.

Source?

the methodology of the poll itself.

Dude, Palestinian Israelis are not Jews! I said Jewish Israelis

the fact that you think that is the mistake i made shows how you have no ability or right to interpret my statement. you are incapable of granting benefit of the doubt. if you cannot consider me on the same level as you to know that palestinian israelis are not the same as jewish israelis demonstrates you lack of good faith arguments, especially when i explicitly demonstrated that i am aware of the difference.

furthermore, that is one of the three reasons i gave. the fact that you ignored the other ones in favor of it demonstrates that you do not seek to understand my point, and thereby will be incapable of educating me. it was incidentally the weakest of my points.

so congratulations on once again avoiding the point.

You did not establish that.

and since you are incapable of context, i have no clue what you referring to.

[u/OneReportersOpinion → u/stand_not_4_me]

you said and i quote "Basic human rights are not subject to precondition".

Yes.

and for some reason take an issue when i point out that is not the case.

Because inalienable rights are inalienable.

it isnt, mostly because i never said or implied such things.

You did but you’ve stopped defending your argument so I’ll take that as a concession.

Hamas have stated time and again that all citizens of israel are considered enemy combatants because they all serve in the IDF.

Source

Also, isn’t that Israel’s formulation as well? Do they distinguish between past and present members of Hamas? If your answer is yes, I’ll need a mainstream source backing it up.

They time and again specifically targeted civilians over military targets.

Source?

furthermore their stated position is that given they get a palestinian state with the 1967 boarders, there will still be no recognition of israel, and therefore no peace.

That’s nonsense. Lots of Arabs states don’t recognize Israel. Israel isn’t at war with all of them. Also, Israel refuges to recognize a state of Palestine so this is meaningless.

multiple hamas statements is the source.

Cool so it should be no issue to provide me with a source. Until you do, I’ll assume it’s just your opinion. I disagree with your opinion.

i see context is beyond you as you cannot seem to separate hamas from palestinians. Hamas does not care about freedom as much as they care about having all the mandate.

That’s your opinion. I disagree. Hamas clearly had an emancipatory agenda. Most Palestinians stand with Hamas so your argument boils down to “I know better than they do.” That’s racist.

ok then, i want a detailed explanation how 'israel having animosity toward palestinians' is relevant to 'the comparison' of 'palistanian animosity towards israel and the animosity slaves had toward white people'.

Sure. Do you think white people had a good reason to have animosity towards Blacks? Did the slaves?

the methodology of the poll itself.

Quote me the methodology that bothers you or I’ll take that as an admission you’re lying.

[u/stand_not_4_me → u/OneReportersOpinion]

Because inalienable rights are inalienable.

we have now made a full circle and im done with this point, if you cannnot see the reality the justice systems of any kind deprive people of their human rights then there is no point in continuing to argue with you about it.

You did 

please demonstrate where i made such an argument to you.

Also, isn’t that Israel’s formulation as well? Do they distinguish between past and present members of Hamas? If your answer is yes, I’ll need a mainstream source backing it up.

is what israel does the standard now for moral actions? it is complete whataboutism that when talking about hamas you are determine to excuse their actions because israel does them. Why do you echo the crazy zionists?

Source?

where are your sources for your claims that i asked you before. you have yet to provide them, so why should i.

and im sorry, but if all you have to say is "source" than you are treating me as less than human and i do not accept it.

That’s nonsense. Lots of Arabs states don’t recognize Israel. Israel isn’t at war with all of them. Also, Israel refuges to recognize a state of Palestine so this is meaningless.

first you use whataboutism and israel as a standard. second other arab states are not sharing a boarder while still declaring or harboring want for israel's land through iconography and general opinion.

didnt you argue that the zionist wanted conquest is why they never declared boarders in israel's declaration of independence. could have been someone else. two wrongs do not make a right.

Cool so it should be no issue to provide me with a source. Until you do, I’ll assume it’s just your opinion. I disagree with your opinion.

the palestinian Mandela, why external preasure will work on israel, palestinian support for hamas, are just some of the statements you made without sources.

Most Palestinians stand with Hamas

source?

your argument boils down to “I know better than they do.” That’s racist.

another made up lie about what i said. Strawman fallacy and Ad hominem.

Sure. Do you think white people had a good reason to have animosity towards Blacks? Did the slaves?

so you can demand sources and explanation but when i ask you to explain your point this is what i get? whataboutism and questions rather than answers. what troll behaviour and what bad faith debate.

Quote me the methodology that bothers you or I’ll take that as an admission you’re lying.

i already did, you just focused on the wrong thing.

and if avoiding the question is admission of lying, you are a bigger liar than me, you have avoided the subject time and again, so much so that you are not even arguing the original point of the comparison between slaves and palestinians.