Dear Mum: email from an Israeli prison cell on August 5, 2009

“We politely make it impossible for them to live here.”—An Israeli tour guide
“Demolishing someone's home is not 'polite,' cretin! ”—THT
Sarah Haynes, a volunteer with Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions, recently wrote this group email to her friends and family in Australia. Her missive has not been edited except for the THT "advisory" directly above and minor corrections of spelling and punctuation.

Not all tours end in arrest—but mine did.

I am volunteering with the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions (ICAHD). This is an Israeli human rights group with a focus on house demolitions both in solidarity with the Palestinians who suffer the devastation of losing their home, but also to debunk the Israeli myths about [these] actions [being] based on security: Destroying peoples homes can have no security justification—instead it is a tool in what the convener of the group, Jeff Halper, describes as the “matrix of control”.

For a detailed account of the strategy of settlement, this article by ICAHD is pretty exhaustive.

As I mentioned in an earlier email there is a hotly contested area in East Jerusalem called Sheihk Jarrah—it has even made it onto Obama’s radar, with specific mention. There is a group of fanatical setters who want to create a new settlement complex in this neighbourhood, which means first expelling all the Palestinian residents, taking over their homes, then eventually razing the area for this new settlement.

Every time settlers move into a neighbourhood [it] means the Army also moves in to protect them, [after which] Palestinians are restricted from moving into the area, and the flavour of the neighbourhood of course changes. This is already a heartbreaking situation for Palestinians whose national aspirations both depend on East Jerusalem as capital for any future economically viable state, but also whose very cultural desire is tied up in this city.

The other point is that every home taken away from Palestinians is one less home available for Palestinians—not just in that neighbourhood, but in toto. They do not have the option to buy somewhere else in Jerusalem or Israel so they become homeless, or [have to] squish in with over-crowded relatives. In some cases, as per the policy design, they will give up their Jerusalem residency and privileges and job opportunities, and instead move to the West Bank. As my Israeli tour guide said yesterday, “We politely make it impossible for them to live here”.

So. As the tour was almost finished, we got a message that settlers were in the process of occupying a home in this neighbourhood, which we were just about to pass. We jumped off and proceeded to the house (with a little difficulty as the neighbourhood, unlike the new settlements, is still somewhat like a refugee camp and does not really have addresses).

The home in question is claimed to have been bought by American bingo centre millionaire Irwin Moskowitz, who is integral to the fanatical settler movement (see this article by Israeli peace group Gush Shalom). The sale is disputed by the locals who have a court case pending. This means the settlers should not take any action until the court has made a ruling on the “sale”, but they have tried to move in on several occasions since the legally protected woman living there died recently.

This time they had turned up with the police and when we got there they were already taking to the house with sledge hammers, and putting up a tin fence (not actually demolishing, apparently just renovating). Neighbours watched helplessly. The police are notorious for helping the settlers, and often pretend not to know about court orders until they are presented with a new emergency injunction when a demolition has already started—then they declare the house structurally unsafe and the demolition continues on this new logic!

This was the first time I had observed a demolition, and it really made me so sad. I could feel my heart in my chest, and the tightness of my throat. I wanted to cry with the Palestinians watching the process from the sidelines.

… six of us from ICAHD and ISM (International Solidarity Movement) sat down at the front of the alley way and linked arms to block the path of a small earth mover. After about 20 minutes the police told us to move, [but] we didn’t move, so they bodily removed us one at a time. They were very efficient. Five of us were put in a police van and taken to the station (four internationals, one Israeli).

So far, pretty normal Israeli police response to non-violent action here. We expected to be held for a couple of hours and then released on condition not to return to the area for a few weeks. A lawyer paid by the [Jewish organization] Rabbis for Human Rights arrived and began negotiating for our release.

Three more ISM activists arrived. They had been arrested two hours after us, for taking photos. They had walked into the area without being stopped, took some photos, the settlers told them not to, they asked why, the police told them not to, they asked why, the police told [them] to leave, they started to leave, [then] they were arrested.

Meanwhile we were separated and interrogated. Some people got good cop, some got bad cop. Israeli girl of course got a major grilling, [was] told she had ruined her life with an arrest, [was] asked why she is a self-hating Jew etc. etc. She had to go through a similar spiel with pretty much every single cop, guard, driver, gaol officer, and paper-work processor we encountered, and then again after [each] shift change. Some just ranted at her, several actually seemed to listen to her perspective.

I got bored cop. I confirmed my name and nationality (he had my passport, it was moot), and then for each question I answered “I have no response for that question”—ranging from “what’s your mobile number here?” to “did you come to Israel to disrupt the police?”. He told me I was held on suspicion of disrupting the peace and hindering police (I think—his English wasn’t great). Then he asked with a sigh if I would sign a document about our interview, I said I wouldn’t, as it was in Hebrew and I didn’t understand it.

After interrogations we were eventually put in a holding area with the police lockers, and were allowed to talk to each other. Our lawyer asked if we would agree to release on [the] condition that we not enter the area for month; we said we would if ICAHD supported it, which they did … then nothing. Apparently the chief decided during these negotiations that we were being held overnight and our lawyer left.

Several people had their phone confiscated at the beginning, but I still had mine and had credit; it was our link outside.

Then a new, mean cop came into our holding area and yelled at me for playing Solitaire. The Israeli girl translated this as “NO! you don’t play cards here, this is not a fun fair. Would you play cards in the police station in Australia?”… Well, firstly the police would not have already held me for five hours, and if they had, and I had cards, well yes—I would play with them!

When we received a phone call he really spat the dummy and yelled at the other cops “What kind of a police station are you running here? You let them keep their phones all this time?” So that was that … my phone gone, I was now in communication silence. Sorry to panic my boyfriend with my sudden dropping off the radar there!

In the final analysis, I believe the court found us guilty of something along the lines of obstructing the peace and we are not to go within 500m of Sheikh Jarrah for three weeks—if we are caught there we will be deported and Rabbis for Human Rights will pay NIS 5000 (AUD$2000 – more than they can afford). The prosecutor wanted us to be banned from the whole of Jerusalem and be forbidden from entering Israel for “some time” but our lawyer was very good at presenting case law from right-wing demonstrations where the perpetrators who threw rocks at Palestinians were only banned from the precise location (not a whole neighbourhood) and only for 15 days.

She also made the prosecutor look a fool, as he could not supply any examples of us being violent, and he could not demonstrate that police were obstructed, as the work was completed on the day as planned.

The judge berated the police for holding us overnight which is good for precedent.

