Why Did She Write What She Wrote?

In her latest op-ed over at The Times of Israel, Sara Hirschorn quotes both Michael Sfard and Shlomo Ben-Ami on the issue of Israel's government decisioin to seek a legal alternative to the embroglio it managed to find itself vis a vis the various Jewish communities the courts have adjudged to be destroyed.

First, Sfard

...the day had arrived where, “this government only now reaches the crossroads, the dilemma: it has to choose between the rule of law and ideology.”

and then Ben-Ami

A normal state is not supposed to settle beyond its legitimate borders...we still continue to behave as if we are a Yishuv. The entire peace enterprise of this government is aimed at leading the nation to choose, once and for all, between being a state or a Yishuv.

and she clarifies herself on the matter:

...the choice between settlement and statehood is a fundamental characterization of the Zionist project.

And asks, a bit ominously ot, to be generous, employing a rather loaded term:

Does the state, in the form of authorizing settlement outposts, continue as an expansionist enterprise?

"Expansionist"?

We have tried concessions, contraction, reducation.  Even pre-state Israel, the "Yishuv" of Ben-Ami, accepted territorial compromoise.

It hasn't worked very well, if at all.  That approach has not elicited moderation either in rhetoric (i.e., halting the incitement) nor action (i.e., stopping terror).  And now, after the fall of Mubarek and the Al-Qeidazation of the Sinai Beduin and the empowerment of the Muslim Brotherhood, even the Egyptian peace is, at gthe least, shaky.

But beyond all this practical view, are Jewish rights to be demeaned and ignored?

And although we know that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, Hirschorn applies the adjective to The Times of Israel editor's writing and suggests Israel choose "adult stability" and hoping

that the leadership and people of Israel will chose from this year, ad meah v’esrim and far beyond, to be a state.

Let's get back to the article's opening.  Is there a legal alternative?

There is.

Should Jews be able to live in the area?

They should.

Has the author at least hinted that there are many other problems which affect a future peace?

No.

Does the author know better?

She does.

Is her dependence on those she quoted sufficient to establish a neutral observation and analysis?

No.

Do the Arabs perhaps seek to revert us into the pre-state Yishuv via 1967-then-1947 border with refugee influx?

Yes.

Is the real argument not borders, in any configuration, but Zionism as a nationalism and Israel's existence?

Yes.

So why did she write this oped?

^