Once again a Jewish writer (Tanya Gold, 17 January) complaining about antisemitism deliberately ignores the distinction between false accusations against Jews over the centuries and justified criticism of the Jewish takeover of Palestine, a land that in living memory had a population that was 90% Arab, including my grandparents. Should the victim of a crime keep quiet because false accusations have been made against the criminal in the past? Let it be said loud and clear – it is entirely possible to criticise Israel without being antisemitic. To deny this is to argue against freedom of speech.
Karl Sabbagh
Newbold on Stour, Warkwickshire
• I was horrified by the antisemitic game-playing on an LSE ski trip recently and pay tribute to the solitary Jewish student who got a bloody nose for objecting. My own Jewish nostrils are very sensitive to any whiff of antisemitism and I never smelled even a hint of it during my LSE years. Tanya Gold is right to fear that this event indicates greater acceptability today of antisemitic discourse, though, unlike her, I regard John Galliano's "non-murderous" antisemitism as a nasty manifestation of this trend too. Yet I am equally bothered by Tanya's elision of criticism of the Israeli state with such discourse.
The "Jewish state" does not merely "defend itself" – it occupies and steals Palestinian land. It is not antisemitic towards anyone (including many Israeli Jews) to say so. I didn't heckle at the Israeli Philharmonic Proms performance, but I don't think they should have been invited: they are actively engaged in supporting the occupation when, in their own words, they play "special concerts for IDF soldiers at their outposts".
I don't know anyone who demands "that Jews denounce Israel" to achieve political acceptability. Yet I have frequently been viciously abused by those fellow Jews who object when I ask Israel to cease betraying Judaism's historic humanitarian traditions.
Naomi Wayne
(Law student, LSE 1968-71), London
• I am appalled that the London Philharmonic Orchestra maintains its unjust decision to suspend Sarah Streatfeild and others (Report, 13 January) based on the fact that these players, in their letter of protest to the BBC, have signed themselves as Name, (instrument LPO). If the LPO's powers that be felt any public clarification was needed that these four musicians were expressing their personal view, this could have been easily done. But who are the powers that be?
The LPO is a so-called self-governing London orchestra but, in my experience, this does not mean the collective voice of the musicians carries much weight. I suspect the powers that be are the manager and members of the board. Orchestral players in self-governing orchestras can often be blamed for their passivity and consequent loss of their voice, but in this case I can't believe they support such treatment of colleagues. It would be very honourable if the principal conductor, Vladimir Jurowsky, and past LPO principal conductors Kurt Masur and Bernard Haitink were to make representations to the LPO to reinstate and compensate the players. More meaningful would be for the LPO's musicians to collectively make these demands for their colleagues by not playing another note until they are met.
Peter Thomas
Ex-leader, Philharmonia and City of Birmingham Symphony orchestras