Double standard? West Bank controversy continued

With respect to the most recent letters regarding the “West Bank Controversy,” I would respectfully add the following. Dr. Tannenwald has a history in writings and podcasts of giving great weight to the Israeli settlements being the impetus for historical violence and the lack of a peace process. Please recall, three wars were waged against the fledgling Israeli state BEFORE there was even a hint of settlements. The PLO (PALESTINE Liberation Organization) was formed before the 1967 war (which pre-dated the settlements). 

BDS, which the professor evidently supports, stands for the proposition that Israel “ethnically cleansed” half of the indigenous people of Palestine since its “violent establishment in 1948” and as a result there are “7.25 million Palestinian refugees.” (BDS website). Doesn’t it logically follow that the professor supports a right of return for those 7.25 million refugees? Are the professor and her cohorts equally concerned about the thousands and thousands of Jews who were uprooted from their homes after the 1948 war? Is there a right of return for Jews to Iraq, Yemen or Libya? Will Jews receive reparations for all their assets being wiped out? I am assuming not because I have not seen the same passion in their writings and speeches about this Jewish historical catastrophe.

Many Jews find BDS and the application of the Geneva Convention anti-Semitic because the target is ONLY Israel. And by the way, when did Israel ACTIVELY transfer any of its residents to the West Bank per Article 49 of the Geneva Convention? Though one can look around the world and see many bad actors out there, the college campuses and their leadership are in an uproar solely over the most liberal democracy in the Middle East. No professorial gymnastics can cover up this reality.

Bruce Lipsey

Sharon MA