Are there any legitimate criticisms of Israel? Yes, of course there are. All humans are imperfect. That being the case, we—and they—are all properly subject to accurate criticism to expose their flaws.
Contrary to the views of some, Israelis, too, are human beings. Therefore, they are not immune from correction. Does criticizing Israel necessarily make one an antisemite? Of course not.
What, then, are some legitimate criticisms of Israel?
First and foremost, the only civilized country in the Middle East is far too socialistic. It has immensely improved in this regard since its inception in 1948. But much remains to be done in terms of deregulation and support for free enterprise.
Why is it imperative that this be done? It is crucial since laissez-faire capitalism, in addition to being the only just economic system, also leads to the most prosperity. And the Jewish state needs every shekel of productivity it can lay its hands on for defensive purposes. Geographically, it lies in the midst of many countries intent upon destroying it.
What are the specifics? Histadrut is one sore example. Labor unions do not raise wages; pay is determined by productivity, and organized labor reduces that desiderata. You can’t get blood out of a stone. Productivity is the be-all and end-all of wealth, and unions—with their demands for increased pay, strikes, slowdowns and other interferences—impoverish a country. Then, there is far too much government ownership of the means of production, certainly including land. The motto of this country should be privatize, privatize and privatize some more.
This country spends heavily on social welfare, education, healthcare and social security. All of these things, all of them, should be privatized. It has a minimum wage law, which creates unemployment for unskilled workers and tariffs, which reduce specialization and the division of labor. These enactments should be eliminated forthwith; a free labor market and free international trade should be implemented. The Economic Competition Law, 5748-1988, which regulates mergers, acquisitions and combinations, should be repealed if the country is to garner the benefits of laissez-faire capitalism.
Secondly, the Israel Defense Forces committed boots on the ground too early in its war against Hamas. The military should have far more fully pulverized that territory before committing ground troops. The soldiers had to deal with booby traps, fighters erupting out of hidden tunnels, house-to-house struggles and more. The Hebrew state has a gigantic comparative advantage against these terrorists from the air; far less so at ground level.
What is the proof of the contention that troops were committed far too early in Gaza? Almost 500 soldiers died in such combat. Each and every one of these individuals is precious beyond belief. When they needlessly die, so, too, do their potential progeny disappear. Let the IDF learn a lesson from this error in its present battle with Iran. Pulverize this country until not a single solitary soldier loses his life when the mopping-up operation finally takes place and unconditional surrender is achieved.
Further, no more swaps of hundreds—nay, thousands—of terrorist prisoners held in Israeli jails for one or a few Israeli hostages. This evinces what economists characterize as extreme high-time preference. It constitutes the trade of relatively minor benefits at present for future gigantic mayhem.
Of course, our hearts go out to every single Jewish hostage, but sometimes, we have to harden our hearts. The poster child for this perspective was Hamas senior leader Yahya Sinwar. He was one of thousands of vicious murderers released in exchange for only a few Jewish prisoners held by the Hamas terrorist organization in the Gaza Strip. We all know, now, with the benefits of hindsight, how that swap worked out.
But logic and logic alone should have made this clear before the fact. Willingness to trade on such a basis is like waving the red flag at the bull. It only incentivizes the enemy to seize Jews and imprison them. Ideally, if Israel had adamantly refused all such exchanges, without exception, the kidnapping incentive of the enemy would have all but disappeared. Supply curves slope in an upward direction. The greater the payoff to the terrorists in terms of release of their brethren, the more of this insidious behavior on their part will ensue.
Instead of releasing Hamas prisoners, impose the death penalty upon them. Thanks to National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, finally, Israel has mandated such treatment for convicted murderers. But why did it take all the way from 1948 to 2026—some 78 full years—for this example of elemental justice and pragmatism to occur? It is way past time for Israel to become a good neighbor and to hasten these killers of the innocent.
Finally, a relatively minor quibble: The present Israeli policy is to blow up improper buildings or those of terrorists. But these edifices, themselves, are guilty of no crime. That offence is solely due to the actions of their owners. The edifices themselves are inanimate, consisting of mere brick and stone and wood and glass and plastic. Penalize their owners, to be sure, to the full extent of the law. But keep those housing units intact. Surely, some new legitimate owners can avail themselves of these properties.
Is it antisemitic to criticize Israel? Of course not. Like every other institution under the sun, it, too, is not without flaws. I have herein sharply criticized this country, and I am far from being antisemitic.
