Writer Christopher Mullaney is irrelevant in his simplistic analysis of Ben & Jerry’s boycott of Israel, “Ben & Jerry’s is right to take a socially conscious stance” (July 28).
Although it is easy to throw out various key words, the “West Bank” is neither “annexed”, “occupied” nor “illegal”. It was recaptured from Jordan after its armed seizure by Jordan in 1948 and its use as a base for gratuitously and foolishly attacking Israel in 1967. This area remains disputed, with Israel holding the best claim.
While Israel does not seek to hold onto this land and does not want to rule over its Arab residents, it does need a responsible entity to whom it can give it. The Palestinian Authority, itself a sponsor of terrorism, refuses to negotiate or even recognize Israel as the only Jewish state. Meanwhile, in accordance with the Palestinian Mandate ruling the previous British rule, Israel followed the dictate of the “Close Settlement” Mandate.
There has never been a Palestinian Arab entity in the West Bank. Thus, it does not constitute “Palestinian territories”. So Ben & Jerry, in their demagoguery, must have another agenda – perhaps to punish Israel for its very existence.
Mark I. Fishman, Esq.
President of PRIMER Connecticut
(Promoting Accountability in Middle East Relations)