sarah
What I Saw at the Protest in Montpelier
To the Editor:
In carrying out Project 2025, President Donald Trump and his unelected accomplice Elon Musk have committed illegal and unconstitutional acts during the first two weeks of Trump’s second term as President. In essence, they are carrying out a coup that, if successful, will destroy our democratic tradition.
Their actions compelled me to join a demonstration Feb. 5 at the Vermont Statehouse, which sprang from the grassroots 50501 Movement — “50 states, 50 protests, 1 day.” Nationwide, thousands of citizens showed up to protest at state capitals. I joined around 500 fellow Vermonters in raising our voices in support of democracy, along with people of all ages.
Many held hand-lettered signs: “Democracy Dies in Silence,” “This is Not a Government, It’s a Dictatorship,” “Impeach Trump, Deport Musk,” … and “These Colors Don’t Run from Fascists,” featuring a rainbow flag.
I talked to a farmer who missed the protest’s start because he had to thaw out a water line to get water to his cows.
I listened to a young woman recite passages from the Constitution, beginning with “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
I didn’t see state Republican legislators standing in solidarity with us as free citizens of Vermont and the United States. I didn’t see Gov. Phil Scott (R) condemning the blatantly illegal and unconstitutional transgressions of his political party’s highest official.
There will be more demonstrations. I urge you to turn out for them and peacefully but forcefully state your objections to the tyrannical, cruel actions of an out-of-control president and his enablers. Please tell your legislative representatives to do the same.
Charles Fergus, Lyndon
Vote No on Article 13
To the Editor:
I’m writing as a non-Jew to urge all Montpelier voters to reject Article 13 when voting on March 4. I mistakenly signed a petition that helped to put it on the ballot. I was under the impression that Article 13 was a statement supporting human rights for Palestinians. I didn’t read the full petition, to my shame. Of course, I agree that Palestinians should have human rights. But the second half of the petition could be — and has been by our local Jewish community — interpreted as anti-Semitic, as it calls Israel an apartheid and colonialist state. Having worked with many Palestinians when I lived in Kuwait in the 1980s, and having enjoyed a government-sponsored tour of Israel aimed at liberal American professors in 2012, I have some first-hand experience of both peoples and Israel as viewed by Jewish Israelis. Israel is an impressive accomplishment and troubled nation, both.
More Israelis were out in the streets protesting Netanyahu’s power grab than supported his terrible decisions after Oct. 7. The Abraham Accords, which left Palestinians completely out of plans for the region’s future, helped provide an excuse for the horror that Hamas inflicted. It is not fair to tar all a nation’s citizens with the actions of its worst extremists. This is a very troubled region of the world with longstanding issues that will not be solved by unrealistic calls for disinvestment, however much one hates war, as I do. And Jews everywhere will always feel vulnerable because of the Holocaust. Instead, let’s declare ourselves a loving community that embraces all its residents. Put an article like that on the ballot, and I’ll gladly vote for it. Meanwhile, let’s support our Jewish friends and neighbors by voting ‘NO’ on Article 13.
Cindy Bogard, Montpelier
Vote No on Article 13
To the Editor:
Montpelier residents recently learned that the “Montpelier Ballot Includes Pro-Palestine Resolution” (in “Montpelier’s Town Meeting Roundup,” by Phil Dodd in The Bridge’s Feb. 5 issue), which asks the mayor and city council to “join others in working to end all support to Israel’s apartheid regime, settler colonialism, and military occupation.” Similar resolutions are on the ballots in five other towns. The resolution was also before the Burlington City Council, which declined to place it on its ballot because it was divisive.
I am opposed to Article 13 for many reasons. First, it ignores the complex geopolitical history of the Middle East, including Hamas’ invasion of Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, when it killed 1,200 people and took 250 people as hostages. Second, Article 13 singles out and demonizes Israel, ignoring not only the actions of Hamas, but the many other areas of conflict in the world where people are being victimized and killed. Third, Article 13 ignores that Israel is a small democracy surrounded by much larger Arab nations. Israel’s population of less than 10 million people includes over 2 million Arab Israelis, who work alongside Jewish Israelis.
