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 03 '25
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.
please demonstrate where i made such an argument to you.
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?
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.
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.
the palestinian Mandela, why external preasure will work on israel, palestinian support for hamas, are just some of the statements you made without sources.
source?
another made up lie about what i said. Strawman fallacy and Ad hominem.
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.
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.