CBN has a journalist reporting from Ukraine. Here is the conclusion of his most recent report. CBN labels the clip, “Who is going to stand up for freedom and democracy?”:
Is this man a propagandist stooge? Is he ignorant about recent European history? Or is he so heavily invested in American Christian nationalism that he cannot think outside of his tiny American box?
Returning to the ridiculous propaganda created by George W. Bush is not only ignorant but dangerous. Remember when president Bush justified his absurd “war on terror” by declaring that the “terrorists” (whoever they might be) “hated us because of our freedom.”?
That was not true then, and it is not true today.
Explaining Russia’s invasion of Ukraine by saying that “Russia hates Ukrainian democracy and freedom” is merely a lazy conservative’s way of saying, “I don’t know what in the world is happening here.”
Remember, this is the news network that has never seen an American invasion of another sovereign country, or an American led coup overturning a foreign government, that it didn’t approve of.
CBN cheered for America’s criminal destruction of Iraq.
They have applauded the American demolition of Syria.
The list could go on and on…
And now they condemn Russia for invading Ukraine?
This report is a dangerous example of Christian nationalist propaganda. It is dangerous because the obvious tragedy of war is manipulated to serve the interests of imperial America in eastern Europe.
The reporter’s tearful, closing rhetorical question is an obvious appeal to American sympathies. Humanitarian sympathies that will then be corrupted by US politicians and military recruiters who will justify another round of warfare by happily sacrificing the next generation of “freedom fighters” on the altar of imperialistic, American self-righteousness.
Millions of uninformed, patriotic, nationalistic, evangelical American Christians will watch this CBN report and naïvely swallow it all hook, line, and sinker. America wears the shining white hat of freedom. Russia wears the malicious black hat of tyranny.
Such manipulation works best among the uninformed. And, sadly, American evangelicals are among the most uninformed.
The average listener will not know anything about the recent history of American-Russian-Ukrainian relations.
They won’t know about Russia’s protests against NATO expansion, or that the US broke it’s promise to Russia that NATO would not be expanded.
They won’t know about the various proposals for a unified European military arrangement that would have included Russia, all of which were negated by the US.
They won’t know that Russia asked to join NATO several times over the years. Mikhail Gorbachev proposed the idea in 1990. Vladimir Putin asked president Clinton for Russia’s admission to NATO.
They won’t know that the US was deeply involved in the 2014 coup that overthrew the democratically elected Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych who was replaced by a hand-picked, America-friendly politician.
So, please, it is the height of hypocrisy for anyone to pretend that this current crisis is about the defense of democracy.
The US has always needed its Russian boogeyman. NATO preferred to maintain its “defense profile” as an anti-Russian organization and so rejected or ignored Russia’s requests for membership. Consequently, Russia was deliberately isolated as it watched NATO forces march further and further east, until they now sit cheek-to-jowl on the Russian border.
How many times can you poke a bear with a sharp stick before it turns on you?
We are now witnessing the answer to that question in Ukraine. Yes, Putin’s aggression must be condemned. He and he alone started this war. He is the premier warmonger of the moment.
But the United States as well as every NATO member state must share responsibility for the looming Ukrainian death toll. We too are guilty. We have used and abused Ukraine as a pawn in our psychotic phobia to hate Russia.
Watching a “Christian” journalist wallow in this phobia as he propagates the damnable heresy of Christian nationalism is both pathetic and heartbreaking.
Didn’t he, or anyone else at CBN, ever have a pastor or a professor or a good friend explain to them that as followers of Jesus we are always citizens of God’s kingdom, first, last, and always?
Allegiance to Jesus leaves no room for anyone’s nationalism. Neither does it allow for narrow mindedness, ignorance, or the deliberate exploitation of misinformation. War is too serious a matter.
First, a few words from Stephen Cohen, now deceased, on the absurdity and of our current situation in Ukraine, which could have been avoided. Cohen was a professor of Russian history and p0litics at Princeton and NYU.
Caitlin Johnstone has another good article detailing what the US ought to be doing right now. I’ll give you a hint: it’s nothing at all like what is actually happening.
The article is entitled “12 Thoughts on Ukraine.”
Here is an excerpt:
The U.S. power alliance has a choice between escalating aggressions against Russia to world-threatening levels or doing what anti-imperialists have been begging them to do for years and pursue detente.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the goal of which he claims is not to occupy the country but to “demilitarize” and “de-Nazify” it. We’ve no reason to put blind faith in any of those claims. Only time will tell.