Fourth, Article 13 is creating divisiveness in our community. It implicates Montpelier’s small, Jewish minority population, making some of us feel vulnerable and unsafe. In June 2023, and again in early January 2025, swastikas were painted at Montpelier High School. For Jews, a swastika is an alarming symbol as it reminds us of the Nazis’ murder of 6 million Jews.
I ask that community members work together in advocating for open dialogue regarding the conflict in the Middle East. Let’s put our energy behind working together in peaceful ways, not in demonizing one another. Let’s pledge to create a stronger, peaceful community for all Montpelier residents. Vote ‘NO’ to Article 13.
Phyllis Rubenstein, Montpelier
Build Bridges, Not Wedges
To the Editor:
On March 4, Montpelier voters will consider Article 13 instructing the mayor and city council to adopt a “pledge to join others in working to end all support to Israel’s apartheid regime, settler colonialism, and military occupation.” We urge you to vote “no” on this brazen attempt to pull our city into the anti-Israel movement.
Why do we oppose this measure? First, the multi-generational conflict over the creation of the state of Israel is far too complex to be addressed by Vermont towns on Town Meeting Day. Second, Article 13 is one-sided, ignoring the history of Arab attempts to obliterate Israel, including Hamas’ brutal attack on Israelis and other residents on Oct. 7, 2023. During that attack, Hamas fighters killed peace activists in their homes, slaughtered young people at an outdoor music festival, and brutalized women before killing them. And they took about 250 hostages. Finally, our mayor and city council have enough local challenges without spending time on foreign policy. Simply put, this is not a local issue, and we should not be asking our elected officials to spend time on it.
This ballot measure is part of an attempt by a group of individuals to sow division in our Vermont communities over the emotional issue of the existence of a Jewish state. Our experience is that the language in the last line of Article 13 promotes hate toward Jews in our community. At a time when this country is facing changes from Washington affecting the liberties of Americans of all backgrounds, we need to build bridges within our community, not drive wedges. Let’s vote “no.”
Paul Carnahan, Eve Jacobs-Carnahan, Laury Saligman, Elise Annes, Jessica Ettinger, Phyllis Rubenstein, Rabbi Tobie Weisman, Joyce Kahn, and David Fried
Pay Attention
To the Editor:
On Feb. 4 , Gov. Phil Scott was asked about being more outspoken about what the Trump administration is doing. His reply: “I think it’s important for people to exercise their voice, their disdain, their apprehension, and their anger. In some ways I feel that the President is fueled by what we’re seeing outside. He uses that to his advantage,” Scott mused. “But we have another 47 months ahead of us under this administration so we can’t sustain this and we can’t be outraged at every single thing that happens. So we just want to take a measured approach.” This came from an interview with Pat Bradley, on WAMC Northeast Public Radio.
How is this “measuring” done? Which outrage would you have us ignore? If Trump does something outrageous (and we believe that can be translated into “illegal” or “unconstitutional,”) we should be outraged. We should reserve our outrage for … what?
Many of us feel that in the face of his authoritarian and oligarchic tendencies, we can easily sustain our opposition, which can take many forms, and continue to respond with outrage to his outrageous acts, if necessary, every single one. Hopefully his supporters will realize sooner or later that his positions are founded on misrepresentations and outright lies.
“Authoritarians win when we stop paying attention …” U.S. Rep. Becca Balint
Bob and Deborah Messing, Montpelier
Hark the Angry Angels Sing
To the Editor:
Protest Rally, Feb. 5, 2025
Hark, the Angry Angels sing
Furious at the Wannabe King
Overcome by a sulfurous smell
Past evil odors emerging from Hell
Remind us all of the son of a bitch
who murdered thousands at Auschwitz
Now there’s raging about other genes
Corrupting us by nefarious schemes
Not to worry about the coming domino
We’ll lock ‘em up at Guantanamo.
The Heavenly angels that used to sing
Hold their noses over what the future brings.
Kim Cheney, Montpelier
Letters to the editor represent the opinions of the authors and do not reflect the opinions of The Bridge. Submit your letter by email to editor@montpelierbridge.com. Preference is given to submissions by those who live in central Vermont, should not exceed 300 words in length, and may be edited for brevity and accuracy.
