The Evangelical Pope | The Promotion of Peace Through Social Communications

Each week we let Saint Pope John Paul II share meaningful signposts to spark socio-economic resolves through justice and righteousness combined with mercy and compassion; in short, love.

               14 May these words of my mouth and this meditation of my heart
                      be pleasing in your sight,
               LORD, my Rock and my Redeemer.

               __ Psalm 19:14 (New International Version)

The Vatican – 15 May 1983 | This year's World Day of Communications emphasizes the significance of encouraging peace, which remains a vital concern. With the expansion of mass media connecting us globally, the way communication and information are handled can either support peace or worsen conflicts and injustices. I urge the media to report on rights, issues, and perspectives responsibly and objectively, fostering understanding and dialogue across diverse groups, nations, and cultures.

How Can Social Communication Promote Peace?

Social communication promotes peace by encouraging communicators to set aside personal biases and interests, fostering understanding, solidarity, and dialogue among diverse groups. It underscores the responsibility of information professionals to act ethically and independently, advocating for truth and the common good.

Establishing a Just Order of Communication

2. Social communication fosters peace by creating an institutional framework that guarantees fair and constructive information exchanges, free from oppression and discrimination based on political, economic, or ideological influences. The emphasis is on rethinking the core principles of social communication in a world akin to a single family. Protecting genuine pluralism is essential when there is a consensus on fundamental human values.

Achieving this relies on a mature, informed conscience among both communication professionals and audiences. Authorities, society, and international organizations must make honest and courageous choices. When social communication is properly organized and benefits are distributed equitably, respecting rights, it promotes enriching dialogue among citizens and cultures. Injustice and disorder tend to cause conflict. Conversely, arbitrary, one-way information—whether top-down or market-driven—and monopolistic, manipulative practices disrupt social communication and jeopardize responsible information and peace.

Educating for Peace Through Content

3. Communication is a powerful tool for fostering peace when it shares peaceful principles clearly and respectfully. Since information isn't always neutral, it can reveal attitudes or intentions, even when not obvious. The connection between communication and teaching values is robust; the way information is presented, explained, or sometimes left out can change its meaning significantly. How we talk about topics like development, human rights, international relations, ideological conflicts, social and political differences, national claims, and the arms race affects public opinions and helps shape attitudes—either supporting peace or encouraging solutions through force.

To function effectively as a peace instrument, social communication must surpass unilateral interests, remove prejudice, and promote understanding and solidarity. Peaceful coexistence depends on sustained dialogue that honors everyone’s right to exist and express themselves, while acknowledging the importance of working toward the common goal—peace. At present, this ideal stands in stark contrast to the danger of atomic destruction confronting humanity.

Therefore, it is essential to promote and recognize human dignity and rights, while also encouraging solidarity among individuals, groups, and nations. Ultimately, all humanity has a shared purpose.

Communicators as Workers for Peace

4. When information professionals promote social communication, they contribute to peace. Their role can influence public opinion and lead policymakers toward positive change.

Communications professionals need core rights such as access to information and the freedom to report facts honestly. They should uphold higher standards than personal ethics, resist influence from powerful interests, and prioritize their responsibilities to truth, the public, and society—going beyond what contracts and laws require.

Social communicators promote peace by offering calm and unbiased information, fostering understanding, dialogue, and strengthening comprehension and solidarity.

Conclusion and Blessing

I offer these reflections as we begin the Extraordinary Holy Year, marking the 1950th anniversary of mankind's Redemption, achieved by Jesus Christ, "the Prince of Peace" (Isaiah 9:6). He is "our peace" and came "to announce peace" (Ephesians 2:14,17).

I invoke upon you and all social communication workers the divine gift of peace, a "fruit of the Spirit" (Galatians 5:22), and bestow my heartfelt Apostolic Blessing.

