“The generals in the army, who have seen and experienced the horrors of war, are the ones who want peace the most”- Israeli Defense Minister and Alternate Prime Minister Benny Gantz.
In contrast to the Netanyahu-led Likud Bloc’s politicians, who are driven by religious ideology and an insistence on controlling the land and achieving peace simultaneously, Gantz, along with many other senior officers in Israel, accepts that comprehensive peace will come at a price - that the Palestinians are their closest neighbors and that comprehensive peace in the Middle East cannot be attained without reaching a settlement with them.
When Benny Gantz discusses the role that Israeli generals could play in making peace with the Palestinians, observers of this longstanding conflict’s history cannot but remember the shift of a former Israeli prime minister’s stance. Yitzhak Rabin went from calling for “breaking the bones of the Palestinians” as general and defense minister during the first Palestinian Intifada in the late 1980s, to being a partner in the peace process, signing the Oslo Accords with Yasser Arafat alongside Shimon Peres, calling for “ending the bloody conflict between us and the Palestinians.”
As a result of his shift from an extremist “bone-breaker” to a partner in peace, Rabin clashed with extremist religious and political Israeli factions, who considered the reversal a “betrayal” of their beliefs, which are founded on unequivocal hostility for Palestinians’ rights. The shots fired by Yigal Amir, which ended Rabin’s life on November 4, 1995, were the most significant blow to the peace process, which none in Israel defended more capably than he and Peres.
In his wide-ranging interview with Asharq Al-Awsat on Thursday, Benny Gantz also transforms from the Israeli army chief of staff, who led two wars on the Gaza Strip, to a “civilian”, who accepts that holistic and comprehensive peace in the Middle East cannot be attained without a settlement with the Palestinians. In it, he said: “We want the Palestinians to have a suitable geographical extension that enables them to lead a comfortable life without obstacles.” Even Jerusalem’s status is not seen as a taboo that cannot be discussed; he went on to say: “It will have a place for a Palestinian capital,” adding: “It’s a vast city, filled with sites that are holy to all of us.”
From the Palestinians and Arabs’ point of view, this appears to be a foregone conclusion. Their conviction is that defending Palestinian rights and correcting the injustices they have suffered hinge on addressing this aspect of the conflict. But when this position is adopted by a former senior officer in the Israeli army who knows full well the extent of his army’s strength and superiority and that of the Palestinians’ (and Arabs’) relative weakness, it is an acceptance that military power alone cannot provide Israel with lasting stability and security. Nor does it provide, as Gantz said, a suitable foundation for lasting peace between the Israelis, Palestinians - their closest neighbors - and with the rest of the Arab world.
Soldiers are not typically tasked with making peace. And in many Arab countries, leaders went in the opposite direction, going from civilians with no experience on the battlefield to “generals” with stars and medals on their chests who oversaw their armies and peoples’ defeats and disasters. In Israel, it is difficult to doubt the military command’s expertise. Because of this competence, the leadership knows that rifles alone do not create peace.
When the former chief of staff took off his military uniform to enter the political battlefield, he had partners in two prominent generals: Gabi Ashkenazi and Moshe Ya’alon. Their group was dubbed the “generals’ party.” Their alliance subsequently splintered after Gantz agreed to share a government with Benjamin Netanyahu. Despite constantly criticizing Netanyahu’s political positions and his implication in cases of corruption, Ashkenazi became Minister of Foreign Affairs. Ya’alon, on the other hand, joined the opposition.
Regardless, the three leaders and other senior officers’ positions remained more aligned with those of what could be called the Israeli “moderate camp” as compared to the stances of the Likud bloc and pro-settler factions. The paradox here, one that is hard to find in any other country, is that the military is on the “moderates’” side, while extremist factions are led by politicians. Gantz and Ya’alon, together with former deputy chief of staff Yair Golan, publicly repudiated Netanyahu’s decision to annex large chunks of the West Bank last summer before he decided to “freeze” the decision.
Gantz opposed the decision and told an American delegation visiting Jerusalem last June that the date that Netanyahu had set for the annexation (July 1) “is not set in stone.” Gantz also opposed granting governmental “legal cover” for informal settlement outposts because of his conviction of the need to establish a Palestinian entity with “a suitable geographical extension that enables them to lead a comfortable life without obstacles.”
For his part, Golan emphasized that the overwhelming majority of the Israeli army officers and soldiers oppose annexing large chunks of land in the West Bank. These military leaders know that they would not face military problems defending the annexed land by force, but they are concerned about the negative repercussions that this decision would have on relations with the Palestinians and Jordan, and the future of relations with Arab countries with which Israel seeks to make peace.
Because of the importance of these ties for Israel, Gantz views them as “peace alliances” between moderate powers looking to the future and seeking to improve their citizens’ livelihoods. And he calls on the forces opposing this tide to accept the inevitable and join the peace process.
Of course, we all know that appeals alone do not make peace and that moderate ideas seeking to end the Palestinian-Israeli conflict with an agreement clash with extremist views held by some within both sides, each seeking a “drastic solution”- this is, they seek to get everything they want without making any concessions. Thus, Gantz’s rhetoric remains a mere political statement as long as he is incapable of implementing them, that is, until Gantz and those who support his positions are granted the majority of the Israeli electorate’s votes.
Here, we return to the extremists’ role in severing opportunities for peace like they did with Rabin. Those calling for “drastic solutions” on both sides of the conflict are not satisfied with what they consider “compromise.” Israeli extremists carry the cards of expansion, territorial control and military supremacy, although their army’s leadership seeks opportunities for peace. The extremists among the Palestinians and the Arabs carry slogans of “resistance” and reject any solution with the “occupation.” These slogans’ only use is facilitating the exploitation of the Palestinian cause, and they have not succeeded at liberating an inch of Palestinian land.
