ISRAEL’S CLAIM TO INNOCENCE: unmasking the theology of self-defence.
The one question that we need to ask ourselves as Christians is whether our faith is revealed in reason or in action.
When the question was asked on Social Media whether a follower of Jesus can endorse the ongoing violence in Gaza, one of my social media followers responded as follows:
“Bombing those who want Jewish genocide (Hamas, Houthi, Hezbollah etc.) is an act of self-defence. My prayers are that God’s chosen people are safe from destruction, and that Biblical prophecy will continue to unfold until Jesus returns.”
This response is not uncommon. For most pro-Israel supporters, every heartbreaking statistic—bombed hospitals, starving children, community displacement, and mass graves—is met with one universal refrain – a question disguised as an answer:
“Doesn’t Israel have the right to defend itself?”
It seems like in much of American Christianity today, violence has become so woven into the theological fabric that it’s rarely questioned. The “just war tradition” isn’t just referenced—it’s revered. Sermons, social media posts, and political platforms echo the conviction that self-defence is a sacred right, and that killing in the name of protection or justice can be an act of faithfulness to Christ. For many believers, this isn’t controversial—it’s common sense. To challenge it is to risk being labelled naïve, unpatriotic, or even heretical.
So, the question/ statement remains:
“Doesn’t Israel have the right to defend itself!”
Those who affirm this statement are not malicious. But like all of us, their thinking is shaped—often unconsciously—by preferred narratives, motivated reasoning, and confirmation bias. These mental shortcuts simplify complexity, replacing reason with conviction. It’s human nature. But in matters of life and death, simplicity can be dangerous.
At first glance, the answer seems obvious: Yes, of course. Every nation has the right—and indeed the duty—to protect its citizens, especially in the face of terrorism. That’s the instinctive reply. But to stop there is to flatten a profoundly complex issue into a slogan. And slogans, however comforting, can carry devastating consequences.
This question—“Doesn’t Israel have the right to defend itself?”—is not neutral. It’s loaded with assumptions, each shaped by contested histories, theological frameworks, and geopolitical narratives. Many who offer a confident “yes” or “no” do so because the answer aligns with their worldview. It feels self-evident. So self-evident, in fact, that any dissenting view is dismissed as ignorance or bad faith.
However, if we affirm Israel’s privilege to self-defence as a political right, then integrity demands we also acknowledge Gaza’s claim to the same principle. What applies to one applies to all. The question, then, is not merely legal—it is moral: How do we discern between the ethical principle to protect life and the political justification to wield power?
When we invoke “self-defence,” we must also ask these probing questions:
- Who is being defended?
- How are they being defended?
- Who is being harmed?
- Is it collective punishment where the innocent ultimately suffers more than the guilty?
- Is the response proportionate, just, and rooted in truth?
- Is it redemptive justice or retributive justice?
- And, most importantly, does it reflect the character of Jesus, who absorbed violence rather than perpetuated it?
The question is therefore not whether Israel—or any nation—has the right to defend itself. The deeper question is:
- How do we define self-defence?
- And what does it mean to defend the life of one without destroying the life of another?
For Christians, this is not merely a political dilemma. It is a spiritual reckoning. And it calls us to move beyond reflexive answers toward a posture of humble, courageous inquiry—one that seeks peace without sacrificing justice, and truth without abandoning love.
When engaging the topic of self-defence, three distinct yet interwoven frameworks must be held together in thoughtful unity. Each offers a lens—legal, moral, and spiritual—that, when integrated, can guide us beyond reaction toward discernment. To separate them is to risk distortion; to unite them is to pursue justice with integrity.
-
FROM A POLITICAL AND JUDICIAL PERSPECTIVE.
Rule 14 of the International Humanitarian Law Databases states the following[3]
Launching an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated, is prohibited.
This legal principle is called “collective punishment” and is prohibited by international law.
Collective punishment refers to penalizing an entire group—whether a community, ethnic group, or even a classroom—for the actions of one or a few individuals. It disregards individual responsibility and often targets people who had no involvement in the original offense.
Under international law, especially the Geneva Conventions, collective punishment is prohibited in both international and non-international armed conflicts. It’s widely condemned as unjust because it violates the principle that punishment should be based on personal guilt, not association.
Legally, Israel can no longer claim innocence in breaking Rule 14 of the International Humanitarian Law. Consider the following:
Updated Comparative Statistics (as of September 2025)
- For every 1 Israeli killed on 7 October 2023, 57 Palestinians have been killed.
- For every 1 Israeli child killed on 7 October, 648 Palestinian children have now been killed.
- For every 1 Hamas militant killed, 238 civilians have been left homeless.
- 247 Palestinian journalists have been killed in Gaza, and there were over 800 attacks on healthcare facilities in Gaza, resulting in the deaths and injuries of numerous medical personnel.
- All the churches in Gaza have been bombed and either severely damaged or destroyed.
Every soul lost—Israeli or Palestinian, child or elder, civilian or combatant—is a tragedy beyond words. These numbers are not just statistics. They are shattered families, stolen futures, and sacred lives extinguished in a conflict that continues to defy justice and mercy.
