If a state defines its legitimacy on the premise of denying the indigenous people their right to live within it, then what choice do the indigenous people have but to delegitimize that state? To deny the Palestinians the right to fight for their right of return is to say they are not equal to Israeli Jews.

Dr. Nasser Barghouti, San Diego

The writer mentions the divestment of firms from the West Bank as potentially positive, as it may bring an end to the occupation. He also acknowledges his agreement with that aim. But there is a difference between refusing to fund the occupation and actively participating in the B.D.S. movement; the largest Dutch pension fund and the largest Danish bank are not followers of B.D.S. They, like many of us who support a two-state compromise, refuse to send money to an occupation that is detrimental to both Israel and the Palestinians. If Israel wants to be on the list of free and democratic countries, it should look to the advice of its friends, like Secretary of State Kerry, not to those who’d like to see it dismantled.

Nathan Hersh, Brooklyn, N.Y.

Mr. Cohen writes that the United Nations gave an “unambiguous mandate” in 1947 for a Jewish state. But that mandate came with specific borders based on where Jews resided in sufficient numbers to have a majority. Instead of retreating to these borders at the end of the 1948 war or allowing for a reconfiguration of boundaries based on population, Israel insisted on keeping the land it conquered, which included half the land that had been designated for an Arab state. With expanded territory, there was no way Israel could allow Palestinians to return and still be “Jewish and democratic.” The United Nations did not give a mandate for expanded borders, ethnic cleansing and mass expulsion. Allowing Palestinians to return is necessary for the healing of this conflict. A novel solution — two states with identical borders — would enable Palestinians to return and have self-determination, while allowing Israel to remain a Jewish state and haven for Jews. The two states would have equal power.

Esther Riley, Fairfax, Calif.

If right of return was world law, the Jews would come out way ahead, given how much land was taken from them in Europe and Russia, not to mention in Iran and North Africa.

Shelly B. Kulwin, Chicago

Thank you, Mr. Cohen, for labeling B.D.S. as anti-Semitic, as it denies the Jewish people the right to a national homeland. Of course, “progressive” leftists, Jewish or not, will vilify his arguments. But this article blows away the B.D.S.’s false humanitarian cover.

Rosalie Lieberman, Chicago

The writer says that of the three goals set by the B.D.S. movement, the first (ending the occupation) “is essential to Israel’s future,” the second (full equality for Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel) “is laudable,” but the third (the right of return for all Palestinian refugees) “equals the end of Israel as a Jewish state.” One of Israel’s Basic Laws, the Law of Return, guarantees automatic Israeli citizenship to any Jew living anywhere in the world, a provision that was not envisioned in the 1947 United Nations partition resolution, which provided for the creation of a state for Jews “resident” in Palestine. United Nations Resolution 194 and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which Israel accepted as a condition of United Nations membership, both establish the right of refugees to return to their homes.

Mr. Cohen’s embrace of full equality is insincere because he justifies an unequal law. Inequality and guarantees of ethnic/religious supremacy are endemic to the notion of a Jewish state. Such a state can never be democratic, because in a democracy the people are sovereign. The state belongs to all its citizens.