One of the problems I have with the Melanie Phillips article is that she doesn't seem to take into account the many people who support the existance of the State of Israel, but who disagree with the expansionist policies of the Israeli government. I don't live in Britain, so I don't know if there are very many people there who have this position, but she doesn't really seem to care whether or not such people exist, and doesn't seem to have taken the time or effort to find out. She just lumps everyone into one category: people who want to see the destruction of the State of Israel. Ms. Phillips is guilty of her share of stereotyping, and in my opinion, stereotyping is always a destructive thing.

Some of the things she says are simply not true. This part, for instance:

Israel is presented as crushing the Palestinians under a jackboot, and the settlements are obsessively dwelt upon as the obstacle to peace. I don’t approve of the settlements; and I also deplore the inevitable brutalisation that has afflicted Israel and which marks any occupation. But the presentation of the issue ignores the fact that more than 95% of the disputed land was offered to the Palestinians in 2000 to form a state of their own, provoking only the response of the current war of mass civilian murder.

And then she says this:

A columnist listed Jewish journalists (including the present writer) who she claimed were controlling public debate. Former Archbishop Desmond Tutu, having compared Israel to South Africa under apartheid

This is just bullshit. That "95% of land that she is talking about is in the form of little bantustans divided up by Jewish only roads and Jewish only settlements, guarded by the IDF, making the free movement of Palestinians from one part of their land to another either exceedingly difficult or completely impossible. And also rendering a viable independent state and a viable economy virtually impossible. If it was just 5% of the disputed land in question, the second intifada would never have taken place. And Archbishop Tutu was entirely correct in comparing the bantustans surrounded by Jewish only roads and settlements proposed by the government of Israel to the bantustans surrounded by White only land in South Africa. They are the same thing.

The other problem I have with it is that she starts out saying that criticism of the government of Israel is a valid thing and not necessarily indicative of anti-Semitism, and then she spends the whole rest of the article suggesting that all criticism of Israel is indicative of anti-Semitism. I see her article as an attempt to stifle legitimate discussion about Israel through implied charges of anti-Semitism rather than direct charges of anti-Semitism. Different tone, same tactic. She is just as guilty of prejudice and stereotyping, and I would suggest, probably some degree of hatred towards those she sees as being different than herself as she is accusing others of being.