The Economist cover story in its March 29th print edition is titled “Israel’s Hubris”, a headline culled from a feature article titled “Israel’s expansionism is a danger to others—and itself“, which was co-written by their Dubai-based Mid-East reporter Gregg Carlstrom. Carlstrom’s journalistic career includes stints as the Israel correspondent at The Times, as well as an online correspondent at Al Jazeera English – a four year professional affiliation with the Qatari mouthpiece omitted from both his CV and personal website.
Some observers have correctly noted that Economist’s “Israel’s Hubris” narrative is odds with a cover story they ran just a year ago titled ‘Israel Alone’, which described a “deeply vulnerable” nation.
Last year, readers were told, the state faced an existential threat from its isolation and daunting military challenges on multiple fronts. This year, the publication warns that its continued existence is in jeopardy as the result of the very resilience and military successes over the ‘Axis of Resistance’ that would have seemed far-fetched to the Economist last spring.
The outlet’s effort to square the circle illustrates their insistence on maintaining the narrative.
First, they acknowledge Israel’s battlefield victories, writing that “Iran’s baleful influence across the Middle East has been shattered, as its proxies in Gaza, Lebanon and Syria have foundered”, before adding that “Israel fended off two big Iranian missile barrages with America’s help, and struck back against Iran’s air defences”. However, it then warns, Jerusalem’s successes are tempting it to go down a more “dangerous path”, referring to IDF’s counter-terror operation in the West Bank, periodic attacks on Hezbollah military positions in Lebanon and on the post-Assad Syrian military arsenal – as well a possible strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities.
The danger, they write, is that their newly aggressive, post-Oct. 7th military posture could lead to “a popular backlash” on the “Arab street”, and that “Arab leaders will gradually come to reflect their people’s hostility” threatening “Israel’s regional alliances…with Egypt and Jordan and with several other Arab countries through the Abraham accords”.
However, despite the oft-repeated fears expressed by media outlets during the course of the war regarding the possible erosion of Israel’s regional diplomatic relationships, the “Arab streets” are relatively quiet, no Arab country has broken off relations with Jerusalem, and the Abraham Accords are still intact – with even Saudi Arabia still open to joining the pact.
The Economist also writes that “the Israeli government has drawn two worrying conclusions from this success”, adding that “one is that cruel tactics work”, citing, in part, “tens of thousands of civilians in Gaza” killed.
However, the narrative that such an argument rests upon, concerning a ‘disproportionate’ number of non-combatants killed in the territory, has been repeatedly refuted, including, most recently, by updated casualty numbers from the Hamas-run health ministry which bely previous claims that 70% of the deaths have been women and children. The new list appears to have quietly dropped 3,400 fully “identified” deaths listed in its Aug & Oct 2024 reports—including 1,080 children. Further, according to Andrew Fox at the Henry Jackson Society, the new data indicates that 72% of the deaths in the 13-55 age group were men.
More evidence of Israel’s “cruel tactics”, the article claims, regards “shameful plans for ethnic cleansing are gaining currency”. However, later in the paragraph, the outlet acknowledges that Israeli plans are narrowly tailored to allow for the voluntary emigration of Gazans.
The Economist also accuses Jerusalem of engaging in the “rapid de facto annexation of the West Bank”.
However, while Israel’s far-right Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich said last year that he would push Washington to extending Israeli sovereignty over the West Bank, that isn’t the position of the government – nor has President Trump expressed support for the idea. Further, the mere expansion of existing Israeli settlements in the Israeli-controlled Area C, as well as the eviction of Palestinians from homes that courts determine they don’t legally possess, is not, contrary to the Economist’s further claims, evidence of “de facto annexation”.
“For many years”, the article concludes, “Israel depended on its American ally to tell it when to stop fighting”, before adding that “with Mr Trump in the White House, those days are over. Israel now needs the wisdom to practise self-restraint.”
It’s telling that the Economist, which has, during past Israel-Hamas wars – such as the 50 day conflict in 2014 – argued against destroying the terror group, while calling instead for both parties to “strive for peace”, is, even after Oct. 7th, still clinging to the notion that Israel should tolerate the permanent presence and continuous aggression of Iranian-backed extremist groups on its borders who call for the state’s annihilation.
Even after the sadistic Hamas violence 18 months ago, much of which was live-streamed by the butchers themselves, the blood soaked children’s bedrooms, the incinerated bodies, the gang rape and sexual mutilation of women in the killing fields of the Re’im, the Economist is among those Western outlets who hubristically take on the role of ‘saving Israel from itself’, hectoring it on the folly of ‘living by the sword’. It’s as if the state that’s home to nearly half the world’s Jews, and which is still recovering from the trauma of the worst antisemitic attacks since the Holocaust, is some sort of truculent child in need of parental guidance and tough love.
What the Economist refers to as “hubris” is, in fact, merely a rational political actor engaged in self-defence from intractable, fanatical, bloodthirsty foes dedicated to the proposition that one Jewish state in the Middle East is one too many.
(This post was amended on April 4 to clarify Andrew Fox’s analysis of the new Gaza casualty data)
Related Posts
Guardian corrects headline referring to Palestinian detainees as “hostages”
What would you expect from a joke journalist like Carlstrom ?
His ‘monumental’ work ‘Can Israel survive the threat from within’ still languishes on the shelves whilst Israel survives quite nicely, thank you.
Writing garbage like this “Israel’s Hubris” is just a way of producing an income stream for so-called journalists like Carlstrom – to flog to any old antisemitic rag like The Grauniad, The Economist, The Independent who will print it.
The very idea of “Israeli Expansionism” is laughable given the areas concerned within the mere 10 000 square miles of the Mandate and especially the 144 of the Gaza Strip – the same as the late London County Council.
Given the winding up of empires since 1945 when do we see similarly acerbic criticisms of: Iranian ambitions across the Middle East and the refusal even now of Lebanon and Iraq to make a peace with Israel on any frontier?? Even though there is no territorial dispute between them and Israel.
As for Syria nobody in the Western press seems to remember how Syria occupied a strip of Israel in 1948 – ’67 but they have fooled themselves into believing the 1949 armistice line in contrast to the 1923 international frontier is the legitimate border.
The Economist’s Hubris … there, fixed.