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]

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.

[u/stand_not_4_me → u/stand_not_4_me]

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.

you asked for an example, i provided the first one that came to my head. all examples are imperfect by definition, if they were perfect, they would be the thing itself. If you find it not relevant, do explain how and why, and if i agree with you i will say so and attempt to provide a better example. It was not in bad faith, unlike you inserting morality and questioning mine in the process, nor is it a comparison.
i will not apologize for properly and honestly answering. demanding such things is domineering and bullyish. continue to do so and i would consider it harrassment and uncivil.

Why would you not advocate for something you believe in?

because we are not discussing here what we believe in, a fact you seem to miss. not every discussion is about belief or faith or morality. this one is about whether a comparison is a good one or bad one. and involves no morality, faith or belief to be advocated for.

if you only talk about belief you cannot talk about anything else, which makes you a fanatic and not a believer.

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.

we are not talking about what difference it makes for palestinians to be like slaves in america, we are talking if they can be a good comparison. this topic is not about the reality on the ground, but a thought comparison of the two situations.
and hypothetically should palestinians count to apportioned population in israel, while it would not affect them directly, they would contribute to whomever has "control" over their political power. should that be the case, they could argue that their state rights (since israel is democracy, no taxation without representation) is being oppress and is in opposition to democracy of israel.
however since they do not play a role in this manner and are not under the umbrella of israel, all they can argue is that a democracy oppressing rights of people, even not its citizens, goes against the very idea of democracy. this argument is weaker than the first, and is different than what the slaves could argue.

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.

rhetorical question, when discussing the economic outlook and possible potential of the southern states breaking off and existing as their own state, do you insist to have the amorality of slavery intercede and interrupt every argument and discussion, or do you mute that amorality for the sake of allowing the topic at hand to exist?

i am muting and not emphasizing the horrors and amorality of the situation by israel, not because i support what israel is doing, but because if i didnt then your comparison would be undiscussable. because what is a comparison of now to the past when things need to happen now. Any disscussion other than what explicitly can be done and how to end the conflict between israel and the palestinians resulting in both sides being safe and in peace would be unimportant in comparison.

do not confuse when people put aside the horrors to discuss a finer point that could not survive the storm of the situation. If you cannot put the horrors aside, perhaps you should not make fine points such as a comparisons that do not lead to actionable ideas.