The Guardian is advocating Apartheid.
The problem with the whole, "It's Anti-Zionism, Not Anti-Semitism" thing is that the distinction is actually made by race, not by citizenship.
The Guardian's style guide is a case in point. It states that "settler" should be "confined to those Israeli Jews living in settlements across the 1967 line ie in the Occupied Territories".
So an Israeli Arab who has the same citizenship living beyond the Green Line isn't a settler. His town isn't a settlement. A Russian non-Jewish immigrant who moves to an Israeli "settlement" isn't a settler.
Now suppose there's an Israeli Jew living in a "settlement". Then he converts to Buddhism. Is he now no longer a settler?
According to The Guardian's own style guide, he ceases to be a settler. Unless the Guardian is going by both race and religion, in which case he is still a settler, though perhaps half a settler.
To deal with The Guardian's racial problem, suppose a couple, one half of which is Jewish and the other half is not, moves beyond the Green Line. Is their child considered a "settler"? What about that child's child?
Does The Guardian have a blood quantum requirement of racial purity for "settler" status?
I would really welcome a response from The Guardian expert in charge of the racial categories of settlers on this subject.
Since The Guardian has decided that "settler" is a racial or religious category, rather than a question of citizenship, it also holds a belief that people should be restricted on where they can live based on race.
I hesitate to use the A-word, but it sounds a whole lot like The Guardian is advocating Apartheid.