Excerpted from:

MESSAGE OF THE HOLY FATHER JOHN PAUL II FOR THE 17TH WORLD COMMUNICATIONS DAY, "Social Communications and the Promotion of Peace," Sunday, 15 May 1983

https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/messages/communications/documents/hf_jp-ii_mes_25031983_world-communications-day.html

RICK SANCHEZ: WAR PROPAGANDA & SUFFOCATING CENSORSHIP WEAKEN THE WEST

Prof. Glenn Diesen features Journalist Rick Sanchez’s insider perspective comparing Western and Russian media narratives on the Ukraine war, highlighting Western media’s government influence and censorship, the relative editorial freedom in Russian media, the geopolitical tensions primarily between the U.S. and Russia rather than Ukraine itself, and the challenges propaganda poses to truthful reporting and peace negotiations.

Watch the Video Here (44 minutes, 17 seconds)

Host Prof. Glenn Diesen
Substack.com
19 October 2025

Media Narratives and the Ukraine Conflict: An Insider Perspective

Prof. Diesen and Journalist Rick Sanchez focus on the differing narratives between Western and Russian media. It highlights how journalists in the West, such as Tucker Carlson, face dismissal for questioning official stories, and compares the current U.S. media environment to Soviet-era information control. The conversation also explores the challenges of media censorship in both Europe and the U.S., contrasting them with the relatively greater editorial freedom experienced by journalists in Russia. The overall theme centers on the struggle for truthful reporting and open debate amid a landscape dominated by government-influenced narratives.

Welcome back to the program. Today, we are joined by Rick Sanchez, host of the Sanchez Effect on RT. Rick brings a unique insider perspective, having worked across major networks in both the West and Russia, including CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, and now RT. His experience offers a rare view into the contrasting media landscapes, particularly as the ongoing conflict between the West and Russia has evolved into what many see as a battle of narratives. This lack of mutual understanding has resulted in profound challenges, and Rick’s insights into both camps offer valuable perspectives on these issues.

Comparing Western and Russian Media Approaches

When discussing how Western and Russian media portray the Ukraine war, Rick first explains the difference between U.S. media and the media landscape that has developed in Russia since the Soviet times. He shares that, unlike his childhood—where he was taught to be wary of the Soviet system—today's Russian media offers more room for expression.

With experience at CNN, Fox, and NBC, Rick describes the U.S. media landscape as well-structured, where correspondents at the Pentagon and State Department often deliver official stories with little room for challenge. Whenever Rick tried to question these narratives, especially during coverage of Iraq and Afghanistan, he often faced suppression or dismissal. He believes that many journalists are mainly there to pass along government-approved messages, and those who oppose them risk losing their jobs.

Government Influence and the Shifting Narrative

Rick compares today's U.S. media to the state-controlled media of the past, a point even Vladimir Putin has noted. Putin has pointed out that U.S. media now resembles Soviet-era information control, though he remarks that the Soviets at least tried to include alternative viewpoints. This irony is highlighted by Putin's recent statements supporting truth and free speech, which emphasize the changing roles between East and West. Rick adds that, despite ongoing issues in Russia, the lack of accountability in Western media is especially concerning—citing examples like the Russiagate story, the Biden laptop, and false reports of bounties on U.S. soldiers, where misinformation was rarely questioned or punished.

Media Accountability and Censorship in Europe and the U.S.

The discussion shifts to media narratives in Europe, where Rick notes a reluctance to consider Russian viewpoints. When facts challenge dominant narratives, they are often labeled as "pro-Russian" propaganda, leading to censorship instead of open debate. Rick mentions that in the U.S., laws now prevent journalists with Russian ties from working, further limiting acceptable perspectives. Conversely, Rick believes he has greater editorial freedom in Russia to cover different governments and issues, including those related to the U.S., UK, China, and India.

Coverage of Russian Claims and Western Media Silence

Rick cites examples of Russian authorities making serious claims, such as MI6's involvement in attacks on Russian infrastructure and military targets. These claims are presented in a straightforward, factual tone but seldom get coverage in Western media. Even when the stories are significant—like allegations of attacks on Russia’s nuclear forces—they are often overlooked, with no meaningful discussion about the evidence or responses from British officials. Rick suggests that this selective silence prevents the public from grasping the full extent of these events and upholds a cycle of censorship.

