Claude Zion

In the September 24, 2025, New York Times, former Prime Minister Benny Gantz wrote an essay with the following assertions:

Core Argument: Security Consensus Transcends Politics

The fundamental misunderstanding: "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."

Bipartisan security consensus: "Opposition to the recognition of Palestinian statehood stands at the heart of that consensus" and "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."

The Gaza Precedent as Warning

Historical lesson: When Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, Hamas eventually took control and "with help from Iran, Hamas dramatically expanded its military capabilities within Gaza, and ultimately launched the Oct. 7 massacre."

Palestinian Authority failures: "The P.A. has failed to thwart terror originating in its territory against Israel. It has incited violence and glorified terrorism in school textbooks, and waged unilateral campaigns to isolate and delegitimize Israel."

Strategic Requirements

Necessary conditions for peace: "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."

Military positioning: The author advocates "retaining an Israeli military presence in Gaza long term" and for Israel to "assume formal control over the strategic Jordan Valley in the West Bank...to prevent smuggling into Palestinian territories and terror infiltration."

Bottom line: "These are not political positions. They are, in my view, security requirements to prevent the next Oct. 7."

Here is a point-by-point rebuttal to the essay you shared, integrating historical analogies, Buddhist philosophical insights, and a critical analysis of collective punishment and asymmetric warfare. The goal is to challenge the essay’s framing while offering a deeper moral and strategic lens.

A Counterpoint

1. “Oct. 7 was a strategic rupture”

Rebuttal:

Yes, Oct. 7 was horrific. But framing it as a “strategic rupture” risks justifying disproportionate retaliation. Historical analogies abound:

• After Pearl Harbor, the U.S. responded militarily, but did not carpet-bomb Tokyo indiscriminately.

• After 9/11, the U.S. invaded Afghanistan, but the Iraq War—based on false premises—led to massive civilian casualties and destabilization.

Israel’s response has killed over 10 civilians for every one Israeli murdered. This ratio is not strategic defense—it’s collective punishment, which violates international law and moral norms.

2. “Western leaders misinterpret Israel’s actions”

Rebuttal:

Western criticism is not a misunderstanding—it’s a moral reckoning. Expressing regret while continuing to bomb densely populated areas is not ethical restraint. It’s delusion, in the Buddhist sense: a refusal to see reality clearly.

• Ignorance (avidyā) in Buddhist thought is the root of suffering. Believing that security can be achieved through mass suffering of others is a form of ignorance.

3. “Israel’s security interests are bipartisan and rooted in reality”

Rebuttal:

Security interests rooted in consensus do not make them just.

• Apartheid South Africa had bipartisan consensus on racial segregation.

• Jim Crow laws were supported across political lines in the U.S. South.

Consensus can reflect entrenched injustice, not moral clarity.

4. “Opposition to Palestinian statehood is necessary due to terror”

Rebuttal:

This argument conflates Hamas with all Palestinians.

• The ANC in South Africa was once labeled a terrorist group.

• Menachem Begin, later Israeli PM, led the Irgun, which bombed the King David Hotel.

History shows that demonizing entire populations due to militant factions leads to prolonged conflict, not peace.

5. “Recognition of Palestinian statehood rewards terror”

Rebuttal:

Recognition is not a reward—it’s a path to accountability.

• The Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland involved recognizing Sinn Féin, despite its ties to the IRA.

• Peace requires political inclusion, not perpetual exclusion.

6. “Hamas took over Gaza after Israel withdrew”

Rebuttal:

Israel’s withdrawal in 2005 was not a gift—it was a strategic redeployment while maintaining control over airspace, borders, and economy.

• Gaza became an open-air prison, breeding despair and radicalization.

• The blockade has been condemned by the UN and human rights groups as collective punishment.

7. “The PA incites violence and delegitimizes Israel”

Rebuttal:

While PA textbooks and rhetoric deserve scrutiny, Israel’s own policies—settlement expansion, home demolitions, and military raids—also incite violence.

• Delusion, again, is believing only one side is responsible for escalation.

• Ignorance is failing to see how occupation fuels resistance.

8. “Israel must retain military presence in Gaza”

Rebuttal:

Permanent military occupation is not security—it’s colonialism.

• The British Empire justified its presence in India as necessary for stability.

