Almost exactly one year to the day after the Economist published a cover story entitled “Israel Alone,” the British newspaper is out with an edition whose cover laments “Israel’s Hubris.” Both covers feature the flag of the Jewish state rippling in the gale. A year ago, Israel’s sin was its isolation. What a difference 12 months makes. Now it is “hubris” — that’s Greek for chutzpah — for which Israel is taken to task. Israel loses even when it’s winning. 

The Economist this week reflects that a year and a half ago “Israel was in grave peril” and seemed “vulnerable and confused… Now, by contrast, Israel is rampant.” The paper, though, warns that Jerusalem’s “renewed military supremacy … risks turning hubris into disaster.” This even as the “improvement in Israel’s security has been remarkable, and welcome.” Still, the Economist accuses Israel of “cruel tactics” and “shameful plans.” It bewails “buffer zones.”

In decrying Israeli “expansionism,” in any event, the Economist has it wrong. Territories from which Israel has retreated — Gaza, and southern Lebanon chief among them — have become terrorist havens with baleful effects for both the Arab populations living under the boot of Hamas and Hezbollah and for Israel. Territories where Israel exerts its sovereignty — the Golan Heights, say – have become safe and secure. 

The Economist advises Israel to “wait and see if the new government in Damascus can put Syria together again.” Thankfully, Israel has eschewed that counsel. Trusting jihadists can be perilous, so Israel destroyed Syria’s old chemical caches and created a buffer zone. The Israel Defense Forces also appear to be carving out the same through Gaza, an enclave that since Israel withdrew in 2005 has become a haven of horror. 

Last year the Economist warned Israel that there was only a “narrow path out of the hellscape of Gaza.” It also warned that the country could  be “locked in the bleakest trajectory of its 75-year existence.” Now, it worries that the Jewish state — and Prime Minister Netanyahu — has been too successful in achieving escape velocity after Hamas’s savagery. A narrow path has given way to a regional upper hand.    

Last year we pointed out that “the Economist has been carping about the Jewish State since it was declared in 1948. Even before Israel’s declaration of independence, the Arabs sprang upon the new country, and the Economist was right there alongside them.” It warned 10 Downing Street not to decide the issue of partition “in favor of the Zionists” or be swayed by the  “land hunger of the Jews” or the “wilder ambitions of the Zionists.”

Those ambitions have been fulfilled beyond even Herzl’s wildest dreams. Israel’s deadliest foes have been brought to their knees, a friend sits at the Oval Office, *Google just purchased an Israeli company for north of $30 billion, the data appear to indicate a baby boom since October 7, and Israelis are among the happiest people in the world. Divisions persist over the shape of Israel’s democracy, but both sides are committed to the country’s future.

How astonishing would it have been for the Israel of last year, let alone 1948, to be accused by the Economist of pursuing a “new, hegemonic” foreign policy that risks “domination fatigue” with growing “strategic ambitions.” All as the result of a war that Israel did not ask for and in response to an attack that it would have done anything to avoid. Why wouldn’t the Economist, instead of chiding Israel for its success, try covering the failures of her enemies?

________

Correction: Google purchased the Israeli company Wiz for $32 billion. The purchasing company was misstated in an earlier edition.