As of this writing dozens have reportedly been killed. All war is horrific. We can only hope that this one winds up being the least horrific a war can be.
Some thoughts:
This whole thing could very easily have been avoided with a little bit of diplomacy. The only reason that didn’t happen was it would have meant the U.S. empire taking a teensy, weensy step back from its agenda of total planetary domination. I’ve seen people call it “sad” or “unfortunate” that Western powers didn’t make basic low-cost, high-yield concessions like guaranteeing no NATO membership for Ukraine and having Kiev honor the Minsk agreements, but it’s not sad, and it’s not unfortunate. It’s enraging. That they did this deserves nothing but pure, unadulterated, white hot rage.
Narrative managers have been working furiously to quash all discussion of No. 1, however. Like our good friend Michael McFaul here:
This is one of the most influential Russia “experts” in the Western world decrying propaganda while demanding media outlets enact propaganda. Saying what your government wants said instead of objective reporting the truth is the thing that propaganda is.
Please don’t report facts on your media platforms. Don’t let anyone talk about the known actions by NATO powers and Kiev, which experts have long warned would lead to this situation. You’re not allowed to talk about the known U.S./NATO/Ukraine actions which demonstrably led us to where we’re at. You’re only allowed to say Putin attacked Ukraine completely unprovoked, in a vacuum, solely because he is evil and hates freedom. Your loyalty is to the U.S. empire, not to truth. . .
The primary risk of nuclear war is not that anyone will choose to start one, it’s that one could be triggered by miscommunication, malfunction or misunderstanding amid the chaos and confusion of escalating Cold War tensions. This nearly happened, repeatedly, in the last Cold War. Cold War brinkmanship has far too many small, unpredictable moving parts for anyone to feel confident that they can ramp up aggressions without triggering a nuclear exchange. Nobody who feels safe with these games of nuclear chicken understands what they really are. We survived the last Cold War by sheer, dumb luck. We were never once in control. We just got lucky. There’s no reason to trust that we’ll get lucky again. We need to abandon this madness and pursue detente immediately. . .
8. It would now seem the U.S. power alliance has a choice between either (A) escalating aggressions against Russia to world-threatening levels or (B) doing what anti-imperialists have been begging them to do for years and pursuing detente. This is exactly where anti-imperialists have been warning we could wind up if the U.S. didn’t work toward detente with Russia. . .
As a follower of Jesus, I am a staunch anti-imperialist, as I believe every Christian should be.
Whether or not we all agree on that issue, I am convinced that every Christian must be committed to:
Insisting that our government avoid military escalation and conflict by pursuing rigorous diplomacy. It is wiser to be called “weak” by a warmonger than to enter a potentially nuclear conflict through foolish bluster.
Recognizing that we are not the only group of people with legitimate, national security interests. We must recognize that Russia has its own security concerns that have been seriously magnified by NATO, western forces arrayed along its western border. Who is the aggressor here? Seeing issues from the other’s perspective is an essential, Christian virtue.
Closing our eyes and ears to the patriotic, nationalistic, pro-America chanting that accompanies every new military excursion. We are citizens of God’s kingdom first and foremost. Christ’s kingdom is always a peaceable kingdom that never calls anyone to war and never justifies anyone else’s bloody conflict. Do not be deceived by the heresy, idolatry, and blood-lust now bombarding America’s airwaves.
President Biden claims that Russian ground troops have moved into eastern Ukraine, others say that Russian forces remain stationed along the border with orders to remain on alert.
Which story is true? I don’t know, but one thing is certain. The events unfolding along the Russia-Ukraine border are very, very dangerous for all of Europe and the United States.
As a Christian, I believe avoiding war and expanding peace is always the best option. So, once again, as the US media continues the spew the establishment, anti-Russia, anti-Putin party-line, I encourage us all to expand our information horizons.
Below are three analyses of the current crisis going well beyond, and contrary to, the pro-American narrative. Since we may well be looking at another war in Europe, it is imperative for every citizen to be as well-informed as possible.
I hope you’ll take the time to listen to these reports:
The first is by a journalist with the Socialist Workers Party. Ignore the political ad at the end of his report if you choose, but his description of the situation on the ground is very good.
