Proponents of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel have never concerned themselves with their own internal logic (e.g., U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar supporting BDS and then decrying sanctions, like ones being considered against Turkey at the time, as "ill-considered, incoherent and counterproductive"), and the latest lament from the Pillsbury family is no different. ("Why we must boycott Pillsbury," Opinion Exchange, April 29.) Here, the Pillsburys cite a single industrial park in Atarot as grounds for a worldwide boycott against Pillsbury, which is owned by General Mills. Never mind that Atarot was originally an Israeli moshav destroyed by Jordan in 1948. Never mind that General Mills has production facilities across the entire planet. And certainly never mind that the destruction of Israel — the stated goal of BDS — hardly comports with a "good conscience" or is "socially responsible."
BDS has always been recognized as a thinly veiled anti-Semitic movement. As always, what truly bothers its proponents is that the Jewish state exists and, worse yet, thrives.
Judah Druck, St. Louis Park
• • •
Charlie Pillsbury's Opinion Exchange commentary contains a remarkable linguistic element. He notes that his ancestor Charles A. Pillsbury purchased a flour mill "on the west bank of the Mississippi River in 1869." He then alters the geographic landscape to Israel where, he claims, there exist "illegal settlements in the occupied Palestinian West Bank" populated by Jews.
The term "West Bank" appeared in April 1950 when King Abdullah I of Jordan, after illegally invading the territory of the former British Mandate for Palestine in 1948 and occupying it — territory the United Nations called "Judea and Samaria" (see its 1947 Partition Plan decision) — he illegally annexed it to his "East Bank" Kingdom. Using that term today is not only wrong and not only retroactively justifies an illegal act of occupation but intentionally erases 3,000 years of Jewish history linked to, for example, such places as Shiloh where the Tabernacle was erected, Hebron where the Patriarchs and Matriarchs are buried, Bethlehem in Judea where the Jew Jesus was born, Bethel and other cities of Jewish history and religious significance, not the least, Jerusalem. It is immoral, in fact.
Moreover, when the League of Nations in 1922 decided to reconstitute the Jewish historical home in those very territories of Judea and Samaria and other areas of the land of Israel, it specifically noted, in its Article 6, that Jews had the right of "close settlement" in those places. Indeed, the only time in history when Jews could not live in Judea and Samaria was during the 19 years of Jordanian occupation between 1948 and 1967, after thousands of Jews had been ethnically cleansed from those regions by terror and war initiated by Arabs between 1920 and 1948.
I am not sure whether Pillsbury, a lawyer and an expert in dispute resolution, would wish to review all the history of just how that "west bank of the Mississippi River" came to be acquired and argue what its legal status is, but I can assure him and the readers of this paper that the right of Jews to live in Judea and Samaria, especially after it was returned to Jewish administration after years of continuing Arab terror by the Fedayeen and Fatah prior to 1967, is much more legal, more right and just.
It cannot be that a Jew residing in Shiloh, as I do, is engaged in an illegal act. There are Arabs living in Israel whom no one challenges and, similarly, until the political question of sovereignty is agreed upon, Jews living in Judea and Samaria, planting and harvesting crops, constructing factories and raising children is a reality that should not be boycotted.
Yisral Medad, Shiloh, Israel
COVID
Not thought out so well
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says fully vaccinated people may go maskless in most outdoor settings ("For vaccinated, some mask relief," front page, April 28). They've just given every corona-is-a hoax, masks-violate-my personal-rights yahoo the perfect excuse to not wear a mask. How is one to tell if someone is fully vaccinated? Do we have special glasses that will let us see their aura or something? Not thinking through the consequences of such a statement further erodes the little confidence we have in our government agencies and further divides our already riven polity.