Since Hamas invaded Israel at dawn on October 7th, perpetrating a massacre of unparalleled cruelty against innocent people of all ages, Israel has been at war. It is not only Christians who find it difficult to take a stance on this issue in public discourse. Dr. Tobias Krämer, head of the Theology and Church department at CSI, answers the 23 most frequently asked questions and statements.
I don't know if we can agree on this: Terrorist acts of violence are never justifiable. Never. Whatever the circumstances, terrorism must be consistently rejected. Non-negotiable.
If we can't agree on this, you don't need to read any further. Because the following article assumes that the rejection of terrorism is an achievement of civilization and possesses absolute validity. We teach our children from a young age that there are many ways to represent one's own interests, but that beating another child up on the head is not one of them. I will not back down from this consensus.
What Israel experienced a few days ago at the hands of Hamas is terrorism in its most extreme form. Because our media often only operate with numbers, the horrific cruelty of these events hasn't truly registered with us. A death toll in the thousands is already horrific. But how these people were killed is indescribable. Terrorists fired indiscriminately into the crowd at a music festival and shot spectators out of the trees. They invaded kibbutzim and showed no mercy to the elderly or children. Bodies were gruesomely dismembered, faces smashed, pregnant women slashed open, babies had their heads torn off, and numerous defenseless Jewish women were raped before being murdered; it was violence in its worst form.
Important: These terrorist attacks came out of nowhere, yet they were meticulously planned over months. The perpetrators knew who lived where in the kibbutzim. They were familiar with the area and extremely well-informed. These acts were not committed in the heat of war, but were coldly planned, professionally prepared, kept strictly secret, and strategically executed. These are the facts.
No: “No, but…”,
In light of this, there can only be one response: a clear no. No to terrorism. Not a "No, but…", but a definite, crystal-clear, and unconditional no. Period.
This "no" implies taking Israel's side. The message must be: "Those who terrorize Israel must expect not only Israel's resistance, but also our resistance. We stand in solidarity with Israel against terrorism; we stand with Israel." How one judges Israel and its policies is irrelevant here. Only one thing matters: to stand firmly with Israel and against terrorism, as our federal government, among others, has done. For the atrocities committed by these terrorists cannot be justified by anything, absolutely anything. There is nothing more to say than a clear "no.".
Once this position is clearly defined, we can address all the other questions that arise, some of which are quite significant. I will do this by addressing statements and questions that are frequently heard these days.
1. "As a Christian, one cannot be in favor of Israel now invading the Gaza Strip."
It is incredibly difficult to judge what reactions are right and appropriate in extreme situations. An overly defensive reaction from Israel would embolden the terrorists, and that must not happen under any circumstances. An overly offensive reaction could be excessive and backfire just as easily. Israel is fully aware of these dangers. To what extent we are even capable of making a judgment from afar is questionable. We don't know the situation, we don't know those involved, we haven't witnessed the suffering and destruction, we are only informed through the media and not from firsthand experience on the ground. Therefore, it is wise for us to exercise restraint, to stand by Israel in its time of need, and to allow Israel itself to decide how it will defend itself.
Objectively speaking, there is hardly any alternative to invading Gaza, because that is where Hamas and its terrorists are based, where their base and infrastructure are located. If one wants to deal a significant blow to Hamas, this can probably only be achieved within the Gaza Strip, not from the outside. Israel now faces the challenge of taking decisive action against Hamas while simultaneously trying to protect the civilian population as much as possible – an enormous balancing act. Israel has always done its utmost in this regard. For example, the people of Gaza are informed in advance about the army's planned actions. Houses to be bombed are marked beforehand; the population is urged to seek shelter in good time. Unfortunately, civilian casualties are inevitable. This, too, is one of the bitter truths of these times.
2. “As Christians, we must be in favor of a peaceful solution.”
That is undoubtedly correct. The only question is how to reach a peaceful solution and what exactly needs to be "resolved" here. The question that currently needs to be resolved is how Israel should respond to the bestial murders committed by hordes of terrorist Hamas fighters. This is not a simple question and certainly a matter of prayer. The problem of terrorism itself must be resolved. Israel has set its sights on destroying Hamas, the source of this terror. This is not possible through peaceful means.
