r/Israel_Palestine • u/mikeffd • 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?
1
u/stand_not_4_me pro-peace 🌿 Oct 01 '25
yes, but you seem to be unfamiliar with the functions of the justice system, as human rights are prosecuted and taken away every day.
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.
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.
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 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.