The earthmover did go in and do its business, but the media attention meant that the court injunction was rushed and the settlers must now stop (or at least the police will stop protecting them). Last night settlers tried to evict another family in the neighbourhood. There were internationals there, a group was mobilised to attend (not me) and media arrived. The police, with their recent admonition and the pressure of a US delegation apparently visiting the area yesterday, told the settlers to leave. A stay of execution, and a small victory.

Back to me! Why were we held for so long (24 hours till the court case, and then another three until we were released, then another hour until we got our stuff back)?

Either the police chief was in a bad mood. Or they were trying to scare internationals from taking action, for fear of spending a night in gaol. In which case they failed because gaol is only marginally skankier than my hostel and is mostly just boring. In any case the judge has pretty much put paid to that precedent for a while.

I called my parents who sounded … annoyed. I had promised I wouldn’t go seeking trouble and here I am getting tear-gassed on Friday, and arrested on Sunday. But in neither case did I feel that I was in an unusual or dangerous situation. This is the normal functioning of the Occupation. Apologies for those who were worried about me, but really I am fine, and being safe.
Letter to the Editors of the Montreal Gazette, August 15, 2009, by Mike Burch

In his opinion piece “Gays take a queer stance on Israel” Gil Troy admonished gays, “Calling yourself Queers Against Israeli Apartheid defies logic, perverts history, and distorts priorities. It reflects such hatred against Israel that maligning Zionism overrides all other causes, including gay liberation; it eclipses all identities including one's sexual identity.”

Who can take such apocalyptic nonsense seriously? Nelson Mandela, a black heterosexual victim of South African apartheid, is able to sympathize with Palestinian victims of Israeli apartheid without losing his sexual identity, so why the incomprehensible double standard for gays? They know perfectly well what they’ve experienced and can thus empathize intelligently with Palestinians without risking their immortal souls (or whatever Troy is trying to suggest).

But perhaps Troy is telling us something very important by protesting too much; can it be that he can’t afford for anyone to closely examine the apartheid system he defends so vociferously? Why is it a “hate crime” or a “self hate crime” to stand for the human rights of Palestinians? In Israel, Jews who empathize with Palestinians are called “self haters.” Now Troy has attempted the same nefarious trick on gays, while making himself sound like the second coming of Chicken Little.

No, the sky will not fall if we question Israel, or stand in solidarity with Palestinians. What we have just seen is the Achilles Heel of all anti-Palestinian propaganda. Because Palestinians have been denied human rights and justice for sixty years, in violation of international law and the basic precepts of civilization, the focus must always be diverted from human rights and justice. The simplest way to accomplish this bit of misdirection is to slur the character and motives of anyone who criticizes Israel. Troy is, in effect, playing a shell game with human rights. We all know everyone should have the same basic human rights, including of course the Palestinians, but if Troy can somehow convince us that we must “hate” the Jews (or ourselves) if we so much as question Israel, hopefully (for him) our eyes will lose sight of the goal and become confused.

Troy’s hysteria is warranted, in a way, because today people all around the world are seeing the plight of the Palestinians and asking simple questions: How can such things happen to millions of innocent women, children and grandparents who are clearly not “terrorists”? Why are the people least likely to be “terrorists” suffering the most? Why are little girls and boys being herded inside walled corrals, like animals, to be spat on and cursed by soldiers toting machine guns? Why are humanitarians, including Jews of good conscience, traveling to Palestine and using their bodies as human shields to protect Palestinian farmers and their families from the Jewish “settlers” who keep stealing their land, and from the Israeli soldiers who protect the robber barons rather than their victims?

Jimmy Carter, a white heterosexual, has written a book opposing Israeli apartheid. He recently visited Gaza and said the Palestinians there are being treated more like animals than human beings, pointing out that small children who have lived through hell on earth have been denied crayons and coloring books, ostensibly as “security risks.” Has his sexual identity somehow been “eclipsed,” whatever that means? Desmond Tutu, a heterosexual Nobel Peace Prize winner like Carter and Mandela, has also taken a strong public stand against Israeli apartheid. Carter is a Baptist deacon, Tutu an Anglican archbishop, Mandela a Methodist. Have their religious identities also been “eclipsed,” because they oppose people of one race herding people of another race inside “security fences” twice as high as the Berlin Wall, then slamming the gates shut on innocents?

Carter, Mandela and Tutu don’t “hate” Israel, or themselves. I’m sure they have nothing against the dream of Zionism as expressed by the Hebrew prophets: a dream of chesed [mercy, compassion, lovingkindness] and social justice. I understand the dream of Zionism myself, because I’d like to bring my family together, so that we can all live close to each other. But in order for me to make my dream come true without it becoming a nightmare for my neighbors, I have to buy the land I need at prices they agree to, while obeying all prevailing zoning laws. I can’t steal the land and arbitrarily change the laws to suit myself, as Israelis have done for the last sixty years and continue to do to this day. This is why the Obama administration recently said “no” to “natural growth” of illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank (i.e., because there is no such thing as “natural growth” when it involves one family stealing another family’s land while subverting justice).

More and more, people around the world oppose not the dream of Zionism but the current implementation of Zionism. We don’t oppose Israeli apartheid because we “hate” Israel, Zionism or the Jewish people. I’m an editor and publisher of Holocaust poetry, not an anti-Semite. (And indeed most Palestinians are Semites.) People like me oppose Israeli apartheid because we care about the Palestinians and want them to have the same human rights we enjoy ourselves, and because we realize that world peace remains impossible as long as Palestinians remain victims of apartheid. We also realize that the fates of our children and grandchildren are closely linked to the fates of Palestinian children in this ever-shrinking world. So we stand for the rights of Palestinians out of human compassion and enlightened self-interest.

If we want to avoid future events like 9-11 and wars like those raging in Afghanistan and Iraq, we must end the plight of the Palestinians by establishing peace through justice, because the only other option is violence. We Americans learned the hard way that people who are denied justice will always resist strenuously and rightfully so. Now how about giving all non-heterosexuals completely equal rights as well, with no “fudging”?

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is an open letter written by Bleu Copas, former Army Sergeant and Arab Linguist.

Infalli-BULL is an open letter by Mike Burch, which points out that to this day the God of the Bible has never announced the creation or purpose of a place called "hell." How can the Pope be "infallible" if he condemns people to an "eternal hell" that was never mentioned to Adam, Eve, Cain, Noah, Abraham, Lot, Moses, or a long line of Hebrew prophets? Obviously hell did not exist at any time during the Old Testament days, but how could an all-wise God forget to mention the creation and purpose of hell to anyone in the New Testament as well?