Below is an interview with Ben Aris who was once the Moscow bureau chief for the British newspaper, the Daily Telegraph. He offers an excellent historical overview and current perspective:
Finally, even though this next interview is 43 minutes long, it is well worth every minute of your time. Aaron Mate interviews Richard Sakwa, professor of Russian and European politics at the University of Kent.
If only US news media would offer the analysis of people like Aris and Sakwa. But then, mainstream news outlets don’t try to inform us. Their primary purpose is to manipulate us.
Chris Hedges was a war correspondent for the New York Times for 20 years. As an on the ground reporter who has seen war’s destructive power up close and personal, he lost numerous friends and can tell his own near-death experiences.
Perhaps his most important book, in my opinion, is his dissection of war’s seductive, erotic power and the dehumanizing effects it has for all concerned. The book is entitled War is a Force That Gives Us Meaning.
I encourage you to read it if you haven’t already.
As the US government continues to beat its war drums, feeding our major news outlets with a steady stream of evidence-free accusations against Russia, all intended to stir American blood-lust, we should stop and ask ourselves why opposing voices are never given time publicly to explain their opposition to war with Russia.
Doesn’t that seem suspicious to you? Why is there no public debate?
Below is an excerpt from one of Hedges speeches during the lead up the war in Iraq. He summarizes his arguments from his book, War is a Force That Gives Us Meaning. I encourage you to sit down and listen.
The Biden administration is working hard to convince us that America’s newest meaning and purpose is a violent conflict with another major superpower.
Don’t buy it. It’s a lie. It’s a lie forged in the pit of hell and now propagated by devilish warmongers who calculate only dollar signs when they should see precious human lives.
The massacre of Palestinian villagers at Tantura in 1948 was one of many similar horrific, criminal acts committed by the Israeli military during the founding of modern Israel.
Professor Ilan Pappe
The Israeli historian Ilan Pappe has documented an additional thirty-one confirmed massacres of unarmed Palestinian civilians, including women and children, with the possibility of another six needing further investigation.
This video from the Middle East Eye focuses on the Tantura massacre. Pappe describes the Israeli killing spree in some detail in his book, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, pages 133-137. As many as 230 villagers were executed at Tantura, lined up and shot in the back of the head.
Professor Gary Burge was a New Testament professor at Wheaton College
Professor Gary Burge
for many years. He is also a good friend of mine and is now a dean at Calvin Theological Seminary in Grand Rapids, MI.
Gary has written three excellent books about the errors of Christian Zionism and the real-world fallout that it helps to create.
Thus, I was quite happy when Gary agreed to write the forward to my new book, Like Birds in a Cage: Christian Zionism’s Collusion in Israel’s Oppression of the Palestinian People (Wipf and Stock, 2021).
I recently discovered that a website called ChristianZionism.org, which Gary helped to organize, is promoting my book by reprinting Gary’s very kind forward.
If you haven’t yet purchased your own copy of the book, I encourage you to read Gary’s forward here.
John Pilger is an independent, British war-journalist and documentary
Independent journalist and documentary film maker, John Pilger
film-maker who does journalism the old-fashioned way: he goes to the scene and talks to the people involved.
His article, posted today at Consortium News, is entitled “War in Europe & the Rise of Raw Propaganda.” He ably discusses both the tsunami of warmongering propaganda about Ukraine that has swept across American media, as well as the needlessly reckless behavior — principally from the American side — unfolding around Ukraine.
Did you know that Ukraine has been in the midst of a civil war since 2014, a war where the US is backing the side that includes neo-Nazi, fascist militias?
Did you know that the US was a major player in overthrowing the democratically elected government of Ukraine in 2014, an action that helped to stir the civil war ravaging eastern Ukraine today?
Below is an excerpt of Pilger’s article:
Russia’s security proposals ought to be welcomed in the West. . . But who understands their significance when all the people are told is that Putin is a pariah?
Marshall McLuhan’s prophecy that “the successor to politics will be propaganda” has happened. Raw propaganda is now the rule in Western democracies, especially the U.S. and Britain. . .
On matters of war and peace, ministerial deceit is reported as news. Inconvenient facts are censored, demons are nurtured. The model is corporate spin, the currency of the age. In 1964, McLuhan famously declared, “The medium is the message.” The lie is the message now.