• Long-term occupation breeds resistance, not peace.

9. “Israel must control the Jordan Valley”

Rebuttal:

This is a land grab disguised as security.

• The Golan Heights and East Jerusalem were annexed under similar logic.

• International law does not permit acquisition of territory by force.

10. “Israel’s security anchors global stability”

Rebuttal:

Israel’s security matters—but not at the cost of Palestinian lives and dignity.

• Buddhism teaches interdependence: no one is free until all are free.

• A secure Israel built on the ruins of Gaza is not sustainable—it’s a delusion of separation.

11. “Israel’s enemies want it weak and divided”

Rebuttal:

This binary framing—us vs. them—feeds the death cult mentality.

• Hamas is a sociopathic organization, yes. But responding with indiscriminate violence mirrors its logic.

• The Japanese death cults of WWII were defeated not just by force, but by reconstruction and reconciliation.

Conclusion

Israel has the right to defend itself. But defense is not destruction.

• Killing 10 civilians for every Israeli murdered is not justice—it’s vengeance.

• Expressing regret while continuing the same actions is moral hypocrisy.

• True security comes from ending delusion, embracing interdependence, and rejecting the logic of death cults—whether Hamas or any state that mimics its brutality.

Gantz's Likely Reply:

On Palestinian Responsibility: "The fundamental difference you miss is one of moral choice. When Jews faced persecution throughout history—pogroms, the Holocaust, expulsions—we did not respond by deliberately targeting innocent civilians or celebrating the murder of children. The same is true for other oppressed minorities. The Tibetans under Chinese occupation chose the Dalai Lama's path of non-violence, not terrorism. Palestinians must take responsibility for the choices their society has made—electing Hamas, celebrating October 7th, naming streets after suicide bombers."

On Proportionality: "Your casualty ratios ignore that Hamas deliberately embeds military assets in hospitals, schools, and residential areas—a war crime designed to maximize civilian casualties for propaganda purposes. Every Palestinian death is a tragedy, but Hamas bears responsibility for using its own people as human shields. Israel has no choice but to operate in the urban warfare environment Hamas has created."

On the Victim Narrative: "Palestinians cannot perpetually pose as victims while simultaneously glorifying violence. They have rejected every peace offer—1947, 2000, 2008—and chosen conflict over compromise. At some point, a people must be held accountable for the leaders they choose and the path they take."

Counter-Counterpoint

On Historical Comparisons: This argument conveniently ignores Jewish resistance movements that did use violence—the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, the Irgun, Lehi (Stern Gang). Menachem Begin, who later became Prime Minister, bombed the King David Hotel killing 91 people. The difference isn't moral superiority—it's that Jewish resistance ultimately succeeded in achieving statehood, while Palestinian resistance remains trapped in a cycle of oppression.

On Moral Choice Under Extremity: The comparison fails because Jews eventually achieved liberation and statehood. Palestinians remain under military occupation after 57 years. Buddhist psychology recognizes that prolonged suffering without hope creates conditions for delusional thinking and destructive behavior. This doesn't excuse Hamas's atrocities, but it explains how entire populations can become trapped in cycles of trauma and revenge.

On Democratic Responsibility: The argument that Palestinians "chose" Hamas ignores crucial context: Hamas won 44% of the vote in 2006—hardly a mandate. More importantly, half of Gaza's population today wasn't even born when that election occurred. Collective punishment of an entire population for the actions of a militant group—especially when many had no voice in choosing that group—violates basic principles of justice.

On the Peace Process: Blaming Palestinians for rejecting "every peace offer" ignores that these offers often preserved Israeli control over borders, airspace, and natural resources—hardly genuine sovereignty. The Camp David proposals in 2000, for example, would have created disconnected Palestinian bantustans rather than a viable state. As Israeli historian Benny Morris noted, even he would have rejected such terms.

The Deeper Delusion: The fundamental delusion here is believing that 2.3 million people in Gaza—including over one million children—deserve collective punishment because of Hamas's actions. This mirrors Hamas's own logic: that Israeli civilians are legitimate targets because of their government's policies. Both positions reflect the same moral blindness—the inability to see the humanity in the "other."