Dear Mike Burch . . .

I just read your Heresy Hearsay page and suddenly realized what a horrible religion Christianity is. Thanks so much for opening my eyes! (I had been out for an extended lunch and didn’t realize how dismal things had become down there.) It's a shame "grace" is being bottled and sold like cheap perfume. The idea that I would save Christians by "grace" and send Gandhi and Einstein to an "eternal hell" would be laughable if so many people didn't make it the basis of their "religion." Do they really believe I'm such an unjust Ogre?

Sincerely,
God

P.S. Do you know Ratzinger/Benedict's phone number? It seems to be unlisted in heaven's directory. But then none of the Protestant evangelists are listed here either. They all seem to be worshipping the Other Guy.

Questions for General Petraeus, circa 2009-2010, by Mike Burch

My name is Mike Burch. I’m an editor and publisher of Holocaust Poetry. Here are my questions:

Atrocities like American slavery, the Trail of Tears, the Holocaust, South African apartheid and the Palestinian Nakba obviously occur because nations fail to establish fair laws and just courts that protect the rights of all human beings under their aegis, equally. Wouldn’t the U.S. do better to encourage nations like Iraq and Israel to establish fair laws and just courts, than to pour hundreds of billions of dollars in financial aid and advanced weapons into one, while spending trillions of dollars to invade the other? What do you think of a "Reagan Doctrine" that the U.S. should use the power of our economy and only minimal, appropriate uses of military force, to encourage non-democratic regimes to reform from within?

Robert McNamara recently admitted that the basic premise of Vietnam War was fallacious. Obviously, all Asia did not fall to communism just because the South Vietnamese government fell. Isn’t it true that the basic premise of the so-called "war against terrorism" is also fallacious, since Al-Qaida has only a few hundred active militants, and no navy, air force or any ability to invade or overthrow any Western nation, much less the United States? Isn’t it true that our navy is larger than the next 13 largest navies in the world combined, and that our navy and air force could easy repel any attack against the United States? How can terrorist organizations with only a few hundred foot soldiers "conquer the world"?

Does our military policy in the Middle East make any sense? Our navy is larger than the next 13 largest navies in the world combined, so no terrorist organization can possibly invade, much less "conquer" the United States. If the only real threat terrorist organizations pose to the United States is a nuclear attack, since we have thousands of highly accurate nuclear weapons, why not bring our troops home and inform nations harboring terrorist regimes that if we’re attacked, we’ll retaliate in kind, ensuring their destruction? The first nuclear attack by terrorists would be the last. Why not bring our troops home and rely on Mutually Assured Destruction, since the only real threat to Western civilization is a nuclear war in which we have an overwhelming advantage?

Isn’t it true that were are waging two fruitless wars needlessly? The men who attacked us on 9-11 did so primarily for two reasons: because they empathized with the plight of the Palestinian people, and because they despise U.S. interference in the Middle East (primarily to secure cheap oil). But the price of oil has only soared, and the Palestinians are human beings who are entitled to equal human rights and the protection of fair laws and fair courts. What "strategic goals" are we accomplishing? Why not bring our troops home and simply pay the going price for oil, while requiring Israel to treat the Palestinians like human beings?

German soldiers who invaded Poland and Czechoslovakia were, of course, highly patriotic and only following orders. They marched to stirring national anthems with tears welling in their eyes, willing to die for the honor of the homeland they loved so passionately. But their government was, of course, not acting honorably. Should they have followed orders, or should they have used their brains? Should the generals who led them like sheep to the slaughter, perhaps, have spoken the truth in public, even if they risked losing a pretty insignia or two?

I am a patriotic American. I am also a father who loves his son. Before I would trust my son’s life to any general, I would want to know whether that general truly and absolutely believes the defense of his country requires my son’s life. I don’t for a minute believe that a handful of two-bit terrorists are capable of invading and conquering the United States. Do you? Why, then, should a father like me entrust the life of his son to a general like you? (I realize this question seems harsh and probably unfair. But human lives are precious. The lives of American boys should not be squandered so that rich Israeli Jews can abuse destitute Palestinians and continually steal their land. The lives of American boys should not be squandered so rich American companies can have "secure" supplies of "inexpensive" oil, especially when the price of oil has only soared due to our government’s unbelievable folly. Before I send my son to risk his life and die in some godforsaken backwater like Vietnam or Afghanistan, I should know that my government is acting wisely, in the best interests of Americans. But I know this is not the case. I have to believe that you know it too. The Vietnam war was waged on false premises. Now the "war against terrorism" is being waged on false premises. Once again American boys are dying needlessly under the command of generals like you. They have the courage to risk their lives, before they have even had the chance to live. Can you, who have had the chance to live a full life, risk answering this question in pubic? Do you have even a fraction of their courage? Probably not. You will probably keep sending American boys to die in wars you don’t believe in yourself. If you do believe in these wars, you must be mad, like Hitler’s generals. So I believe my question, however harsh, is fair.)

Letter to the Montreal Gazette, August 13, 2009, by Mike Burch

Is Thomas L. Friedman overly optimistic ("Surprise, surprise: Life in the West Bank is getting better")? There are far more than "41" military checkpoints in the West Bank. According to a UN report, there were 528 checkpoints and other obstacles such as roadblocks in the West Bank in 2006, and the overall number was increasing by up to 40% per year. According to Israel’s Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs—Occupied Palestinian Territories, there are over 600 military checkpoints and other obstacles in the West Bank. During the OCHA reporting period that ended in April 2008, while 103 such obstacles were removed, 144 more were added. If Israel closed some of the 41 checkpoints Friedman mentioned, that hardly constitutes closing a large percentage of all the checkpoints and obstacles in the West Bank. Therefore Friedman’s presentation of the facts seems misleading, at best.

Palestinian mothers in labor and their unborn babies are dying in ambulances because they can’t reach nearby hospitals. Whether the impediment is an Israeli soldier armed with a machine gun, a wall twice as high as the Berlin Wall, or a block of concrete erected in the middle of a road, the results can unfortunately be the same: the suffering and deaths of innocents. At least a soldier might possibly be reasoned with. But how can a mother in labor argue with a gigantic wall or a block of concrete?

Yes, any breath of peace in the West Bank is welcome. But no, we cannot afford to become overly excited about prospects brightening for a few Palestinian businessmen when the lives of so many innocents are at stake. Jimmy Carter recently visited Gaza, an enclave of 1.5 million human souls who have been cut off from the rest of the world by the Israeli military. During his visit Carter said the Palestinians there are being treated more like animals than human beings, pointing out that small children who have suffered through hell on earth have been denied crayons and coloring books as "security risks."

