Benny Gantz is a moderate on Palestine. He supports strengthening the PA and a two-state solution. Although he does refer to it as a “two-entity” solution. I’m honestly not sure there’s a meaningful distinction between a “sovereign entity” and a state. At the very least, he seems much more likely to be a good faith negotiator. Almost anyone would be better than Netanyahu.
If it’s acting like reservations, Palestinians won’t have the right to prosecute Israelis who commit crime on Palestinian land for 100+ years, allowing rampant violence against the colonized people :/
That’s certainly the least charitable reading of that. He seems to always the center the importance of Palestinian sovereignty though, and I don’t see why he’d do that if that’s what he meant. Not owning your territory, being powerless to prevent interference, and not having ultimate say over who your citizens are is the opposite of sovereignty. In the political climate he operates in, there’s no cost to opposing a two-anything solution. So, why bother saying anything at all?
Cute dodge. I’d still like to know why he’d waste so much time going on about Palestinian sovereignty. Just for shits and grins? What’s the difference between an area over which a nation has total sovereignty and a nation-state? Gantz would recognize a Palestinian state, though he’d still probably call it an entity. This is mostly owing to internal Israeli politics, though he also insists on calling it an Israeli entity too, saying that new language is needed to solve the problem. I think the language is weird, but I couldn’t give a shit as long as he’s describing a state.
From the linked article for the people who don’t click through: "In surveys carried out by his party, most Israelis are in favour of a two-state solution when it is described in other terms, such as “two separate entities.”’
He seems to support a two-state solution and a completely sovereign Palestinian state. He also seems serious enough about it that he’s trying to find language to thread the needle of domestic politics to make it more popular with Israelis (and not give Netanyahu any room to attack him). If the language of a two-state solution isn’t viable, the easiest thing for a politician to do would be to just steer clear of it. That he’s taken the time to recognize that the concept is viable with different language suggests that he’s pretty committed to it.
It’s almost certain he’ll win the next election. Latest polling puts trust in Netanyahu at 4%. If the election were held today, Gantz would win in a landslide. The worst attack in the history of the country happened on Netanyahu’s watch, there’s no way he’s not done when the conflict is over. Gantz is basically seen as the one who stepped in to save the country from Netanyahu’s failures.
Benny Gantz is a moderate on Palestine. He supports strengthening the PA and a two-state solution. Although he does refer to it as a “two-entity” solution. I’m honestly not sure there’s a meaningful distinction between a “sovereign entity” and a state. At the very least, he seems much more likely to be a good faith negotiator. Almost anyone would be better than Netanyahu.
Probably something like Native American reservations in the U.S.
If it’s acting like reservations, Palestinians won’t have the right to prosecute Israelis who commit crime on Palestinian land for 100+ years, allowing rampant violence against the colonized people :/
Removed by mod
What would be beautiful is if “entity” meant “subdivision of a single state” but I won’t hold my breath.
Removed by mod
That’s certainly the least charitable reading of that. He seems to always the center the importance of Palestinian sovereignty though, and I don’t see why he’d do that if that’s what he meant. Not owning your territory, being powerless to prevent interference, and not having ultimate say over who your citizens are is the opposite of sovereignty. In the political climate he operates in, there’s no cost to opposing a two-anything solution. So, why bother saying anything at all?
Removed by mod
Cute dodge. I’d still like to know why he’d waste so much time going on about Palestinian sovereignty. Just for shits and grins? What’s the difference between an area over which a nation has total sovereignty and a nation-state? Gantz would recognize a Palestinian state, though he’d still probably call it an entity. This is mostly owing to internal Israeli politics, though he also insists on calling it an Israeli entity too, saying that new language is needed to solve the problem. I think the language is weird, but I couldn’t give a shit as long as he’s describing a state.
From the linked article for the people who don’t click through: "In surveys carried out by his party, most Israelis are in favour of a two-state solution when it is described in other terms, such as “two separate entities.”’
Removed by mod
He seems to support a two-state solution and a completely sovereign Palestinian state. He also seems serious enough about it that he’s trying to find language to thread the needle of domestic politics to make it more popular with Israelis (and not give Netanyahu any room to attack him). If the language of a two-state solution isn’t viable, the easiest thing for a politician to do would be to just steer clear of it. That he’s taken the time to recognize that the concept is viable with different language suggests that he’s pretty committed to it.
It’s almost certain he’ll win the next election. Latest polling puts trust in Netanyahu at 4%. If the election were held today, Gantz would win in a landslide. The worst attack in the history of the country happened on Netanyahu’s watch, there’s no way he’s not done when the conflict is over. Gantz is basically seen as the one who stepped in to save the country from Netanyahu’s failures.
Removed by mod