Letter writer Christopher Mullaney is off base in his simplistic analysis of Ben & Jerry’s boycott aimed at Israel, "Ben & Jerry's is right to take socially conscious stance," (July 28).

While it is easy to toss about various catch words, the “West Bank” is neither “annexed,” “occupied” nor “illegal.” It was recaptured from Jordan after Jordan’s armed seizure of it in 1948 and its use as a base to gratuitously and foolishly attack Israel in 1967. That area remains disputed, with Israel holding the better claim.

Although Israel does not seek to retain that land and does not want to rule over its Arab residents, it needs a responsible entity to whom it can give it. The Palestinian Authority, itself a sponsor of terrorism, refuses to negotiate or even to recognize Israel as the one Jewish state. Meanwhile, consistent with the Palestinian Mandate governing Britain’s previous rule, Israel has followed the Mandate’s dictate of “close settlement.”

There was never a Palestinian Arab entity in the West Bank. Thus, it does not constitute “Palestinian territories.” Ben & Jerry, in their grandstanding, therefore, must have some other agenda – maybe to punish Israel for its very existence.

Mark I. Fishman, Esq.

President of PRIMER-Connecticut

(Promoting Responsibility in Middle East Reporting)

New Haven