But is this new? It is more than a century since Edward Bernays, the father of spin, invented “public relations” as a cover for war propaganda. What is new is the virtual elimination of dissent in the mainstream. . .
The No-Evidence Rule
The Russians are coming. Russia is worse than bad. Putin is evil, “a Nazi like Hitler,” salivated the Labour MP Chris Bryant. Ukraine is about to be invaded by Russia – tonight, this week, next week. The sources include an ex CIA propagandist who now speaks for the U.S. State Department and offers no evidence of his claims about Russian actions because “it comes from the U.S. Government.”
Jack F. Matlock served as US ambassador to the USSR from 1987 to 1991, which means that he witnessed the fall of the Iron Curtain and watched the
Jack F. Matlock, former US ambassador to the Soviet Union
emergence of Mikhail Gorbachev, glasnost, and perestroika from a ringside seat inside Russia.
This means that he is better informed than most when it comes to the post-Soviet history of Eastern Europe, the Baltic States, Ukraine, and Russia.
Mr. Matlock is now a member of the board of directors of the American Committee for US-Russia Accord (ACURA).
In 1997, Ambassador Matlock was asked to testify before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. When asked about whether or not more member states should be added to NATO, he said that it was unwise; that, in fact, “it may well go down in history as the most profound strategic blunder made since the end of the Cold War.”
Several days ago Matlock penned a wise and compelling op-ed about the current crisis involving Ukraine, Russia, and the US.
He is thoroughly familiar with all the countries involved. His analysis is rooted in history not hysteria. If only he were inside Biden’s White House.
Below is a selection of excerpts from one of the best analyses of this situation you will find anywhere:
Today we face an avoidable crisis [in Ukraine] that was predictable, actually predicted, willfully precipitated, but easily resolved by the application of common sense. . . Maybe I am wrong—tragically wrong—but I cannot dismiss the suspicion that we are witnessing an elaborate charade, grossly magnified by prominent elements of the American media, to serve a domestic political end. Facing rising inflation, the ravages of Omicron, blame (for the most part unfair) for the withdrawal from Afghanistan, plus the failure to get the full support of his own party for the Build Back Better legislation, the Biden administration is staggering under sagging approval ratings just as it gears up for this year’s congressional elections. Since clear “victories” on the domestic woes seem increasingly unlikely, why not fabricate one by posing as if he prevented the invasion of Ukraine by “standing up to Vladimir Putin”? . . .
. . . So far as Ukraine is concerned, U.S. intrusion into its domestic politics was deep—to the point of seeming to select a prime minister. It also, in effect, supported an illegal coup d’etat that changed the Ukrainian government in 2014, a procedure not normally considered consistent with the rule of law or democratic governance. The violence that still simmers in Ukraine started in the “pro-Western” west, not in the Donbas where it was a reaction to what was viewed as the threat of violence against Ukrainians who are ethnic Russian. . .
Things got worse during the four years of Donald Trump’s tenure. Accused, without evidence, of being a Russian dupe, Trump made sure he embraced every anti-Russian measure that came along, while at the same time flattered Putin as a great leader. Reciprocal expulsions of diplomats, started by the United States in the final days of Obama’s tenure continued in a grim vicious circle that has resulted in a diplomatic presence so emaciated that for months the United States did not have enough staff in Moscow to issue visas for Russians to visit the United States. . .
. . . What President Putin is demanding, an end to NATO expansion and creation of a security structure in Europe that insures Russia’s security along with that of others is eminently reasonable. He is not demanding the exit of any NATO member and he is threatening none. By any pragmatic, common sense standard it is in the interest of the United States to promote peace, not conflict. To try to detach Ukraine from Russian influence—the avowed aim of those who agitated for the “color revolutions”—was a fool’s errand, and a dangerous one. Have we so soon forgotten the lesson of the Cuban Missile Crisis?
I am sure that the majority of Americans are aware by now of the controversy stirred by Whoopi Goldberg’s comment about the Holocaust on the TV program The View.
Whoopi Goldberg on The View
During this discussion, Ms. Goldberg had the temerity to say, “The Holocaust was not about race. It was about man’s inhumanity to man.” Of course, the feathers began to fly.
In a late-night conversation with Stephen Colbert, Ms. Goldberg clarified what she meant, referring to her experiences as a black woman in America. She made it clear that her reference point for understanding racial discrimination was skin color, whether a person was black or white. This was not surprising. Most people rely on their own personal experiences, their own subjectivity, to lay the initial foundation for how they view the world around them.
