Pope Francis, in an October address, declared not only that the “state of Israel has every right to exist in safety and prosperity” but that anti-Zionism is a form of anti-Semitism. In doing so, writes Kevin Madigan, he has reversed a longstanding tradition of Catholic opposition to Jewish statehood:

What had been the authoritative Catholic view on Zionism reaches back to the 5th century and to the church father Augustine of Hippo. For Augustine, Jews had been exiled from their land and dispersed among the Gentiles for their guilt in the death of Jesus. There they would be condemned to wander and to live, until the end of time, in a state of anxiety, misery, and servitude to Gentile emperors and kings. . . .

This Augustinian “theology of the Jews” was . . . the dogmatic ground for Catholic opposition to Zionism. Indeed, the Vatican did not recognize the state of Israel until December 1993. When Theodor Herzl, perhaps the most important father of modern Zionism, asked Pope Pius X to lend his support to the establishment of a Jewish homeland, the pontiff infamously responded, “Non possumus” (“We cannot”). This was the beginning of what seemed, until Francis’ historic remarks, to be indefinite papal opposition to Zionism. . . .

In historical context, Francis’ statement must be perceived for the welcome and fundamental reversal it is.

In a recent article, the New York Times Magazine asserts that Benjamin Netanyahu “prolonged the war in Gaza to stay in power.” Niranjan Shankar takes the argument apart piece by piece, showing that for all its careful research, it fails to back up its basic claims. For instance: the article implies that Netanyahu torpedoed a three-point cease-fire proposal supported by the Biden administration in the spring of last year:

First of all, it’s crucial to note that Biden’s supposed “three-point plan” announced in May 2024 was originally an Israeli proposal. Of course, there was some back-and-forth and disagreement over how the Biden administration presented this initially, as Biden failed to emphasize that according to the three-point framework, a permanent cease-fire was conditional on Hamas releasing all of the hostages and stepping down. Regardless, the piece fails to mention that it was Hamas in June 2024 that rejected this framework!

It wasn’t until July 2024 that Hamas made its major concession—dropping its demand that Israel commit up front to a full end to the war, as opposed to doing so at a later stage of cease-fire/negotiations. Even then, U.S. negotiators admitted that both sides were still far from agreeing on a deal.

Even when the Times raises more credible criticisms of Israel—like when it brings up the IDF’s strategy of conducting raids rather than holding territory in the first stage of the war—it offers them in what seems like bad faith:

[W]ould the New York Times prefer that Israel instead started with a massive ground campaign with a “clear-hold-build” strategy from the get-go? Of course, if Israel had done this, there would have been endless criticism, especially under the Biden administration. But when Israel instead tried the “raid-and-clear” strategy, it gets blamed for deliberately dragging the war on.