Shira Efron’s Advice to Israel to Combat Isolation

By Walter E. Block

Shira Efron. Screengrab via Youtube

Shira Efron of the Rand Corporation is rightly concerned that Israel, and Jews all around the world, are being isolated and denigrated. She offers some advice to improve this situation. The problem is that while it might well garner some positive publicity for these victims, it will endanger their safety.

She criticizes Ministers Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir for being “polarizing.” What, pray tell, is that? Synonyms include separating, differentiating, dividing, splitting and diverging. But great men all throughout history have been “guilty” of such behavior. Pythagoras “separated” himself from those who deemed the earth flat. Albert Einstein “differentiated” himself from Isaac Newton. Aristarchus of Samos, Nicolaus Copernicus and Galileo “divided” themselves from the masses of people who thought that the sun revolved around the earth. Adam Smith “split” from the mercantilists. Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace “diverged” from creationists and Lamark.

Yes, Smotrich and Ben-Gvir are indeed “guilty” of rejecting the policies of those whose views would be suicidal for Israel, God bless them. This is something to criticize them for, from a supposed friend of the only civilized country in the Middle East?
She hopes that these two ministers “are unlikely to be part of the next coalition government.” True supporters of the Hebrew state can only with for more Knesset members with backbones, such as these two.

Dr. Efron correctly notes that “a change in government could lead other nations and their publics and news media to give a new coalition the benefit of the doubt. Any grace period will be short, and Israel’s next leaders will need to present a different vision quickly.” Yes, indeed, if it looks as if the next Israeli government is ready to all but surrender, not only will the “news media” rejoice, but this will be true of all enemies of this country.

Our authors regrets that “No government in the near future will deliver Palestinian statehood.” But she reckons in the absence of the fact that for all intents and purposes, Israel has already done exactly this. When? In 2005, when Israel compelled all of its citizens to depart from Gaza. If this was not a “two state solution,” then nothing is a two state solution. After Hamas conquered the PLO in 2007, it was in full control of this troubled territory. Had they made peace overtures to the Israelis, they might have become the Hong Kong of the Middle East, with Jewish support. This, however, was not to be. Indeed, the very opposite, tragically, occurred.

But a new government could pave the way toward peace. Instead of actively weakening the Palestinian Authority, as the current coalition is doing, it could restore the basic administrative and economic functions that keep Palestinian institutions afloat … and easing bureaucratic constraints on trade, movement and economic development in the West Bank.
First of all, there is no “West Bank.” This territory, instead, is Judea and Samaria. Secondly, this would not “pave the way toward peace.” Rather, it would strengthen the ties of the Palestinians to these territories, when justice cries out that they should depart, since this is really Jewish land. The latter have been there, homesteading away, for nigh onto four millennia. The former, at most, for four centuries. According to philosopher John Locke, property rightfully belong to those who were there first, not last.s

She advocates that the Israeli government “pursue calibrated steps of gradual withdrawal from the buffer zones in Lebanon and Syria while advancing serious diplomacy instead.

Serious diplomacy with people who are trying to murder you? The buffer zone in Lebanon is to make it more difficult for Hezbollah to attack northern Israel. The one in Syria is to forever keep enemy bombardment from emanating from the Golan Heights. These terrorists must learn that when they initiate violence against Israel, they lose territory, not gain it back through “serious diplomacy.” She urges that Israel “halt the de facto annexation of West Bank territory. That would demonstrate to the world that Israel does not intend to occupy Palestinian land in perpetuity.” Yes, it should not be de facto, only. It should also be de jure. And forever.

She opines: A new coalition can treat settler violence as a crime, and not provide it with the de facto impunity it now enjoys. First, the “settlers” are the Palestinians. They are the trespassers. The Jews, there, are the rightful owners. Second, the Arabs initiate violence. The Jews use force in self-defense.

She concludes that Israel should “reassert… the norms of democratic governance. This is an unwarranted attack on Prime Minister Netanyahu for attempting to democratize the Israeli Supreme Court. At present, replacements are chosen by extant members, allowing no input from any voters. She simply does not understand that true democracy allows the citizenry to make such decisions, via their elected politicians.