The Buddhist Perspective: True strength lies in breaking cycles of vengeance, not perpetuating them. The Israeli response has created more orphans, more trauma, more future recruits for extremism. Security built on others' suffering is ultimately insecure—it requires constant vigilance against the very people it oppresses, creating the conditions for endless conflict.

Gantz' predicted follow-up reply:

On Existential Security: "You speak of 'genuine sovereignty' as if we live in Switzerland, not surrounded by enemies sworn to our destruction. Since 1948, we've faced five major wars where Arab armies explicitly sought to 'drive the Jews into the sea.' Today, Iran—which controls Hezbollah, Hamas, and proxies across the region—openly calls for Israel's annihilation while pursuing nuclear weapons. Palestinian 'sovereignty' without Israeli security control means Iranian missiles 15 kilometers from Tel Aviv and Ben Gurion Airport.

On Strategic Geography: "Israel is 9 miles wide at its narrowest point. We cannot afford the luxury of theoretical sovereignty when it means suicide. When we withdrew from southern Lebanon in 2000, Hezbollah moved in with 150,000 rockets. When we left Gaza in 2005, Hamas built terror tunnels and launched 15,000 rockets at our cities. Every time we've ceded control, it's been weaponized against us. The West Bank hills overlook our population centers—we cannot repeat these mistakes with existential consequences.

On Morris and Reality: "Benny Morris, whom you quote, also wrote that the Arabs' rejection of partition in 1947-48 was their 'original sin'—that they chose war over compromise and lost. The Palestinians' continued rejectionism reflects the same maximalist thinking. They demand full sovereignty while their society remains unreformed, their leaders still promote armed 'resistance,' and their patron Iran builds a nuclear program specifically to destroy us."

Counter-Counter-Counterpoint:

The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy: This argument creates the very insecurity it claims to prevent. By denying Palestinians genuine sovereignty, Israel ensures perpetual resistance. The occupation itself radicalizes populations—as Israeli security experts have repeatedly warned. Former Mossad chiefs Tamir Pardo and Efraim Halevy both argued that the occupation generates more security threats than it prevents.

On Iranian Influence: Iran's influence grows precisely because of Palestinian despair and statelessness. Hamas wasn't always aligned with Iran—it was originally closer to the Muslim Brotherhood and Egypt. Iranian influence filled the vacuum created by decades of failed peace processes. A viable Palestinian state with genuine sovereignty and economic prospects would actually compete with Iranian influence, not enable it.

The Historical Misreading: The comparison to 1948 ignores how dramatically the regional landscape has changed. Today, major Arab states—Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt, Jordan—have normalized relations with Israel or actively seek to do so. The Arab Peace Initiative of 2002, endorsed by all 22 Arab League members, offers full recognition of Israel in exchange for withdrawal to 1967 borders. The threat today isn't Arab armies seeking Israel's destruction—it's Iranian proxies exploiting the Palestinian issue.

The Geography Trap: The "9 miles wide" argument ignores that modern warfare isn't about territorial depth—it's about technological superiority and intelligence. Israel's security comes from the Iron Dome, advanced intelligence capabilities, and military technology, not from controlling Palestinian hilltops. Gaza showed that occupation doesn't prevent rocket attacks; it often provokes them.

The Morris Context: While Morris criticized Arab rejectionism in 1947-48, he also documented extensive Israeli ethnic cleansing during that war and has written about the impossibility of the current situation: "The Palestinians look upon the West Bank and Gaza as a jail... As long as this situation exists, there will be no peace."

The Deeper Security Paradox: True security requires legitimacy, not just force. Israel's current approach—maintaining control while denying sovereignty—creates what security analysts call "occupation fatigue" among its own population and international isolation. The country becomes increasingly dependent on American protection while losing the moral high ground that once made it a natural ally for democracies worldwide.

The Buddhist Analysis: This reflects the classic delusion of attachment—clinging so tightly to control that you strangle what you're trying to protect. Israel's insistence on total security control creates the very conditions that make it insecure: a radicalized population, international isolation, and dependence on perpetual military dominance. Real security comes from addressing root causes, not just managing symptoms through force.

The choice isn't between Israeli security and Palestinian sovereignty—it's between a future of shared prosperity and mutual recognition versus endless cycles of violence that ultimately threaten Israel's existence more than any peace agreement ever could.