Should this succeed, further strategies will be needed to help Gaza overcome terrorism from within. Whether and how this can happen is a complex question – another prayer request. Should this, too, one day succeed, then nothing will stand in the way of peaceful coexistence between Israel and the Gaza Strip. Israel extends its hand to all who wish to live peacefully with Israel. Whoever desires peace with Israel will receive it.
3. "Israel as a state has the right to defend itself, no question. But how can I, as a Christian, personally stand by this when I think of the commandment 'Thou shalt not kill'?"
The prohibition against killing is a social prohibition that pertains to social interaction. Essentially, it states: "Thou shalt not murder." This prohibition likely exists in all cultures. Murder is generally punished severely. However, in civilized societies today, murder is categorically rejected as a means of conflict resolution or aggression release. This prohibition does not apply to war, nor to self-defense. In these cases, different ethical rules (whether secular or Christian) apply. Even the prophet John the Baptist, known for his repentance, recognized this, urging soldiers to protect civilians and refrain from looting, but not to abandon their profession (Luke 3:14). This aligns quite closely with the course currently pursued by the Israeli army.
4. "We must pray for Israel and the Palestinians."
As people who are not directly affected by this terrible situation, we have a special opportunity to pray for it. We should do so. The Lord's Prayer can be our guide: "Your kingdom come, your will be done" (Matthew 6:10). Let us pray for God's intervention and against terror. For where God is at work and terror subsides, things turn out for the best. When our prayer becomes more specific, we should pray with information, guided by the Word of God and led by the Holy Spirit. Of course, Israel needs prayer, and so do the Palestinians—but in different ways! For prayer for Israel, we also refer you to God's promises in the Bible and our prayer guide.
5. "Is it true that Hamas wants to wipe out Israel? Can this be proven?"
Hamas makes no secret of its desire to destroy Israel. The preamble to its charter states: "Israel exists and will continue to exist until Islam has destroyed it, just as it has destroyed other countries before it." Further information about Hamas's profile can be found here.
6. "What is the best way to explain the martyrdom of radical Islam to Westerners?"
It's actually not that difficult to understand. Martyrs, or suicide bombers, are promised that after death they will go directly to paradise, where they will receive rich rewards and high honors. This is not only enticing but also a prospect that no other Muslim has, because there is no guarantee of salvation in Islam. Furthermore, the martyrs—mostly young men—are given the prospect of having 70 virgins (houris) in paradise, all to themselves. These promises cater to the deepest desires of young men, which is no coincidence. All of this is quite obvious. The problem, however, lies elsewhere: In the West, we don't believe that such promises exist, that they "work," and that Muslims would actually give their lives for them. We are too rationally and worldly oriented for that. People in the Muslim world, however, think differently. Only when you empathize with the Islamic world can you understand it—and grasp its implications.
7. "One should not consider all Palestinians to be evil; it is only the fanatical leaders who are evil."
Yes and no. First, it's crucial to understand that we need to think in a nuanced way. Not all Palestinians think the same, just as not all Jews, all Christians, all Germans, and all Berliners do, to name a few examples. Many a Palestinian mother is simply concerned with feeding her five children; that's undeniable. It's also true that a fundamental problem in the Gaza Strip lies in the dominance of Hamas. Hamas is fanatical; it carries out terrorist attacks and incites extremism within the population. Those who hate Israel are already raising their children to hate Israel, so that these children grow up hating it without having consciously chosen to do so: a vicious cycle.
A clear division – the evil leaders of Hamas versus the peace-loving people – is unfortunately impossible. A large portion of Gaza's residents support or sympathize with Hamas. It is no coincidence that Hamas was democratically elected in 2006 and, according to polls, would still hold a majority today. Therefore, simply destroying Hamas will not be enough. We also need strategies to offer the population alternatives to hatred and violence. This is a long-term task.
8. "Israel must not simply retaliate, but must respond appropriately."
This idea is justified to some extent, but it presents a problem: there are no objective criteria for "appropriateness," especially not in this extreme situation. What is appropriate in this context cannot be judged from the outside. This decision may, can, must, and should be made by Israel alone. This is a form of dignity that should be granted to Israel. Israel has a right to international solidarity in this matter. Only those who now stand unconditionally behind Israel are unequivocally opposing terrorism – and that is the order of the day.
