France’s Foreign Minister Fabius, "France Warns of 'Explosion'" (June 22) and Rev. Bruce Shipman, “Editorial made case for boycott of Israel,” (June 19), fail to appreciate the Arab intransigence behind the Mideast impasse. Fabius pretends that imposing indefensible borders upon Israel will lead to peace. He doesn’t understand that this will further embolden the Palestinians in refusing to accept the state that was offered in 2000, 2001 and 2008 or even to negotiate.

Rev. Shipman adopts a slightly different approach, essentially justifying an anti-Israel boycott. Employing buzzwords, he claims that boycotts spring from resistance to a two-state solution, “settlement activity” and “occupation.” None of these withstand scrutiny. The boycotts are similar to the Arab boycott which began when Israel became a state in 1948. Then there was no post-1967 “occupation” and no post-1977 “settlement activity,” so those aren’t the cause. 

Similarly, the boycotts can’t arise from “resistance to a two-state solution.” As noted, Israel in 2000, 2001 and 2008 offered the Palestinians a state containing land approximating the entire West Bank. There is something much darker going on. In reality, the boycotts are aimed at Israel’s very existence and not merely at Rev. Shipman’s explanations. 

Mark I. Fishman, Esq.,

President of PRIMER-Connecticut

(Promoting Responsibility in Middle East Reporting)

New Haven