Whoopi’s comments could have provided a useful opportunity for a broader, public conversation about the history and meaning of racism. We all could have discussed the fact that skin color is only one of numerous characteristics that have been used to make “racial” distinctions throughout history. Oh, but wait. I forgot. This is America. We don’t do serious thinking in public (or in precious few other spaces) here in this great nation of ours.
In another follow-up interview Ms. Goldberg corrected herself further by adding that she should have said “both” when she spoke out on The View. In other words, the Holocaust was about both Hitler’s extermination of the Jewish race as well as man’s inhumanity to man, implying that the former was an example of the latter.
Unfortunately, Whoopi’s attempts to reframe our conversation about the Holocaust – a very worthy project, in my opinion – has been completely squashed. She knows that she has been silenced. Her most recent statement states that she has now decided simply to never talk about the Holocaust again.
Three cheers for our Holocaust cancel culture!
Yet, this entire affair has been highly unfortunate for a number of reasons.
Quite predictably, Ms. Goldberg’s original statement on prime-time television prompted pro-Israel and pro-Zionist apologists to attack her like sharks after red meat. The leader of this pack has been Jonathan Greenblatt, the head of the Jewish Anti-Defamation League. Fortunately, after discussing the issue personally with Goldberg, Greenblatt came to her rescue, extended a special dispensation by insisting that the now chastised and enlightened TV host not be criticized too harshly for her former ignorance.
Yet, even Greenblatt’s intervention could not save Ms. Goldberg from a two-week suspension from her hosting duties on The View. Luckily for us, her network’s corporate virtue-signaling has saved us all from any more of Whoopi’s “inappropriate” comments about the Holocaust.
Boy, am I relieved!
The supreme irony found at the heart of this ridiculous controversy, however, is the simple fact that Whoopi was not wrong, at least not in the sense that her critics have derided. Let me explain.
I begin with a short bibliography that will allow my reader to make sense of the parenthetical notations included below. I strongly suggest that you read at least one of these important books if you hope to understand what is going on in this contrived controversy:
Avraham Burg, The Holocaust Is Over We Must Rise From Its Ashes.
Norman Finkelstein, The Holocaust Industry.
Shlomo Sand, How I Stopped Being a Jew.
Tom Segev, The Seventh Million: The Israelis and the Holocaust.
Beginning with the 1961 trial of Nazi criminal Adolf Eichmann in Jerusalem, pro-Israel/pro-Zionist advocates have worked steadily to conjure a global amnesia about the full diversity of victims in the Holocaust. Frankly, the goal has been to make the world forget that anyone other than Jews were exterminated by the Nazis.
And they have largely succeeded, at least in public discourse. Whoopi Goldberg is only the latest victim of this monolithic Zionist-Israeli Holocaust-management network.
Dr. Norman Finkelstein is an American-Jewish historian whose parents were Holocaust survivors. He has written an important book entitled, The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering. Quoting the Israeli writer Boas Evron, he explains, “Holocaust awareness is actually an official, propagandistic indoctrination, a churning out of slogans and a false view of the world, the real aim of which is not at all an understanding of the past, but a manipulation of the present” (Finkelstein 2000: 41).
Avraham Burg, a former speaker in the Israeli parliament, called the Knesset, traces the beginning of this manipulation process to the Israeli trial of the Nazi war criminal, Adolf Eichmann. In his book, The Holocaust Is Over We Must Rise From Its Ashes, Burg laments Israel’s decision to make the Eichmann trial a strictly Jewish, Israeli affair rather than opening up the proceedings to an international judiciary.
He describes Eichmann’s trial as “an initiation ritual” in which Israel (and world Jewry) reasserted their unique status as the eternal victims of never-ending gentile antisemitism (Burg 128). “We must always feel like perpetual victims,” he writes. “When we tried [Eichmann] for genocide, we meant only genocide against ourselves (Burg 129) …We took the Shoah to be exclusively our own. Thus, we missed the option of turning it into a much more meaningful, universal event…We nationalized the Shoah, monopolized it and internalized it, and we do not let anyone get closer” (Burg 143).
According to Burg, the Holocaust can best be described as “a crime against creation” (126) – a description that is in the same ball park as Ms. Goldberg’s reference to “man’s inhumanity against man.”