As long as men like Friedman say the end of the Israeli occupation of Palestine is "not going to happen," perhaps on the presumption that the economic and "security" interests of Israel trump the human rights of Palestinians, we will live in a very dangerous world where events like 9-11 are likely to trigger wars like the ones in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Hitler and his goons arbitrarily decided that the economic and "security" interests of Germany trumped the human rights of Jews, Gypsies, Slavs and everyone of the "wrong" race and creed. I am an American editor and publisher of Holocaust poetry who has worked closely with Jewish Holocaust survivors to strenuously oppose such thinking. I hope Americans and Canadians will consider the "big picture." The big picture has always been human rights. Would Americans and Canadians stand for our mothers and children being denied access to hospitals when their lives were at stake? Would we allow our children to be spat on and cursed on their way to school, by soldiers with raised machine guns? Why do we allow Palestinians to be treated so despicably, and expect them to be content with less than basic human rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? An American slave might have welcomed a cup of water and respite from the lash after a day of back-breaking labor, but his "happiness" would have been relative to his suffering and degradation. Has Friedman adopted the perspective of a "benevolent" overseer? Should we?


Letter to The Tennessean, January 20, 2010, by Mike Burch

According to Monday’s Tennessean, Christopher McBride of Nashville Christian School said that Christians "know" the theory of evolution is "false." While I defend McBride’s freedom of speech, as a Christian who has studied the Bible for many years, I strongly disagree with him.

The evidence that evolution has occurred on both "micro" and "macro" levels is irrefutable. The evidence of fossils and DNA cannot be denied.

Scientists have extracted DNA from the bones of Neanderthals, and their DNA is 99.5% identical to human DNA. And yet the DNA of modern human beings shows no evidence that our human ancestors ever bred with Neanderthals. The Occam’s Razor solution is simple: modern humans and Neanderthals evolved from a common ancestor, then after their evolutionary paths forked, they either found each other repulsive and chose not to mate, or they were unable to produce offspring together. In either case, the existence of another branch of human evolution is irrefutable. Neanderthals co-existed with human beings for an extended period of time. They were far more intelligent than other animals. They mastered fire. They showed the ability to "plan ahead" by creating hand axes and other tools. Their brains were as big as ours. They were much closer to human beings than they were to chimpanzees and other primates. But they were not modern human beings, or even "kissing cousins."

What McBride may have meant to say is that the theory of evolution cannot fully explain the origins of the universe and life, which would be true. But Darwin’s theory does not claim to explain how life originated. It explains how life evolves. And life on earth obviously does evolve. We now know that human beings are evolving faster now than in the past. Scientists recently reported that the human male Y chromosome continues to evolve at a rapid pace.

And human beings are quite obviously much taller than they were just a few hundred years ago . . .

The great warriors of the Roman empire stood a hair over five foot tall. They were midgets compared to us.

Anyone who visits a medieval castle with an armory can easily see that the knights of yore were tiny compared to modern humans. Richard the Lionheart was considered a "giant" in his day, but he was only six foot tall.

I’m six-foot-two. When I stayed at a house in England that was around 350 years old, I had to bend over when entering the house because the doors were only six feet high. When I took a bath, my feet extended a foot beyond the bathtub. I would have been considered a giant just a few hundred years ago.

In my own life, I have noticed how much taller girls are, than when I was a boy.

During the millions of years of his evolution, man has constantly grown taller. Anyone who examines the fossil evidence can see this. And this evolution continues today. And this makes perfect sense, because evolution has designed animals to grow in size when sufficient food is available. During the times when food was most plentiful on earth, dinosaurs and mammals like mastodons and giant sloths grew to humongous sizes. But each time an ice age or other natural disaster occurred and food became scarce, the animals shrank in size.

If food becomes scarce in Africa tomorrow, mice will have a better chance of surviving than elephants. This is just the simple "common sense" of evolution, which always favors the life forms best adapted to their living conditions. When food is plentiful, "big wins." When food is scarce, being small has its advantages.

Brain scientists now know that our brains are continuing to evolve. To deny the clear evidence of evolution is silly. Until around 10,000 years ago human beings had made very little technological process. Our ancestors had used the same hand axes and rudimentary tools for hundreds of thousands of years. Then something extraordinary happened. Something in the human genome "clicked" and we suddenly became much more intelligent as a species. There was obviously a mutation.

I own a computer software company. Over the last 30 years I have written thousands of computer programs, which are pure logic. No human being born more than 10,000 years ago could begin to do what I have done with my brain. I don’t say this to brag, merely to make a point. There is a tremendous difference between the intellectual capabilities of a Neanderthal or Cro-Magnon and a modern scientist or computer programmer.

Does McBride believe it would have taken a race of Einsteins hundreds of thousands of years to do more than bang and scrape flint into hand axes? Obviously, something amazing happened in human evolution around 10,000 years ago. The evidence is irrefutable. Before, we were savages. Soon thereafter, we invented civilization, agriculture, writing, algebra, geometry, calculus, physics, philosophy, etc.

The Bible is one result of this great leap in human evolution. But unfortunately a lot of it was produced by barbarians, and this is simple to prove.

Like many Christians, McBride probably bases what he "knows" on the Bible. But the Bible is not a reliable witness for either science or morality Those of us who have actually read and studied the Bible honestly, with clear minds, know that the Bible is far from "infallible." Much of it was written by violent nomadic barbarians who justified killing women and children by saying, like the Son of Sam, "God told me to do it." Jesus Christ was as different from Moses, Joshua and King David as night is from day. The failure of so many Christians to read the Bible and be honest about what it actually says, keeps them from being able to teach students things that make sense.

Just look at the conclusions that have been drawn by Christians in the past, because they relied on the Bible:

Christians once "knew" the earth was flat. But Columbus proved them wrong.

Christians once "knew" the earth was the center of the universe. But NASA proved them wrong.

Christians once "knew" whites were superior to blacks because blacks were the "children of Ham" who had been designated by God to serve as slaves. But of course they were wrong.

Every time Christians have accepted the Bible carte blanche, without thinking critically, they have been misled into Crusades, Inquisitions, slavery, witch hunts and treating women like chattels. The terrible errors of the past spring from this strange idea that nomadic barbarians who slaughtered women and children (and all too often their own women and children) were "men of God."

