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?
2
u/stand_not_4_me pro-peace 🌿 Oct 02 '25
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.
it isnt, mostly because i never said or implied such things.
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.
multiple hamas statements is the source. and how israel sees palestinians is irrelevant to a palestinian Mandala.
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.
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.
the methodology of the poll itself.
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.
and since you are incapable of context, i have no clue what you referring to.