Like /u/oedium, I found it really difficult to understand how people could not distinguish this as satire.

I think the problem here, is that many of us trueredditors seem to think that satire has to be either (in your case) detached and clinical, or humorous.

Neither of these characteristics are necessary. Rather, the tone of this piece serves dual purposes. The utter seriousness of it is meant, firstly, to mark it as satire, due to the mismatch between the ideas it advocates on the surface, and the audience of the Times of Israel.

Secondly, this piece is meant to criticise the treatment of Palestinians by Israel. The serious tone here, is meant to underline and mark out the severity of the criticism being given. The purpose is to be an outright accusation at Israelis.

I can't help but think that this reflects upon how society treats satire nowadays, it's ubiquity and frequent purposelessness, to the point that people can't understand this piece. (idea credit: http://difficultrun.nathanielgivens.com/2013/09/30/the-limits-of-satire/)

To add on, this has been exposed as not being written by the stated author. (Australian lawyer John Berstein) Despite the fact that this has allowed all manner of confused people to declaim this piece as merely a 'hoax', I urge you to reconsider whether this claim has merit. Yes, it is true that anonymity decreases credibility. And false claims of identity even more so. On the other hand though, one must balance this somewhat with the fact that the freedom of influential figures to criticize Israel / Israeli policies openly is relatively curtailed. (because this opens them up to charges of anti-Semitism, as well of the relatively high political and economic influence of Jewish communities in many countries)

If you aren't convinced on the first point, perhaps I'll add on. Consider the oddity in openly advocating genocide by Israelis, when the very existence of Israel is predicated upon the Holocaust.