There’s an old saying: "The proof is in the pudding." Well, then the Bible is proof that Moses, Joshua, Caleb and King David were not "men of God" because they massacred defenseless women and children. It is disturbing and shocking that conservative Christians call evil good, anytime a cretin says "God made me do it." How can we trust such gullible people with the education of children? Shouldn’t we expect them to be able to read, reason, and think critically? When will they learn to "rightly divide" the Bible?

Christians once "knew" the Genesis account of creation was "true," but today modern science has proven the Genesis account to be incorrect. We now know (because there are distant stars whose light is reaching the earth after millions of years in transit) that the universe is vastly older that the 6,000 years recorded in the Bible. If the universe was only a few thousand years old, we would be unable to see any star more than 6,000 light years away. This is simple physics.

We also have the evidence of geologic formations like the Grand Canyon, which was obviously formed over many millions of years. No one with a functional brain can possibly believe the timeline established by the Bible. How can conservative Christians account for the fact that cities like Jericho and Catal Hoyuk predate the time of Adam by thousands of years, and that the tools and skeletons left by our less civilized ancestors predate any possible Adam/Eve scenario by hundreds of thousands of years?

Obviously the early stages of Bible history are not accurate. The writers of the Bible had no idea how long humans had been on the planet before the first cities were built. And then they missed the construction of the first cities by several thousand years.

And why are there no descriptions of ice ages in the Bible, since human beings obviously lived through ice ages? Why are there no descriptions of giant asteroids wiping out nearly all life on earth? The answer is simple: these things predate the writing of the Bible, and the men who told the stories that became the Bible did not get the accounts from God, but made them up. At some point the accounts do become more or less historical, but not in the very early going. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that all the Bible is a direct revelation of an all-wise God. An all-wise God would have gotten the sequence of creation events right . . .

The Genesis account gets the order of creation wrong. We now know the correct order: the oldest (most distant stars) first, then the newer stars like our sun, then the planets (because the heavier elements that comprise planets are formed in the hearts of stars), then the moon (which could not orbit the earth until the earth had sufficient mass to hold it in orbit), then the seas, then sea life, and finally land life. The Genesis account maintains that plants were created before the sun and stars. This patently ridiculous, since photosynthesis obviously requires sunlight.

The Bible also says that hares chew the cud, that there are insects with four legs, and other such nonsense. Such errors continue into the New Testament. For instance, Jesus was reputed to have said the mustard seed is the smallest of seeds, but this is not true. Orchids have smaller seeds, and orchids grow in Israel. The men who wrote the Bible were not scientists, and Jesus was not a botanist. To claim the Bible contains profound wisdom about science is silly. The Bible is full of wild errors, blatant contradictions and unfulfilled prophecies which can never be fulfilled. Anyone who has studied the Bible honestly knows this, and accepts it.

For instance, the Bible contains two prophecies about Nebuchadnezzar that did not come true, and can never come true. There was a prophecy that he would sack and loot Tyre. The prophet who predicted this later admitted his own error, then said Nebuchadnezzar would sack and loot Egypt instead, and leave it an uninhabited wasteland for forty years. But that never happened either. Other false prophecies in the Bible include the one about Levites always offering sacrifices in the temple. The temple was destroyed twice, so this prophecy was false. Another prophecy said a son of David would always sit on the throne of Israel. But that prophecy was proven false long before the time of Jesus. The Levites often claimed to speak for God, but they were wrong time and time again. Anyone who has read the Bible and studied the prophecies and history knows the truth. But conservative Christians lie to their own children—telling them every word of the Bible is "infallible"—thus perpetuating the deceptions of the men who claimed to speak for God, while murdering defenseless women and children. Is this how Christians honor God, by siding with the lowest of the low? Why don’t they just admit the truth?

There are far more serious errors in the Bible than mere errors of science and history.

Not very long ago, Christians "knew" slavery, ethnic cleansing and genocide were "the will of God" because Moses commanded such things. Of course they were wrong, although conservative Christians still refuse to admit the horrendous "morality" contained in many palpably evil verses in the Bible.

Has McBride read Numbers 31, in which Moses commanded his warriors to slaughter captured women and male infants, while keeping only virgin girls alive, as sex slaves? Is this the "wisdom of God"?

Has McBride read Deuteronomy 22, in which Moses commanded that girls who had been raped should be murdered or sold to their rapists for cash? Is this the "wisdom of God"?

Can anyone believe Jesus commanded such things? Of course not. Jesus was the antithesis of Moses and King David. But conservative Christians—in their desperation to "believe" every word of the Bible—have to shut down their brains. But then how can they be good teachers of students?

The theory of evolution and DNA science explain the existence of Neanderthals. The Bible doesn’t (even though Neanderthals lived in Israel) because according to the Bible Adam and Eve were created ex nilo, in a perfect state, only a few thousand years ago. Of course this is a fairytale, which no thinking Christian can possibly believe. Only conservative Christians, with their heads buried in the sand like ostriches, believe the "garden of Eden" account, which only turns God into a moron, a churl and a murderer. Should Christians believe in a God who is not good?

As Mark Twain, American’s foremost critic of Biblical literalism pointed out, the Genesis account makes no sense. How could Adam and Eve have made the right decision, if they weren’t given the discernment to know good from evil until it was too late? Whoever came up with the Genesis account was bereft of logic. He made God the first murderer, because according to him, God gave Adam and Eve animal skins to wear, which means the first murders were committed by God. The animals hadn’t committed a sin, so why should they suffer and die? The depiction of God in the Genesis account makes him unjust, because the animals shouldn’t have suffered and died for the mistake of Adam and Eve, which was really the mistake of God, since he alone had any knowledge of good and evil. Why didn’t he just place the fruit a bit higher, where innocent, childlike Adam and Eve couldn’t reach it, since they didn’t know good from bad? But of course fairytales don’t have to make sense.

When I was a fifth-grader and began reading the Bible cover to cover, ten chapters per day, I knew the garden of Eden story was a con job. That adult Christians can believe it is beyond me. That they teach students to ignore the clear evidence of science and believe God is an evil moron is, in my mind, unconscionable.

If God condemned everyone we love to suffer and die, why should we praise him? Do we praise women and child killers? If God set Adam and Eve up to fall, by denying them the knowledge of good and evil they needed to make the right decision until it was too late, why should we praise and honor God? If God condemned my mother to suffer and die, how can I "love" God? Obviously, if there is a God who is good, God cannot be a con artist or a mass murderer. Therefore, the good God cannot be the God of the Genesis account. This leaves various possibilities.

