In the aftermath of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, there were those who argued that our responsibility as Christians was simply to pray for and work for peace. This was often accompanied by calls for a ceasefire. Similarly, there have been those who have responded to events in Israel and Gaza with similar appeals for ceasefires.
In fact, it has been implied at times, whether by the BBC or by other prominent leaders and opinion influencers, that if you take sides, if you believe one party is more to blame than others then that will affect your ability to analyse and report factually and truthfully.
Now, I have an interest to declare here. I have chosen a side. I do believe that Hamas is primarily culpable. I’ve stated from the start that we cannot equivocate between a terrorist organisation that in its founding charter commits to antisemitic genocide and a democratic nation state seeking to defend its people. Yes, that means I have a bias here. I guess that I am emotionally invested too. I have friends living in that region of the world including Christians working in various places in the Middle East, including Israel and including with links to Christian hospitals in the wider region. I have Jewish friends living in Israel and I have Jewish friends here in the UK who are concerned about rising antisemitism. So, I don’t claim to be dispassionate.
However, just because you have taken a view, chosen a side, identified who you believe to be the worst culprit doesn’t mean that you aren’t able to engage with the facts, nor does it mean that you cannot recognise complexity.
So first of all, I want to speak to friends who would align with my views on the conflict. It is possible to be anxious and concerned about loved ones in Israel and friends in the Jewish community whilst also being concerned for the lives and wellbeing of Palestinians. It’s possible to recognise that many people disagreeing with us will have specific emotional ties. This includes politicians like the SNP leader who have loved ones currently trapped in Gaza. We can have empathy for them too.
Secondly, it is possible to recognise that the history is complex. I’ve written previously that often the history is simplified to ignore the point that there wasn’t a Palestinian homeland usurped by Israel, that the end of the Ottoman empire led to a British mandate in the region and from there an agreement to provide homelands for both Jews and Palestinians. Often, those least interested in allowing for either possibility were the surrounding Arab states with Egypt and Jordan occupying the Palestinian areas up until 1967.
However, we need to recognise two things. First, that theological Zionism, the idea that the land must be Israel’s because of God’s covenants is open to debate. In fact, my view is that there isn’t a theological basis. I’m a pragmatic/political Zionist if you like. Secondly, we can recognise the serious ethical issues with the words and actions of Zionists including the founding fathers of the movement and the behaviours of different Israeli governments throughout the years.
Thirdly, we can recognise that for all kinds of reasons, a conventional military campaign against Hamas through airstrikes and a potential ground invasion may not be the wisest or right approach. This is of course complex. On the one hand, I think we can see the dangers, specifically that you can never truly completely protect civilians in such a situation. This raises moral questions about what lengths you should go to in order to protect civilians. It also risks creating martyrs for a cause and potential recruiting ground for Hamas, extending rather than ending the cycle of violence. My personal opinion is that this approach is unwinnable, that the longer term priority should be use of security services to identify specific Hamas leaders, along with work to cut off the supply chain of financial, military and political support for Hamas. I also believe that it inevitably requires a viable, self sufficient Palestinian state as an end point. However, I realise that these are just opinions and take me beyond my areas of expertise.
Fourthly, when it comes to Israel cutting off fuel and water supplies we can recognise both that Israel as the opposing side isn’t, under the letter of international law, compelled to supply those things to Palestine. We can recognise the reluctance of Israel to do so given the risk that this supplies Hamas directly. We can also ask why Hamas have not invested in those things for themselves. However, at the same time, we can recognise that under the spirit of international law, Israel has taken responsibility for the physical well-being of Palestinians in those areas. This is why I personally have argued that Israel shouldn’t have cut off the electricity and water.
Those of us most inclined to support Israel and unequivocally condemn Hamas need to recognise those complexities. However, those who are arguing that t is complicated and that we must stand impartially also need to recognise two things.
First they need to recognise that even in the complexities, there is a simplicity to this. A genocidal, antisemitic terrorist outfit attacked innocent civilians. They tortured, shamed, raped, kidnapped and killed. It is a very simple thing to say that such things are evil, without clouding that condemnation of evil by giving more time and attention to criticism of “the other side”.
Secondly, they need to recognise the complexities which they may well have given less attention to. Let me give you a couple of examples. First, there is the example of Israel’s calls for evacuation of civilians and hospitals from the north of Gaza. Critics of Israel are right to raise concerns, to point to the huge obstacles to such an operation. They may legitimately argue that in this situation it will be nigh on impossible to get everyone out.
However, at times I’ve heard the argument made to suggest that Israel has ordered hospitals to evacuate, that this is morally wrong because you can never evacuate safely and it should never be called for. Linked to this has been the implication that Israel are specifically targeting hospitals and that this is a breach of humanitarian laws. This has led to calls from church and charity leaders to rescind such orders.
I think that this overlooks the following complexities. First, that a warning to evacuate is not the same as an order to do so. Secondly, we should be careful about assuming motives. At times the implication seems to be that the evacuation is intended to increase suffering. There seems little allowance for the possibility that Israel might be seeking to minimise civilian suffering. Thirdly, it seems to ignore the point that whilst it may be difficult to do a full evacuation of hospitals that such evacuations do happen from time to time (NHS hospitals are required to have plans in place for such a crisis here). Fourthly, it shows a lack of curiosity. Why would Israel deny launching a strike against a hospital if this was their overt and intended plan all along? Is it possible that Israel are aware of the risks of collateral harm coming from either side when civilians are in the middle of a war zone? Fifthly, it doesn’t think through the way in which Hamas for their own purposes use civilians as human shields. There is a risk that our words are used by Hamas.
The other example is the call for a ceasefire. This risks assuming that a ceasefire is a neutral event between two equally wrong and equally justified parties. It doesn’t consider whether or not Hamas would comply at all or whether an apparent ceasefire would suit them better to prepare for their next strike. Hamas would benefit most from a cycle of events where they are allowed to launch atrocities, return with hostages and then regroup whilst Israel are tied into a ceasefire.
It is possible to be concerned for the Palestinian cause, to be critical of Israel and to recognise that wanting Israel to win against Hamas is not a terrible thing.
Faithroots 