The economist isn't antisemitic, and it isn't Zionist, either. It does it's best to be factual and thoughtful in a rational way. Personally, I think its line could afford to be a bit more understanding of Israel's situation, but that's just me. And of course, there's an advantage to the fact that you can't plausibly see them as pro-Israel: it enhances their reliability when they land on Israel's side of an argument.
As seems sort of to happened on the issue of war crimes. Somebody at the Economist went looking for British experts on the laws of war and civilian casualties, and came back with the understanding that what Israel is doing in Gaza may include war crimes, but only in specific cases, once they've been investigated. The fact of killing civilians itself - while tragic and horrific - is not illegal, and there are even indications Israel is making an effort not to cross red lines.
Of course you might ask if the Economist regularly poses this question whenever anyone else (the UK included) goes to war, and the answer is probably no. What that means, however, is moot. It could easily be an antipathy to Israel; but it just as easily could be an antipathy to the screeches of the Guardian and its ilk.
Ah, yes: it is indeed sweet when the Economist is more on our side than our own so-called human rights organizations, ACRI and their ilk.