9. “Israel is partly to blame. Given what the Jews have been doing to the Palestinians for years, they shouldn't be surprised if the Palestinians now rebel and defend themselves.”
The conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is decades old, and the question of who bears what responsibility is debatable. However, in light of the recent massacres, this argument is misplaced, because Hamas's atrocities are utterly unjustifiable. No matter how conflict-ridden a history may be, it cannot justify the decapitation of babies and the slashing of pregnant women. Moreover, these atrocities go far beyond a typical armed conflict, beyond soldier against soldier. The systematic and deliberately cruel murder of Jews, as practiced by Hamas, aims at the extermination of the Jewish people, to spread fear and terror, to ignite a conflagration, and ultimately to bring down the State of Israel.
The core issue here is not the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. Rather, it is being instrumentalized and used for "higher" purposes. Behind these atrocities lies a satanically inspired hostility towards Israel, rooted in religion and ultimately aiming for genocide, a renewed "final solution" ("Second Holocaust"). This is made abundantly clear by the name Hamas gave its attack: Al-Aqsa Flood. The name implies that the target is Jerusalem and thus the complete annihilation of Israel. In this respect, Israel is right to see itself not only fighting Hamas, but fighting against evil itself.
10. "Israel has taken the land away from the Palestinians."
That's not even true for the West Bank, and even less so for the Gaza Strip. Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip in 2005; it is entirely under Palestinian control. The issue here isn't about land at all. The West Bank, on the other hand, has a long history dating back to the First World War. At that time, the international community decided to establish a homeland for the Jewish people in Palestine. The designated territory comprised roughly present-day Israel (including the West Bank) as well as Jordan – mostly barren and sparsely populated land. The mandatory power, Great Britain, immediately divided the territory to create an Arab state: Transjordan. The two-state solution was thus implemented back then, but the problems remained.
In 1947, the UN presented another partition plan, which envisioned Israel receiving roughly the same territory as today (excluding the West Bank) and the West Bank for a (further) Arab state. Israel bit the bullet, accepted the reduction of its territory, and founded its state; however, the Arabs rejected the plan and attacked Israel. This effectively killed the partition plan, meaning the West Bank still technically belonged to Israel. However, during the 1948 War of Independence, the West Bank was illegally occupied by Jordan.
In 1964, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) was founded. Its goal was to destroy Israel in order to establish a Palestinian state. This was a crucial step in the Arabs in Israel/Palestine becoming a distinct "people" and giving themselves a separate identity: the Palestinians. Before this, this "people" didn't even exist, let alone a Palestinian state. During the Six-Day War in 1967, Israel occupied the West Bank, but did not annex it; it merely assumed control. In the course of the Oslo Peace Process in the 1990s, Palestinian autonomous territories were established in the West Bank. These are essentially "islands" under Palestinian self-governance and were intended as an interim step towards a two-state solution. Israel has repeatedly made attractive offers for a final solution, but these have fallen on deaf ears on the Palestinian side. The process has now stalled.
In short: The State of Israel has existed since 1948, the Arabs/Palestinians have systematically rejected all opportunities to establish their own state, the West Bank is disputed territory, and a solution is not currently in sight. However, one thing is clear: there is no question of "land theft".
11. “Israel can’t shoot at schools and public institutions.”
This is a major problem. Hamas's insidious tactic is to establish military bases, such as weapons depots, within public buildings: the school building on the upper floor, the weapons depot in the basement. Israel therefore warns the relevant institutions in advance and informs them of the impending attack so that the buildings can be evacuated. Sometimes, however, Hamas detains people inside the buildings, using them as human "shields" or to later "present" civilian casualties. Such situations are extremely sensitive for Israel and are thoroughly discussed within the Israeli army's command structure, according to established guidelines, in order to minimize civilian casualties.
12. "Why doesn't Israel just bomb the Gaza Strip completely and reduce it to rubble like Dresden in World War II, so that it's all finally over?"
Because this would result in thousands of civilian casualties and trigger an incalculable humanitarian catastrophe. Furthermore, people would be unable to flee. Israel cannot allow them into the country because the terrorists live among the population of Gaza and would thus enter Israel; Egypt refuses – for the same reason.