The most likely possibility is that the ancient Hebrews made up a myth to explain how man came to live on planet earth, and in doing so made one mistake after another. There are good reasons to believe this is what happened.

First, there is not one account of creation in the Bible, but two very different accounts. In Genesis chapter 1, the animals are created first, then Adam is created. But in Genesis chapter 2, Adam is created first, then God forms all the animals and birds "from the ground" and has Adam name them as they are created. In Genesis 1, man and woman are created simultaneously, both in the image of God. But in Genesis 2, after Adam has named all the animals and hasn’t found a suitable companion, God puts him to sleep and creates Eve from one of his ribs.

Second, Adam and Eve go unmentioned in the Old Testament. Where are the Hebrew psalms and lamentations over "original sin" that should have joined the other psalms and lamentations? The Hebrew Bible never mentions the "sin" of Adam and Eve again. Adam and "original sin" appear thousands of years later, in the New Testament. How can we account for this? Fortunately there is a simple answer . . .

Third, we know when and where the Israelites "borrowed" their creation account. When the Israelites went into captivity in Babylon they did not yet have a creation account. During their sojourn in Babylon, they "picked up" the Babylonian creation myth, the Enuma Elish or En ma Eliš. This Babylonian account predates the Hebrew Bible and matches the Bible in the order things were created (although of course the order was wrong, because the ancients had no idea what really happened). In the Babylonian account, there were two Gods, male and female. This would account for the Bible saying man and women were created in the image of God, "male and female" and also for the verse that says, "Let us [plural] create man in our [plural] own image." But the Israelites eventually banished their female goddess and rewrote the account so that creation was attributed to one sovereign male God. They removed the female goddess, Chaos (Tiamat) and had the world begin in murky chaos without her. In both accounts, light and "day" and night" precede the creation of the sun. In both accounts there is a day of rest at the end of the seven days of creation. The accounts are too similar for this to be accidental.

The Israelites didn’t just pick up the creation account from ancient Babylon. They also picked up the idea of powerful adversary of God, called Sheytân in Persian (the language of Babylon), al-Shaitan (the Adversary) in Arabic, and Satan (the Accuser) in Hebrew. Anyone who has actually read and studied the Bible knows that Satan is never mentioned in chronologies covering thousands of years in the early Bible. How could there be a powerful demon who rules the earth, and yet God and the prophets failed to even mention him until the time of David, in the book of Chronicles?

The Genesis account doesn’t mention Satan, only a talking snake, and as I explained it’s obvious that the Genesis account was not part of the original Hebrew Bible, but was added much later. Satan does not appear in the Bible for thousands of years because in the Old Testament God was all-powerful and was responsible for both good and evil. Satan was only needed when Israelites came to believe that God could not be responsible for evil. By this time, they were aware of an evil demon named "Satan" that their neighbors had made up. So Satan was a late addition to the Old Testament, but even then he had no power except to deceive. He did not become powerful in his own right until the New Testament, when he offered all the nations of the earth to Jesus. This was, of course, merely a theological proposition, because if God is all-powerful and controls every event in human history, no one else can "offer" God anything. In the Old Testament God was all-powerful. Now Christians flip-flop back and forth, claiming God is all-powerful when something good happens, but that his hands are tied by Satan and man’s free will whenever anything bad happens. Since lots of bad things happen on earth, this makes Satan seem very powerful. But any sane human being knows Satan doesn’t make us do things we don’t want to do. We do what we decide to do ourselves, if we are sane. Satan has always been a literary device, ever since he was added to the Bible at a very late date.

The first occurrence of the name Satan in the Bible is revealing. Just go to any online search tool such as crosswalk.com and search for the name Satan. The name doesn’t turn up until the census of David in Chronicles. But as with the creation account, there are two accounts of the census. In one account, God moved David’s heart to take a census, after which God became enraged and killed thousands of Israelites, which makes no sense whatsoever, if God is good. So the writer of Chronicles changed his version of things so that it was Satan who provoked David to take the census. He probably did this because there is another verse in the Bible that says David only disobeyed God in the matter of Uriah the Hittite. If David only disobeyed God once, then David could not have disobeyed God in the matter of the census, which would have made God responsible for all the deaths. So the writer of Chronicles blamed the census on Satan, and this is the first appearance of the name Satan in our English Bibles.

But the writer of Chronicles was wrong. King David was not a "righteous" man, or a "man after God’s own heart" who only sinned once. This was pure propaganda dreamed up by the Levite scribes who controlled what ended up in the pages of the Bible. The truth is very different. King David was an idolater: he had a man-sized idol (a Teraphim) in his own house. His wife Michal used it to trick Saul’s envoys into believing the idol was David, "asleep" in bed, as he escaped into the night to avoid assassination. But only idolaters have man-sized idols in their houses!

David was a genocidal maniac who killed every woman when he "smote the land." He ordered the slaughter of the lame and the blind when Jerusalem was taken from the Jebusites, because he "hated" the handicapped. Jesus had compassion on the handicapped, so how could David have been a man after God’s own heart? And King David never "repented" because his dying command was for his friend Joab to be assassinated, ostensibly for having "shed innocent blood." But it was David who had offered Joab the command of his armies for slaughtering the handicapped! David remained a lying, backstabbing hypocrite to his last breath. He was the Jewish Hitler. And yet conservative Christians speak of David in glowing terms, as they do of other serial murderers of women and children like Moses and Joshua (whom they call a "type" of Jesus). How can they teach children, if they are unable to read and understand their own Bibles, and be honest about them?

How did the Bible end up calling women and child killers "men of God"? Again, the answer is simple. The Levite priests did not judge men like Moses, Joshua and David by how good they were, but by how successful they were in war. When men were successful in war—even when they killed women, children and the handicapped—they were called "righteous." If they killed the priests of other cults, they were even more "righteous." This pattern can be seen time and time again throughout the Old Testament. The "righteous" kings were bloodthirsty tyrants who slaughtered the priests of other religions (and eventually, the priests of different cults within Judaism). Then, in order to avoid working themselves, the Levites said "God" slavered like a hungry beast for the blood and flesh of animals. In those days meat was the most valuable commodity the common folk had to offer. So the Levites demanded that the choicest of all the animals be brought as offerings to "God," which meant they got rich and fat without working. It was, in effect, a con job.

They made religion a big, bloody, horrendous business. By the time of Jesus, so many poor animals were being ritually, slaughtered, the Kidron valley below the Jerusalem temple ran red with rivers of their blood. According to the gospel of Mark (the oldest and most authentic gospel), when Jesus drove the poor animals, the people selling them, and the moneychangers from the temple, the priests who were in danger of losing their cushy jobs decided to kill him.

