Get unlimited digital access to $0.99 for 4 weeks.
News Opinion Readers Respond

Opposition to Israel's policies is not anti-Semitism [Letter]

Jason Blavatt and Ellen Ginsburg Simon ask "Why is Israel held to a double standard?" ("Hamas' unjust war," Aug. 4),

It is true that there is a double standard for Israel, but not in the way that is suggested.

Israel's violation of international laws is almost always overlooked while the media focuses instead on comparing Israel favorably with "rogue" states. Were Israel to be held to the same standards as we expect of most other countries, you would find that it falls far short of holding the high moral ground that it claims.

Israel has violated almost all of the 30 Articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, even though it is a signatory to this document (as well as the following agreements).

Israel has violated the Geneva Accords in many ways: inserting its citizens into occupied territory practicing collective punishment, control through walls and checkpoints and incarceration without due process.

Israel has violated U.N. Resolution 242, which prohibits annexing territory won by war.

Israel has violated its agreement to U.N. Resolution 194, the right of return for Palestinians to return to their homes (this was in exchange for U.N. recognition).

Israel has no constitution despite having promised to enact one as a condition of its statehood recognition. It does have laws, but they discriminate between Jews and other citizens of Israel.

Israel has used weaponry that is banned by international law, e.g., white phosphorus (in Operation Cast Lead).

Israel's claim to be a democracy is belied by its claim to be a Jewish democracy, a contradiction in terms. Israel is obviously an ethnocracy, a state with laws benefiting one ethnic group exclusively.

As for the assertion that "Hamas' tactic is not only to turn the world against Israel but against all Jews," this was refuted by Khaled Meshal, Hamas' leader, who said in an Aug. 3 interview with Charlie Rose on CBS: "We do not actually fight the Jews because they are Jews, per se. We do not fight any other races. We fight the occupiers."

One always hears: "We support Israel's right to defend itself." What about Palestinians' right to defend themselves," to be treated as human beings, with rights accruing thereto?

The demands which Hamas has made for a cease-fire are demands which accrue to most people without question: freedom of movement and freedom to live their lives as they wish without interference and control.

Yes, there are riots in Europe in support of the Palestinians, but the basis of these riots appears to be against the policies of the Israeli government, not anti-Semitic, although if these policies continue unabated, it could unfortunately get out of hand.

Doris Rausch, Columbia

To respond to this letter, send an email to Please include your name and contact information.

Copyright © 2015, The Baltimore Sun
Related Content
  • Why Israel belongs to the Jews
    Why Israel belongs to the Jews

    There can be no question about the centrality of Israel to the Jewish and Christian religions, but the Muslim claim is tenuous to say the least.

  • Cancel the Netanyahu speech
    Cancel the Netanyahu speech

    Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu intends to go ahead with his speech to Congress on Iran's nuclear program despite the accusation by Deputy Foreign Minister Tzachi Hanegbi that House Speaker John Boehner misrepresented the invitation. The whole thing is so disingenuous given the...

  • Making a claim on Israel
    Making a claim on Israel

    G. Jefferson Price's commentary refers to the Arab concern for Palestine ("An odd start to America's romance with Saudi Arabia," Feb. 13). But others have claims to that area. What the Arabs now consider Palestine, Jews call Israel or the Promised Land and Christians call the Holy Land. It...

  • Netanyahu speech: Neither unprecedented nor unwise
    Netanyahu speech: Neither unprecedented nor unwise

    Op-ed writer Frederic Hill ("Netanyahu invitation unwise," Jan. 28) faults House Speaker John Boehner for inviting Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak to Congress two weeks before Israeli elections. "Democratic nations usually do not interfere in another country's vote," Mr. Hill says.

  • Congress has right to hear Netanyahu
    Congress has right to hear Netanyahu

    In his commentary ("Boehner's unwise move," Jan. 28), Frederic B. Hill claims it was unwise for House Speaker John Boehner to invite Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak at a joint session of Congress because it shows deference toward him before an Israeli election.

  • Let Netanyahu speak
    Let Netanyahu speak

    I find it necessary to respond to Frederic B. Hill's odious and erroneous op-ed, "Boehner's unwise move" (Jan. 28).

  • Netanyahu needs to address Congress
    Netanyahu needs to address Congress

    Contrary to Frederic B. Hill's assertions ("Netanyahu invitation unwise," Jan. 27) both Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and House Speaker John Boehner have had little option, considering how the nuclear negotiations with Iran have proceeded.

  • Netanyahu visit: Maybe Congress should delegate all its policy work to foreign leaders
    Netanyahu visit: Maybe Congress should delegate all its policy work to foreign leaders

    Has Speaker John Boehner has a brilliant idea in inviting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak to Congress on the subject of Iran ("Netanyahu invitation unwise," Jan. 27). What else can he do when, apparently, no Republicans in the House have what it takes to address the issue?...