WHAT DOUBLE STANDARD?
Some Questions for David Stolinsky

January 2002By William H. Soisson III

William H. Soisson III is a retired attorney and U.S. Army colonel from Connellsville, Pennsylvania. The views he expresses herein are not necessarily those of the U.S. Army.

Being an admirer of David Stolinsky’s work as it has previously appeared in the NEW OXFORD REVIEW, I am compelled to express my puzzlement with his article “‘Except Jews’: A Double Standard for Israel” (NOR, Oct. 2001). Several statements in the article provoke serious questions.

I was a specialist in Middle Eastern affairs for the U.S. Army some years ago, and while I’d certainly not call myself an expert, I believe I have enough knowledge to detect problems in certain of Stolinsky’s statements.

Statement 1 (by Stolinsky): “Many observers…seem to agree…that it is up to the Israelis to give up more of the West Bank than the 90-plus percent they have already yielded to the Palestinians, and in addition give up control of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.”

Question: How did Israel obtain the West Bank in the first place? Why is it considered occupied territory and not a part of Israel?


You have two options:

  1. Online subscription: Subscribe now to New Oxford Review for access to all web content at newoxfordreview.org AND the monthly print edition for as low as $38 per year.
  2. Single article purchase: Purchase this article for $1.95, for viewing and printing for 48 hours.

If you're already a subscriber log-in here.



Back to January 2002 Issue

Read our posting policy Add a comment
Be the first to comment on this story!