Obviously a good God could not want animals to butchered unnecessarily, or for Jesus to suffer and die. It was religion gone mad that killed Jesus. Then, after he died, it was religion that accused him of having caused all the suffering and death that ever happened on the planet. Jesus did not agree that God wanted sacrifices. He quoted Hosea 6:6, saying, "If you understood the meaning of these words—I desire chesed (mercy, compassion, lovingkindness), not sacrifice—you would not have condemned the innocent." Who were the innocent, but the hundreds of thousands of innocent animals who died to make the Levites rich? Six Hebrew prophets had said God did not desire sacrifices—Hosea, Amos, Jeremiah, Isaiah, Micah and the Psalmist (allegedly David but probably a later writer) – and Jeremiah blatantly contradicted the entire sacrificial system, saying God did not ordain animal sacrifices when the Israelites came out of Egypt.

How can all the Bible be "infallible" when the Levites said God demanded animal sacrifices, and six prophets called them liars?

Once again, it is simple to see and understand what happened. The evidence exists in the pages of the Bible:

(1) Moses did not command animal sacrifices.
(2) During the reign of Josiah, the Levites saw a way to gain power and get rich quick.
(3) They wrote a new book, Deuteronomy, and pretended it had been "lost."
(4) The new book of Deuteronomy, authorized them to murder competing priests, which they did, in a rampage of mayhem.
(5) The new book forced the common folk to give the Levites free meat and share everything they had with them.

Chapter 22 of Deuteronomy commands that girls who had been raped should either be murdered or sold to their rapists. Why? Because the Levites looked at women as having value only if they were virgins who could be sold in marriage for dowries. If a girl lost her hymen, she was of no value, so she should either be killed or sold to her rapist. Is this the "wisdom" of God or the evil lunacy of men? Any rich man could rape any girl he wanted, then offer her either death or the opportunity to be raped "legally" every day of her life. If this doesn’t make a Christian man want to vomit, what good is his religion? If this makes a Christian man sick to his stomach, how can he believe all the Bible is "infallible"?

When will Christians like Christopher McBride read their Bibles, admit the errors and palpable evil they contain, and stop telling innocent children they "know" things which are untrue? Science is not the problem. A religion that calls evil "good" and lies the "truth" is the problem. Why not be honest about the Bible? And shouldn’t teachers be honest with students? Moses didn’t have a clue how the earth was formed, and he thought men should have free reign to rape, enslave and kill women and children. On what planet is that the "wisdom" of God?

Letter to Buzzflash, January 19, 2010, by Mike Burch

Here in the United States, Christian churches and missionaries obviously want to help suffering, dying Haitians. In Nashville, where I live, there will be a performance of Handel’s Messiah by white-robed choirs and country superstars, with the proceeds benefitting Haiti disaster relief. Now on the surface this all seems well and good. But if Jesus Christ knew exactly what he was doing when he deliberately maimed and massacred multitudes of Haitians, should Christians be interfering with his vengeance?

Conversely, if Christians don’t believe that what happened to the Haitians constitutes "justice," how can they sing the praises of an all-powerful God?

If Jesus is all-wise, all-powerful and controls every aspect of the universe, as Christians claim, then clearly the poor Haitian children now having their crushed limbs sawn off without anesthetics are getting what they deserved. But who can believe Jesus would be so cruel to children?

If such things are patently unjust and should never happen to innocent children, why continue the pretense that Jesus is in control of the elements, since such control would make him a child killer and serial murderer?

Ironically, Pat Robertson is right. If God is all-powerful and just, he must have had a good reason to slaughter so many Haitians. But then why did he viciously attack so many innocent animals, babies and children? Why didn’t he send a plague specifically targeting only the adults who merited punishment? It only took me a few seconds to come up with a better plan of attack; how can men be wiser and more just than God Almighty?

Now Christian missionaries will undoubtedly rush to spread the "good news" that suffering Haitians are in danger of an "eternal hell" if they don’t "believe" in the all-powerful, unjust God who just poured out his wrath on their beleaguered island. Do the suffering children of Haiti deserve to be terrorized yet again, after all they’ve endured? Why not deliver aid without the voodoo religion?

What a terrible price to attach to "Christian" benevolence! Has there ever been a more irrational, graceless religion?

I implore Christians missionaries not take their gospel of hell to Haiti and terrorize small, shell-shocked Haitian children with the idea that if they don’t believe "Jesus saves" their souls will be in danger of an "eternal hell." My parents and churches terrified me with this terrible gospel of hell when I was a small boy. I only found relief as an adult, when I decided  that calling evil "good" because God perpetrates it is ridiculous.

Letter to the David Newman, September 3, 2009, by Mike Burch

Dear David Newman,

I am an American editor and publisher of Holocaust Poetry.

I read your article about the response to Dr. Neve Gordon's opinion piece recently published by the Los Angeles Times. I had also read Dr. Gordon's article, which had been mailed to me by one of my colleagues. I suppose this shows what a rapidly shrinking world we live in.

I think your article, which seems balanced, is actually "on tilt" (as we used to say when pinball machines were in vogue). You seem to advocate a “balanced” debate, but in my opinion this makes no sense. There was once quite a "debate" in the United States over the issue of slavery. Today the "debate" seems nonsensical. Why? Because the free world has decided that all human beings must have equal rights. Should Americans have participated in a "balanced" debate over the status of slaves for 100 years prior to the Civil War? NO. After the Civil War was over, should Americans have engaged in another 100-year-long "balanced" discussion of the merits of equal rights, fair laws and fair courts, versus those of Jim Crow laws and public lynchings? NO. The debate was always entirely one-sided and nonsensical. The slaves had no say in the laws that enslaved them. They would have been fools and cowards to submit to the racist laws that kept them enslaved. The same thing was true for the Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising: they had no say in the “debate” or in the making of the “laws” that made them victims of the Nazi Injustice Machine.

We do not need to continually “debate” the relative merits of racist versus non-racist laws, courts and systems of government. The debate is OVER. The free world has already rendered its verdict: racism is an abomination. Israel has been using smoke, mirrors, cries for sympathy and tsunamis of propaganda to delude Americans for sixty years, but now the jig is up. Americans are slowly waking up – one individual at a time – to the truth, and the truth is shocking and despicable. Now is not the time for a balanced debate. Now is the time for Israel to pull the plug on its Injustice Machine, or suffer the consequences.