The Broader Context: Diplomacy, Propaganda, and Provocation

The discussion expands to question whether the current conflict is genuinely about Ukraine or if it signals deeper tensions between Russia and the United States. Rick argues that the war is more about the rivalry between these two nations than about Ukraine itself. He points out that Western Europe and the U.S. have repeatedly refused diplomatic engagement with Russia, leading to the present crisis. Russia appears to be seeking improved relations with the U.S., prioritizing respect and reintegration into the global community over territorial annexation in Ukraine. Rick proposes that if the U.S. is willing to lift sanctions and restore diplomatic ties, it could help deescalate the conflict, as Russia’s main demand is respect and reintegration.

Media Shifts and the Possibility for Peace

As the situation develops, Rick observes signs that Western media narratives are shifting. Previously, the coverage emphasized Ukraine's victories and portrayed the war as unprovoked, but recent reports now acknowledge Russia’s territorial gains. He believes this change is driven by the undeniable realities on the ground, which can no longer be dismissed without risking credibility. Rick also shares stories from other journalists, such as Tucker Carlson, who faced repercussions for questioning the prevailing narrative.

Summary

Prof. Glenn Diesen and Journalist Rick Sanchez take a thoughtful look at media censorship and accountability around the coverage of the Russia-Ukraine conflict in Europe and the U.S., showing how different stories and laws can limit journalistic freedom. It points out the ways Western media often overlook major Russian claims, highlights the bigger geopolitical tug-of-war between the U.S. and Russia, and considers recent changes in how the media presents these issues. In conclusion, it underscores how entrenched propaganda creates barriers to peace and stresses the vital role of open dialogue in easing tensions.

Conclusion

The conversation wraps up with a thoughtful reflection on the challenges to achieving peace, especially the ongoing influence of war propaganda and the difficulty of shifting deep-rooted stories in the West. Rick and his interviewer agree that reducing propaganda at home is so essential for creating an environment where meaningful negotiations can happen and the risk of escalation can be avoided. They highlight that open dialogue and understanding that the core issue is mainly a face-off between the United States and Russia are key steps toward finding a resolution—a big thank you to Rick Sanchez for generously sharing his insights and experiences.

THE FUTILITY OF EVIL

Both Israelis and Palestinians, viewing the conflict as an existential struggle against evil, will put a monkey wrench in the Israeli-Palestinian Quest to Co-exist.

JACK GUEZ/AFP via Getty Images

By IAN BURUMA
Project Syndicate
2 November 2023

Annotated by Abraham A. van Kempen

In 2002, while visiting Ramallah, Nobel laureate Portuguese author José Saramago compared Palestinians' living conditions in the West Bank to the Holocaust of Jews in Auschwitz. This striking comment caused worldwide controversy, but Saramago explained that it was his responsibility as an intellectual to make emotional comparisons that would provoke understanding.

Saramago was not the first to compare the Jewish state's actions to Nazi Germany’s, as Arnold J. Toynbee in his 1961 *A Study of History* argued that Zionism represented Western Jews assimilating Western nationalism and colonization. He claimed the seizure of Palestinian Arab land and property was morally akin to centuries of Western European conquerors' crimes and injustices.

Every assertion here is absurd: equating Gentile Western crimes with “Gentile Western civilization,” suggesting most European Jews migrating to Israel were conquerors rather than refugees, and morally equating Palestinian land seizures with Western violence against non-Western peoples. Hopefully, Toynbee didn't include Nazi Germany's crimes.

While history has many mass murders, the Nazis’ attempt to wipe out a people based on racist ideology is unparalleled. Comparing it to other violence, like US Congressman Warren Davidson's comparison of COVID-19 vaccine mandates to the Holocaust, is wrong and harmful. Such comparisons trivialize the Holocaust and distort understanding of current events.

These Holocaust analogies are again used to describe Gaza's tragic events. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, with German Chancellor Scholz, called Hamas the “new Nazis” and said Hamas' savagery was the worst crime against Jews since the Holocaust.

Netanyahu’s comments mirror many Israelis' views. An Israeli critic described the conflict as a 1940-like 'war against evil” requiring 'total elimination.' However, Hamas’s killing of over 1,400 Israelis on October 7 resembles a pogrom more than the near-total destruction of European Jewry.

