Criticism of the Israeli government

From The Economist:

Since the slaughter of Israeli civilians by Hamas in October, Israel has had to rethink its long-standing security doctrine. That doctrine involved giving up on peace with the Palestinians, building walls and using technology to repel missile attacks and infiltrations. It didn’t work. The Palestinians were radicalised and the walls did not stop the atrocities of October 7th. Israel’s air defences may yet be overwhelmed by the increasingly sophisticated arsenal of missiles aimed at it by Iran-backed militants in Lebanon, Yemen and elsewhere.

How might a new Israeli security doctrine work? The Economist supports removing Hamas from power in Gaza: it has oppressed and impoverished the people there. It is also an impediment to peace. But Israel should make clear its fight is with the terrorists. That means using force judiciously and letting in a lot more aid. It also means having a plan for after the war that creates a path to a moderate Palestinian state. Such an approach would help maintain support for Israel in America and elsewhere. This is crucial: America deters Iran and backs detente between Israel and Gulf states that also oppose Iran’s influence. Most important, it underwrites the security of Israel itself.

Alas, in Gaza, Mr Netanyahu has eschewed this logic.

This is what good faith criticism of Israel looks like.

It’s become clear that any piece with the phrases settler colonialism, Zionists, white supremacy, apartheid state, is, in all likelihood, an antisemitic diatribe. And as we’ve seen, the antisemites aren’t particularly original.