Dr. Gordon’s solution has a good chance of working, because economic sanctions will persuade Israelis to “vote their pocketbooks” (a modern democratic phenomenon) and replace their current racist government with one led by leaders more amenable to peace through justice. But acting as if the Palestinians are somehow an equal part of a perplexing problem is not helpful. Should the Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising have obeyed the racist “laws” of their Nazi overlords? Of course not. If they were heroes and freedom fighters, then so are the Palestinians, for the same simple reason: it is not a “crime” to break an illegal law.

It is, however, a crime to create racist, and therefore illegal laws. Who wrote the laws of Israel? Who established its courts? Israeli Jews must look in the mirror and confront the racists they find there, then speedily reform their government. It the majority are not racists, why then is the “democratic” government so blatantly racist? Why do so many Israelis speak of “democracy” and “healing the world,” when their laws and courts scream “Racism!” and “Injustice!”

What can Palestinians do, but resist forcefully? Patrick Henry said “Give me liberty or give me death.” He didn’t mean he planned on committing suicide. He meant he was willing to kill Englishmen, or be killed, in the pursuit of his rights, and the rights of his children. But what would happen if my child was born in Israel today, not being Jewish? The thought fills me with terror. Why? You might understand the terror if you considered having a Jewish child in Nazi Germany. I work with some of those children: the ones who survived. Many others didn't, as you well know. All you have to do to understand why the United States will be forced to “divorce” Israel, unless Israel reforms, is to consider what it would be like for your children and grandchildren to be born inside the walled ghetto of Gaza, if they were unlucky enough not to be born Jewish.

Do you understand now why I don’t have any interest in a “balanced” debate? I want the state of Israel to end its reign of terror, and reform, or cease to exist, the way the Nazi state ceased to exist, so that a just, non-racist government can replace it.

You say "two wrongs don't make a right," but that is an old wives' tale. Sometimes it takes a horrific wrong to correct an even more horrific wrong. Would the Holocaust survivors I work with say it was "wrong" for the Allies to kill Germans in order to end the insanity and injustices of Hitler and the Nazis? NO. Even George McGovern, whom I had the chance to meet and chat with recently, said that World War II was justified. So did Einstein, who had been an avowed pacifist before he saw what Hitler and his goons were capable of. The American Civil War is another instance of a terrible wrong being required to right an even more terrible wrong.

Now seeing what the racist state of Israel is capable of is convincing Americans that we have been funding and supporting a new Holocaust. We are beginning to realize that we’ve been led into two wars that could have been avoided if only Israel hadn’t demanded our sympathy, money and arms so that Israeli Jews could steal land and water from Palestinians who are increasingly homeless and destitute. “Israel” has become an anathema to us, and the only way that will change is for Israel to abandon racism and give up its lust for stolen land. Why the ever-mounting horrors, when Israel doesn’t have the Jewish population to cultivate most of the land it stole in 1948? Why such brutality and larceny in the West Bank, when so much of the land stolen in 1948 lies fallow to this day, inside Israel?

Do you really expect me to believe there is a somewhat even “dispute” between two parties who can’t quite see eye to eye, when Israel has hundreds of thousands of settlers busily stealing land from Palestinian farmers on a daily basis, while Israeli soldiers armed with machine guns curse and spit on Palestinian children on their way to school? Do you understand the fury I feel, when Jewish professors complain whenever their rights are infringed on, while Palestinian children can't walk to school without being degraded and abused? Do you understand how Americans feel when our sympathy for Jewish adults is demanded, but the rights of Palestinian children have been placed on “eternal hold”?

How do you think the American public will feel, as it slowly but surely awakens to the truth? Do you think Americans will want a “balanced debate” or do you think we will do what had to be done when Southern slaveowners refused to free their slaves, and when Nazis and Saddam Hussein chose to exceed their borders and seize “living space” from innocent women and children?

I am an editor and publisher of Holocaust Poetry, not a racist. I abhor racism. Therefore, I abhor the government of Israel and its brutal, racist Injustice Machine.

Soon it may be necessary for a new, terrible wrong to correct this abomination. Like the American slaves, like the Native Americans, like the Jews who suffered and died during the Holocaust, and like the blacks who suffered at the hands of white South Africans, the Palestinians had no hand in writing the laws or establishing the courts that deprive them of their self-evident rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. According to the American Declaration of Independence, they have every right to rise up and kill the people who deprive them of their equal human rights. Of course I am a man of peace and do not want anyone to die. But history tells me that people will die in ever-increasing numbers until the abomination ends, and that the free world will side with the oppressed, not the oppressors.

Dr. Gordon is right. Perhaps the only thing that will save Israel from itself is a “shock to the system” that brings about the needed reforms of its government. Many Israeli Jews seem to be incapable of understanding that the fury felt by Muslims toward Israel will be increasingly felt by Americans. Not because we are racists, but because we oppose racism. Yes, I care about the rights of Jewish professors. But I care even more about the rights of Palestinian kindergartners to be able to walk to school unmolested. What sort of evil, brutal, racist regime allows soldiers to curse and spit on them?

I abhor the thought of children being cursed and spat on by adults, with their actions being condoned or encouraged by an Injustice Machine masquerading as a “democracy.” Democracies extend human rights and justice to all human beings, not just to the Chosen Few. Therefore I abhor the state of Israel in it current racist incarnation, and I will do everything in my power to see it reform, and abandon racism. It would be better for Israel to reform itself, than for the world to impose its will on Israel. It would be better for Israel to reform itself, than to go through a Civil War, with men like Dr. Gordon on one side and men like Benyamin Netanyahu on the other. But in the end men like Dr. Gordon will prevail, or the world will be forced to act. So why delay the inevitable for even another day? Let the debate end, and let Israel replace its racist regime voluntarily, or let economic sanctions lead to nonviolent reform as soon as possible. If you take the time to engage in a balanced debate, you allow the racist regime to continue to cause the suffering of innocents. Babies, toddlers and children are self-evidently innocent and cannot be punished collectively for the “crime” of being born to the “wrong” race. Adult Palestinians cannot be considered criminals until they have equal rights and access to fair laws and fair courts. As long as the government of Israel puts their self-evident rights on eternal hold, Israel is the criminal, and sooner or later will have to be brought to justice. The time to debate is over; the time to act has come. Israel must establish fair laws and fair courts first, unconditionally and without excuses, or the Palestinians have every right to resist forcefully, and all the free world will stand firmly on their side, including the United States of America.

Respectfully,
Mike Burch

The HyperTexts