It's natural Israelis are shocked by Hamas’s attack. Israel was created as a safe haven for Jews facing centuries of persecution, with Netanyahu emphasizing safety. Israel, as a barrier against a second Holocaust, has been a key theme for Israeli leaders.

Palestinians suffer from Jewish efforts for safety in their own state, a tragedy Ben-Gurion predicted in 1919. Two years after Britain declared support for a Jewish national home in Palestine, he noted the conflict: “There is no solution. We want Palestine to be ours as a nation. The Arabs want it to be theirs, as a nation."

Since then, there has been violence, miscalculation, and bad faith from both sides. Like Ben-Gurion, Netanyahu believes the conflict can only be managed, not resolved. By stirring Palestinian divisions, expanding settlements, and launching military strikes, he aimed to control Palestinians and secure Israel. This failed strategy, and comparing Israeli actions to Nazi Germany, is both false and anti-Semitic.

Israeli leaders' framing of the war against Hamas as an existential battle between good and evil will worsen the situation. Evil is a metaphysical concept, not political. Ben-Gurion stated the conflict is about land and sovereignty, which need political solutions.

However, as long as Israeli leaders perceive Palestinian hostility as akin to Auschwitz, achieving a resolution remains impossible. Only complete dominance will suffice.

The same applies to Palestinians. As long as Israelis are labeled as evil “settler-colonialists” and compared to Nazis, attacks like October 7 are praised as acts of resistance. A political solution seems distant amid ongoing violence and revenge, but winning a war against evil makes it impossible.

Ian Buruma is the author of numerous books, including Murder in Amsterdam: The Death of Theo Van Gogh and the Limits of Tolerance, Year Zero: A History of 1945, A Tokyo Romance: A Memoir, The Churchill Complex: The Curse of Being Special, From Winston and FDR to Trump and Brexit, The Collaborators: Three Stories of Deception and Survival in World War II, and, most recently, Spinoza: Freedom’s Messiah (Yale University Press, 2024).

_________________________

Editor’s Note | Is it Okay to Call a Spade a Spade?

_________________________

SCHLOMO SAND’S ADVOCACY FOR A ONE-STATE DEMOCRACY

Analyzing "The Invention of the Jewish People" and the Israeli-Palestinian Quest to Co-exist

In his influential book, ‘The Invention of the Jewish People,’ University of Tel Aviv Historian Professor Schlomo Sand challenges traditional narratives about Jewish identity and the historical foundations of the state of Israel. His thought-provoking work has sparked lively debates, not just about history but also about the best ways to approach the Israeli-Palestinian conflict today. One of Sand’s key political views is his strong support for a one-state democracy, which he sees as the most promising route toward peaceful coexistence between Israelis and Palestinians.

Sand’s Critique of Ethno-Nationalism

At the heart of Sand’s argument is a thoughtful critique of ethno-nationalism—the idea that states should be built around a single ethnic or religious identity. In "The Invention of the Jewish People," Sand gently challenges the belief in a continuous, unified Jewish nation, proposing instead that Jewish identity has been continuously shaped by historical events and cultural influences, rather than merely by biological descent. For Sand, creating a state solely based on ethnic exclusivity can unintentionally lead to division, exclusion, and conflict, highlighting the importance of a more inclusive approach.

Rationale for a One-State Solution

Sand advocates for a one-state democracy because he feels that the two-state solution, which suggests separate Israeli and Palestinian nations, keeps division and inequality alive. He believes that only a single, democratic country—where Jews, Palestinians, and everyone living there enjoy equal rights and responsibilities—can break down the barriers caused by ethno-nationalism. His hope is that peaceful coexistence is possible through dismantling systems of privilege and unfair treatment that are built into institutions.

