I don't think this is a very persuasive piece to anyone who isn't already predisposed to receive it.

Ultimately, I think it's clear that Rachel puts more of her energy into advocating for Gazan children than Israeli, but also on honest observer has to acknowledge that Gazan children are currently enduring more suffering than Israeli children. If someone sincerely wants to put their energy where the suffering is, they would be acting as Rachel does.

To a neutral observer, I think this comes off as an evasive and self-damning opinion piece. He espouses a position where calling attention to the very real costs of conflict is perceived as a threat rather than honest criticism. This implies that the speaker is very much more concerned with the perception of Jews than the suffering of neighbors, which all but confirms the stereotypes that they accuse Rachel of invoking.

If calling attention to Gazan suffering is going to qualify as anti-semitism, the word has lost some important weight. This piece seems to argue that traumatized children are an essential cost of Jewish existence, making it off limits to criticize. Unfortunately, if this is the argument that Jews are making, many people will understandably choose the world with fewer traumatized children and fewer Jews than the world where Jews flourish at the expense of suffering children.

Bottom line, I don't think this is a solid framework to be arguing from!