Romanian born author Elie Wiezel (1928 – 2016) appointed himself high-priest of this now all-pervasive Holocaust mysticism, an exclusive realm where non-Jewish victims are erased from historical memory, while exclusive racial curators conjure the Holocaust an utterly unique, incomparable event that only properly trained Jews are capable of discussing appropriately.
It is worth remembering that when the American Holocaust Museum in Washington D.C. was in the planning stages, it was Wiesel who “led the offensive to commemorate Jews alone.” Finkelstein explains, “Deferred to as the undisputed expert on the Holocaust period Wiesel tenaciously argued for the preeminence of Jewish victimhood” (2000: 75).
Fortunately, the Jewish historians listed above have all called out this Israeli, Zionist game for what it is: inaccurate, unhistorical twaddle.
It’s malicious imposition on the rest of us, illustrated now by Whoopi Goldberg’s experience, is something that Norman Finkelstein calls “intellectual terrorism” (2000: 47).
He’s right.
We must begin with the simple fact that, despite Israel’s eagerness to obscure this part of the story, Jews were not the only victims of the Holocaust. This fact cannot be forgotten, no matter how hard the Zionist lobby tries to make us forget.
The Nazi extermination campaign began with the nation-wide euthanizing of the mentally handicapped and physically deformed. These “unfit” German victims were the first to warm up Hitler’s ovens.
Then they eliminated the communists, socialists, and all other anti-Nazi dissidents, many of whom were Christians.
Then there were the Gypsies, the Roma. As a ratio of total population size, the Nazi extermination of at least half-million Gypsies was roughly equal to the Jewish genocide (Finkelstein 2000: 76; Sand 58). European Gypsies, who remain persecuted to this day, ought not be forgotten.
(Read Finkelstein for the details of how Jewish representatives fought to exclude any mention of the Gypsies from the US Holocaust Museum. Or read Sand for his story about attending a Holocaust conference where Jewish representatives demanded that a Gypsy attendee be excluded).
Then there were the homosexuals and Jehovah’s Witnesses, together with two and a half million Poles. The Nazis exterminated five million Poles, half of them were Jews. The other half were Roman Catholics.
So, in this crucial sense then, Whoopi Goldberg is absolutely correct. The Holocaust was not fundamentally about the Jewish race. The outrage unleashed against her is cruel testimony to the effectiveness of fifty years of Zionist-Israeli propaganda with its shaming, cajoling, ridiculing, and guilty-tripping the rest of the western world.
It is, indeed, intellectual terrorism.
However, recalling the great diversity represented among the Nazi’s many victims, we are also reminded that Ms. Goldberg is not entirely correct. We cannot forget that this disparate collection of Nazi victims were all captured in the net of Hitler’s primary racial concern – his obsession with a (fictitious) purified Aryan race.
Only from this perspective can the Holocaust be seen as exclusively about race, although I doubt if Whoopi had this consideration in mind. I am certain that Jonathan Greenblatt and his pro-Israel co-conspirators do not.
The guiding principle directing Hitler’s bloodlust was the protection of Aryan racial purity. His designs to conquer Europe were an attempt to garner an enlarged “homeland” (Lebensraum, living space, it was called) spacious enough to accommodate the perfected Aryan population he intended to produce.
The fact that Hitler hated the Jews was contingent on his own Aryan, racial priorities. He was serving his vision of “the master race.”
The fact that European leaders in the political Zionist movement were also searching for a new homeland large enough to provide for an exclusively Jewish population should not be forgotten. The parallels between National Socialism and political Zionism are no coincidence. Both movements were drinking from the same stream of blood-and-soil, ethnic-nationalism swirling throughout Europe at the time.
So, Ms. Goldberg is both partly right and partly wrong, but not the way that either her detractors or belated defenders imagine.
As far as I am concerned, the important lesson to be learned from this recent tempest is the depressing effectiveness it reveals about Israel’s pro-Zionist propaganda machine. Once again, it has managed to squelch legitimate historical debate by intimidating the hearty few courageous enough to raise a hand and say, “Uh, excuse me, but the Jews were not the only ones who suffered. In this sense, the Holocaust was not about race.”
book, Like Birds in a Cage: Christian Zionism’s Collusion in Israel’s Oppression of the Palestinian People (Wipf and Stock, 2021).