Principles Underlying Sand’s Vision

1. Equality: A single-state democracy would guarantee equal rights for all citizens, regardless of their religious or ethnic backgrounds.
2. Shared Sovereignty: Sand envisions a political system where Israelis and Palestinians co-govern, making decisions together instead of separately.
3. Historical Reconciliation: Sand argues that recognizing the complex, interconnected histories of Jews and Palestinians can foster mutual understanding and reconciliation through a shared state.
4. Social Integration: Instead of keeping communities separate, Sand promotes societal integration to encourage cooperation and strengthen social bonds.
5. Israeli Nationality: Since Israel’s establishment in 1948, there has been no official Israeli nationality. Sand supports an inclusive civic identity for all citizens, regardless of religion or ethnicity. This shift aims to improve social cohesion and democracy by ensuring equal rights for Jewish, Arab, and minority populations.
6. National Constitution: Sand contends that Israel’s absence of a formal, comprehensive Constitution leads to inconsistencies and inequalities in applying the rule of law. He suggests that establishing a national Constitution would create a clear, democratic governance structure, safeguarding equal rights and responsibilities for all citizens. Additionally, a Constitution would help distinguish religion from state affairs, limiting the influence of religious authorities on public policy and legal issues.
7. Equality and the Rule of Law: Sand advocates for a rule of law grounded in a national Constitution to build a legal system that is consistent, transparent, and just. He argues this is crucial for safeguarding individual rights, fostering social justice, and upholding the state's legitimacy with its citizens and the international community.

Challenges and Criticisms

Sand’s proposal encounters notable challenges. Critics say that deep mistrust, historical grievances, and continuing violence render a one-state solution unlikely. Some also believe it might fail to safeguard minority rights or properly address security and cultural concerns.

However, Sand argues that the only alternative—sustaining division and inequality—won't achieve true peace.

Summary

Schlomo Sand advocates for a one-state democracy in the Israeli-Palestinian Quest to Coexist, emphasizing the need for historical reconciliation, social integration, and an inclusive civic identity. He argues for the establishment of a national Constitution to ensure equality, social justice, and consistent rule of law for all citizens, regardless of religion or ethnicity. Although his proposals face challenges such as mistrust and concerns about minority rights, Sand believes that a democratic, unified state is the best pathway to lasting peace and mutual respect.

Conclusion

Schlomo Sand advocates for a one-state democracy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, rooted in his opposition to ethno-nationalism and his commitment to equality, justice, and shared citizenship. He considers this the only feasible way to achieve peaceful coexistence, believing it provides the best opportunity for both groups to live together with dignity and mutual respect.

Schlomo Sand’s call for Israeli nationality and a Constitution reflects his broader critique of ethnocentric nationalism and his hope for a more inclusive, democratic society. He views these changes as necessary steps toward achieving equality, social harmony, and a stable rule of law in Israel.

AN ANALYSIS OF IDEOLOGICAL PREVAILING FORCES IN THE ZIONIST EXPERIMENT

This essay examines the ideological split within Zionism between Ahad Ha’am’s cultural and ethical “Prophetic Ideals” and Zev Jabotinsky’s pragmatic “Revolutionary Colonialism.” It explains that Jabotinsky’s approach became dominant because of historical anti-Semitism, global politics, and pressing security concerns. However, Ahad Ha’am’s moral perspective continued to hold influence but played a secondary role.

Zev Jabotinsky’s Revolutionary Colonialism vs. Ahad Ha’am’s Prophetic Ideals in Zionism

Vibrant discussions and debates characterized the emergence of Zionism during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Two prominent figures distinguished themselves: Ahad Ha’am (Asher Ginzberg), an advocate of cultural Zionism and the Prophetic Ideals, and Zev Jabotinsky, who endorsed Revisionist Zionism and, according to some, revolutionary colonialism.

In “Christian Zionism Enraptured Around a Golden Calf,” Abraham A. van Kempen juxtaposes these two thinkers, illustrating how Jabotinsky’s perspectives gained prominence over Ahad Ha’am’s more spiritual and ethical outlook. This analysis examines the reasons behind Jabotinsky’s revolutionary approach prevailing within the Zionist movement, rather than the adherence to Ahad Ha’am’s prophetic principles.

Ahad Ha’am: Prophetic Ideals and Cultural Zionism

Ahad Ha’am (1856–1927) was an influential figure in the early Zionist movement. Inspired by the moral and spiritual teachings of the Hebrew prophets, he believed that Jewish national revival involved more than just physically returning to the land. It also meant fostering Jewish culture, ethics, and spiritual development. His concept of “Prophetic Ideals” emphasized justice, compassion, and ethical living, viewing the Jewish homeland as a lively cultural and spiritual center for Jews worldwide, rather than simply a political or territorial objective.

