The Economist’s cover this week features the words “Israel Alone.” The picture is of a desert landscape and the flag of the Jewish state, bowed and taut from the pressure of gale force winds. The accompanying article sees only a “narrow path out of the hellscape of Gaza” and warns of the possibility that Israel could be “locked in the bleakest trajectory of its 75-year existence.” The country, it reckons, has “failed at home” and failed to eradicate Hamas.

Then again, too, 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. An Economist editorial lit into President Truman for recognizing Israel within 20 minutes of it having declared independence. It warned 10 Downing Street not to “decide the issue in favor of the Zionists.”

The newspaper, decrying President Truman’s move, warned that recognition would only feed the “land hunger of the Jews.” That was rich, coming from the retreating British empire. The newspaper also denounced “American opportunism and sharp practice,” reminding us why we broke from Britain in the first place. It lamented that the Jews “have proof, straight from the White House, that they have nothing to gain by showing a spirit of compromise.” 

The British weekly also mused that “clumsy is the mildest adjective appropriate” to describe Truman’s stand with the Jews, which, it worried, would only encourage the “wilder ambitions of the Zionists.” The newspaper  also floated the possibility that the United Nations, America, the Arab League, or Soviet Russia could rule Palestine. That echoes current calls for a ceasefire and the idea  that a force other than the IDF could secure Israel.  

Why the Economist didn’t mention this history in its cover story this week beats us. It’s a reminder, in any event, that being alone is nothing new for the Jews. We can still remember one day in 1982 picking up the Times to discover on page one a photograph of Prime Minister Begin addressing an empty General Assembly at the UN. The noble diplomats had walked out. We kept a copy of the story in our wallet for years to savor Israel’s courage.

Things are hardly better at the UN these days, after the Biden administration allowed passage of a Security Council resolution that failed to condemn Hamas and called for an “immediate ceasefire.” It was backed by Israel’s, and America’s, enemies. The treachery stunned Israel, which canceled plans for a delegation to fly to Washington. The UN vote was cheered by Hamas, which announced that it was pulling out of hostage negotiations.  

The loneliness of Israel was noted long before the Economist deigned to pronounce it — the Book of Numbers predicts in respect of the Jews that they “shall dwell alone, and not be reckoned among the nations.” It was Theodor Herzl’s dream — and achievement — that Israel would be reckoned with and that two millennia of loneliness be ended. That isolation has shrunk in recent years, particularly with the Abraham Accords.

The Economist writes that “if you are a friend of Israel this is a deeply uncomfortable moment.” No doubt the wish is father to the thought. “A struggle for Israel’s future awaits,” it says with evident relish. It would have been nice, but it looks like the Economist won’t be with the Jewish state. The newspaper took the wrong side in Israel’s War of Independence. It seems to be doing so now, again, in the war with Hamas — and Iran.