In "Hogan signs order prohibiting state business with firms that boycott Israel" (10/24/17), The Washington Post simplifies, and in effect distorts, what the goal of the "boycott, divest, and sanction" (BDS) movement is all about.  To the Washington Post, and Israel-haters, BDS is a Palestinian "response to Israel's occupation of the West Bank territory."

Taking a snapshot of history without including relevant context and data points is akin to describing America's bombing of Tokyo without bringing up Pearl Harbor.  BDS is a recent iteration of a continuous campaign against Israel and the Jews of the region, beginning even before Israel became a state.  A brief history to gain a basic understanding of this campaign starts with the 1929 Hebron Massacre of 67 Jews during Arab riots.  It continued with the attack of five neighboring Arab countries against Israel in Israel's War of Independence in 1948, followed by further attacks against Israel for the next twenty years, culminating with a pre-emptive strike by Israel, defeating Egypt, Syria, and Jordan in the lightning-quick Six-Day War of 1967.  Israel won the West Bank after being attacked from it by Jordan during that war.  Presenting it as The Washington Post did makes it appear that Israel took the West Bank for no apparent reason other than aggression.

Since the Six-Day War and the subsequent 1973 Arab war against Israel (the Yom Kippur war), the local Arabs (now known as Palestinians) have continued their war against Israel via other violent means (suicide bombings, knifings), political means (U.N. and International World Court solicitation of condemnation of Israel), and also economic means (BDS and other boycotts).  All of this has occurred with the goal of destroying Israel.  The Arab nations and Palestinians were unable to succeed militarily, and now they are pursuing political and economic tactics.

Congratulations to the Jewish community and Governor Hogan for standing up to this long-term battle and voting against BDS.  Shame on The Washington Post for its bias and lack of effort to understand the basic underpinnings of this conflict.