But the proportionality is a consideration that needs to be addressed in a way that Christ would have done. There is no doubt, regardless of the vantage point from which we choose to view to the conflict, that the response is disproportionate, cruel, and illegal.
-
FROM A MORAL AND ETHICAL PERSPECTIVE
Morally and ethically, Hamas overstepped all boundaries of humanity on 7 October 2023. Hamas had its obvious reasons for the attack, but no excuse can justify the brutality of what happened. The basic laws of humanity, according to the IHL, (as explained in JUST SECURITY[4]) were transgressed by Hamas. Laws like the taking of hostages, torture and rape, using people as human shield and directly targeting civilians. These are all considered and condemned as war crimes.
At the same time, it is also deemed war crimes when attacks are disproportionate, when civilians are indiscriminately harmed, when civilian infrastructure is targeted, and civilians are disproportionality injured. One of the key guidelines stipulated by the IHL refers to the collective punishment of a people group. These are equally humanely unacceptable and deemed as war crimes, i.e. not self-defence.
The following brief points describe the LAW OF ARMED CONFLICT (LOAC), also known as INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW (IHL), that provides a moral compass to the ongoing Israel-Hamas war. For a full description, visit: https://www.justsecurity.org/89489/expert-guidance-law-of-armed-conflict-in-the-israel-hamas-war/
- Taking of hostages = war crime
- Torture and rape = war crimes
- Directly targeting civilians = war crime
- Attacks that disproportionately harm civilians = war crimes
- Targeting civilian infrastructure and disproportionality targeting civilian infrastructure = war crime
- Targeting healthcare facilities = war crimes
- If all feasible precautions to minimize civilian harm are not taken = war crimes
- Collective punishment = war crimes
- Preventing access to humanitarian relief = war crimes
- Forcible displacement of civilians = war crimes
Marko Milanovic, Professor of Public International Law, writes as follows[5]:
So, with respect to the international humanitarian law, Israel was obligated to refrain from using starvation as a tactic against Gaza’s civilians, minimize harm to civilians and civilian infrastructure, and allow the return of displaced individuals post-conflict. However, in contrast, Israel closed all borders and severed essential services like electricity, water, and food supplies, as well as conducting airstrikes on densely populated areas and vital infrastructure. Israel’s armed forces launched air strikes on residential buildings, including apartments in the Rimal neighbourhood in Gaza City; mosques; refugee camps, such as Jabalia Refugee Camp and Nuseirat Refugee Camp); and the UNRWA School in Central Gaza’s al-Maghazi refugee camp.
Milanovic concludes as follows:
Morally, the only way in which Israel can justify its continuing military action in Gaza, with such horrible consequences for its civilian population, is by some kind of ‘lesser evil’ utilitarian calculus: if the lives of innocents it takes now serve the cause of saving more innocent lives in the future. With each passing day, with each dead baby in a Gazan hospital, that justification becomes more difficult to make. I, at least, fail to understand how the Israeli government can today reasonably claim that – speculatively, in the future – it will have saved more innocent lives than it has already taken.
-
FROM A CHRISTIAN PERSPECTIVE
This is one of the most painful and complex questions facing Christians today—especially those committed to justice, reconciliation, and the dignity of all people.
Scripture does not offer a blanket endorsement of violence in the name of self-defence. While governments may bear the sword to restrain evil (Romans 13:4), the Christian ethic is shaped by Jesus’ radical call to love enemies, protect the vulnerable, and pursue peace even at great cost (Matthew 5:9, Luke 6:27–36).
Micah 6:8 reminds us: “He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.”
So, when Israel claims its destruction of Gaza is self-defence, Christians must ask:
- Does this response reflect Godly justice or human revenge?
- Does it protect the lives of the innocent or take it?
- Does it reflect the heart of God for redemption or the enemy’s pursuit for retribution?
- Does it add to the cycle of violence or break it?
We are called to grieve with all who suffer—Israeli and Palestinian alike—and to resist narratives that dehumanize either side. The imago Dei is not selective. Every child buried beneath rubble, every mother mourning a son, bears the image of God.
Jesus absorbed violence rather than perpetuating it. His way of peace is not passive—it confronts injustice, but refuses to mirror its methods. Christian peacemaking means standing in solidarity with the oppressed, speaking truth to power, and refusing to baptize state violence as divine will.
In closing, let’s ask the question again: Is our faith revealed in reason or in action. This leaves us with a piercing observation:
There are only two kinds of Christians in this world—
Those who reason that enemies should be conquered,
And those who see neighbours to be loved.
Which of these describes you best?
[1] https://www.jurist.org/commentary/2023/12/7-10-the-question-of-israels-right-to-self-defense-under-international-law/
[2] https://www.ejiltalk.org/does-israel-have-the-right-to-defend-itself/
[3] https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule14
[4] https://www.justsecurity.org/89489/expert-guidance-law-of-armed-conflict-in-the-israel-hamas-war/
[5] https://www.ejiltalk.org/does-israel-have-the-right-to-defend-itself/
[6] https://www.churchandculture.org/blog/2013/9/9/when-is-war-just