No headline

•Unwelcome national story was unnecessary

Whitefish did not have to blow up Richard Spencer’s rants to the national stage about his being a self-avowed white nationalist. The whole sorry episode has now metastasized into a national story, which should not have happened. There was no rational reason for someone to attack, or essentially blackmail, Richard Spencer’s parents over the son’s wacky beliefs. Richard’s beliefs are so far removed from 99 percent of our nation that he is, in the large scheme of things, irrelevant.

Of course Whitefish rejects Richard Spencer’s sewer of hate — however the Whitefish community’s complete over-reaction has caused itself to become entwined in an unwelcome national story (for instance, CNN coverage), centered around Richard Spencer. Richard Spencer to Whitefish is like a looney relative who occasionally stops at Coffee Traders to get a cup. Pay him as much mind.

Whitefish has higher priority things to do than to generate by its actions such unwanted national coverage, which is what essentially happened. The only winner seems to be Richard Spencer by getting him free coverage in the national press. Such over-reactions as this is what is dividing our country, rather than drawing us together.

Obviously Richard Spencer has a small following — let’s keep it small by not helping him get free publicity and to become a sympathetic figure. Now, as a result of over-reaction by community leaders, merchants are being targeted. Why? Solely because this sordid mess became the proverbial unnecessary national story. Of course, “Love Lives” in Whitefish, in the Flathead — who said it didn’t? Since it does, you don’t have to say it. —Mike Horn, Whitefish

­­————————————————

•UN did right thing in making demands about Israeli settlements

Last Friday, Dec. 23, the Security Council of the United Nations passed resolution 2334(2016). The resolution passed by a vote of 14-0, with the United States abstaining. Among the countries in favor were Britain, France, Russia, China, New Zealand, Australia and Senegal — that is, countries from all parts of the world. In item 2 of the resolution, the countries of the United Nations “…demand that Israel immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, and that it fully respect all of its legal obligations in this regard;”

This resolution is significant because this is practically the first time that the United States has not vetoed a Security Council Resolution that is critical of Israel.

The background to this resolution is as follows: Before 1967, East Jerusalem and the land between the Jordan River and the accepted eastern border of Israel (often referred to as “the West Bank”) was under the jurisdiction of Jordan. In June of that year Israeli initiated a war against Egypt, Jordan and Syria and in six days conquered that land. Since then, the West Bank has been under military occupation by Israeli forces. According to the Fourth Geneva Convention, countries are not allowed to acquire land in wars of conquest, military occupations must be short, and an occupying power cannot move its citizens into the occupied territory.

Presently Israel maintains control of around 90 percent of the West Bank, and since 1967 has moved half a million Israeli Jews into the West Bank, where 2.5 million Palestinians are being confined to less and less territory. The settlements have turned the occupied territories into an apartheid state, in which two populations live under different laws, dictated by the Israeli government; and these laws substantially favor the Israeli settler minority.

Anyone who stands on the side of justice should welcome the passage of this resolution. True, words on a piece of paper cannot by themselves deter an implacable government (a lesson we have re-learned many times recently). However, this resolution does give international leverage both for the implementation of a two-state solution for Palestinians and Israelis, and for a just and democratic existence for the Palestinian people now under military occupation. —Sam Neff, Whitefish

­­————————————————

•Spencer, ‘Love Lives Here’: Peas at opposite ends of the same pod

On the matter of neo-Nazi Richard Spencer and the “Love Lives Here” advocacy group, I am not a proponent for either side and I tend to think that it was primarily a non-issue and only became an issue when the Love Lives Here group made it an issue to draw attention to itself. In doing so, it elevated the notoriety of Mr. Spencer. That was a smart move, which apparently has backfired onto the Whitefish community. Either party can think or say whatever they want to about the other, but how about leaving the rest of us out of your quarrel!

While I am pretty certain that Spencer’s adherents are of the “alt-right” persuasion, whatever that supposedly means, I also suspect that the membership of the “Love Lives Here” organization is heavily populated with folks of a liberal progressive mindset. Each group seemingly is diametrically opposed to the other on most political issues, but when it comes to the issue of Jews and Israel, each group is weirdly aligned with each other more than they are opposites. The neo-Nazis make no bones about their attitudes toward Israel and Jews, but the liberal progressives tend to hide their own disdain for the Israeli state, Prime Minister Netanyahu and all things Jewish.

From all I have read about the Mideast in recent years, the American and European progressive socialist community is clearly slanted against Israel and is best illustrated by the very recent decision by the Obama administration to abstain on the U.N. vote on West Bank settlements, whereas the president-elect is clearly in favor of support for the Israeli nation. Seems to me, in an odd way, Spencer and “Love Lives Here” are both peas at opposite ends of the same pea pod. —Brad Nielsen, Whitefish