Ahad Ha’am was careful about rushing into political Zionism and suggested taking a patient approach to prevent upsetting the local Arab community. He envisioned a gentle process of settling and cultural revival, highlighting that the moral goals of Zionism should take precedence. His ideas were inspired by the prophetic tradition, promoting a society grounded in social justice and strong ethical values.

Zev Jabotinsky: Revolutionary Colonialism and Revisionist Zionism

Zev Jabotinsky (1880–1940) founded Revisionist Zionism and advocated for a more vigorous, political, and territorial strategy to develop the Jewish homeland. He believed that establishing a Jewish state might necessitate bold measures, such as military might and strong defenses. Jabotinsky viewed Zionism as a revolutionary pursuit dedicated to securing Jewish sovereignty in Palestine, regardless of the obstacles.

Jabotinsky’s philosophy echoes the ideas found in European nationalism and colonialism of his era. He honestly recognized the colonial aspects of Zionism, mentioning that Jews need to "build an iron wall” to protect themselves from Arab opposition. This powerful metaphor of the "iron wall" illustrates his belief that strength and determination are essential for establishing and maintaining a Jewish state. His approach was practical and grounded in the realities of power, rather than idealistic moral visions.

Why Did Jabotinsky’s Colonialism Prevail?

Several factors played a role in Jabotinsky’s revolutionary approach to colonialism, surpassing Ahad Ha’am’s prophetic principles in the Zionist journey.

1. Increase Anti-Semitism: The increase of anti-Semitism across Europe, culminating in the Holocaust, profoundly impacted Jewish communities and heightened their sense of urgency for safety and self-determination. Many Jews gravitated toward Jabotinsky’s assertive, proactive stance, viewing it as a viable route to security and independence.
2. International Dynamics: The Zionist movement had to navigate complex international political terrains, which included negotiations with the British Empire and other global powers. Jabotinsky’s willingness to use force and push for firm demands aligned more closely with the geopolitical climate of the time, particularly given the ongoing dominance of colonial frameworks.
3. Revisionist Zionism: Jabotinsky’s Revisionist Zionism led to the creation of paramilitary groups like the Irgun, which played a key role in establishing the State of Israel. The structure and discipline of these organizations provided significant practical support for his ideological beliefs.

4. The Marginalization of Prophetic Morality: As the Zionist movement progressively focused on state-building and preservation, Ahad Ha’am’s emphasis on ethical principles and gradual development was diminished in prominence. The pressures of conflict and the requirements of nationhood made Jabotinsky’s pragmatic approach more appealing to both leaders and the general public.

5. Secularism and anti-Judaism among European Israelis: The combination of these forces led early Zionists to favor Jabotinsky’s radical nationalism over Ahad Ha’am’s Prophetic vision. The drive for security and a secular Jewish identity steered the Zionist movement away from ethical ideals, adopting a more militant and nationalist stance.

Summary

‘Christian Zionism … Enraptured Around a Golden Calf’ examines the ideological divide within Zionism between Ahad Ha’am’s cultural and ethical “Prophetic Ideals” and Zev Jabotinsky’s pragmatic, militant “Revolutionary Colonialism." It explains that Jabotinsky’s approach triumphed because of historical anti-Semitism, international politics, and the urgent need for security and state-building in the 20th century. Meanwhile, Ahad Ha’am’s moral vision continued to hold influence but was secondary.

Conclusion

The Zionist movement eventually embraced Zev Jabotinsky's vision of pioneering colonial efforts, prioritizing the establishment of a state, securing safety, and asserting territorial sovereignty. This focus was in contrast to the emphasis on cultural and ethical renewal promoted by Ahad Ha’am. While Prophetic Ideals still leave their mark on Israeli society and discussions, the main approach was shaped by urgent political and existential challenges of the twentieth century. These challenges required quick action and strength, rather than slow, moralistic methods.

This outcome underscores the enduring tension within Zionism, balancing idealistic aspirations with pragmatic realities, and also navigating the fine line between moral ideals and political imperatives. It exemplifies a complex conflict that continues to influence discussions concerning the identity and future of the modern nation-state of Israel.