13. "If Israel says they are now destroying Hamas, why haven't they done it long ago?"
Because Israel would have to invade the Gaza Strip to do so. This would have previously caused unprecedented outrage, not only in the Arab world, but globally. International acceptance of such a step is now (after the massacres) significantly higher.
14. "The Israeli military murders children and civilians. Israel has been committing genocide for 75 years."
This accusation is completely unfounded and stems from anti-Israel propaganda. Genocide is defined as the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. The IDF (Israel Defense Forces, Israel's army) is subject to high ethical standards and strict controls. Israel is determined to avoid civilian casualties and actively investigates any questionable incidents. It is essential to remain vigilant and level-headed to avoid falling prey to this propaganda.
15. "The Mossad was alerted in time, but remained passive in order to escalate the situation so that Israel could then strike back with full force."
One should be cautious with such statements. We currently don't know what the Israeli intelligence service knew beforehand and what it didn't. It's equally unclear how Mossad reacted to any information it might have had and how potential oversights occurred. It's unacceptable to draw conclusions about the motivations of decision-makers based on such oversights. The fact is, we can't see into their hearts and know nothing about their motivations. Statements of this kind are pure speculation. We should refrain from making them.
16. "What does it mean specifically when Olaf Scholz says: We stand by Israel?"
That's an interesting question that we'll have to wait and see. There's a risk that the lofty words will be followed by few practical actions. The government might even back down once the initial shock subsides, images of civilian casualties emerge from the Gaza Strip, and pressure mounts from other countries. Germany's official line since Chancellor Merkel has been that Israel's existence and security are a matter of "national interest." In practice, however, Germany has often been quite vacillating. We shall see. Germany's abstention in the vote on the UN resolution regarding the situation in Gaza on October 27th was a missed opportunity.
17. "What can I reply when someone says that the Gaza Strip has become an open-air prison under the Israeli blockade?"
The Gaza Strip has been entirely under Palestinian control since 2005 and functions like a small state. A visa is required to enter Israel. Many Palestinians have one because they work in Israel. The bitter truth is that some of them have carried out the espionage work that Hamas needed to prepare the recent massacres – a massive breach of trust. For years, not a week has gone by without rockets being fired from Gaza into Israel. Anyone can read in Hamas's charter that the government in Gaza aims to destroy Israel. Therefore, Israel keeps its border relatively tight and meticulously monitors who enters the country. Many countries do the same. Free border crossings, as we know them in Europe, are rare worldwide; controls and visa requirements are the norm. But the Gaza Strip borders not only Israel, but also Egypt, which has also sealed its border.
18. “I wonder why the accusation that Israel oppresses the Palestinians keeps coming up. How is oppression defined in this case? Is it just an exaggeration? Or are there actually forms of oppression?”
The accusation of oppression is initially a core component of the propaganda. It generates a worldwide show of solidarity with the "oppressed," which occurs spontaneously and intuitively and ascribes the role of perpetrator to Israel. This propaganda is highly effective. Israel has no presence in the Gaza Strip and therefore cannot exert oppression there. In the West Bank, Israel exercises control to prevent attacks. This control can vary in its strictness. That overreaching actions can occur, especially at checkpoints, is inherent in the situation and can lead Palestinians to feel oppressed.
However, these attacks – and this is the crucial point – are not systematic and are not prosecuted. The degree of control required is a matter of debate within Israeli society. Israel must weigh security against control. The more control, the greater the security; the more lax the approach, the greater the risk of attacks.
19. “What is the (theological) stance of Arab and Palestinian Christians towards Israel and the attack?”
Within Palestinian Christianity, there are different factions. Some are familiar with and affirm the biblical calling and promises of Israel (above all, the promise of the land). They are relatively close to Israel and strive for reconciliation. Others, while Christians, still live strongly within the Palestinian narrative – including hatred of Israel. Because of their Christian convictions, they do not celebrate the violence of Hamas as many Muslims do, but deep feelings of enmity, frustration, and rejection nevertheless exist. For this reason, there are ministries that initiate reconciliation between Palestinian Christians and Messianic Jews. In this way, small "seed cells" are formed that serve understanding and peace.
20. "Could these events be related to Ezekiel 38?"
An end-times classification is not yet possible. It is also not yet clear whether we are even dealing with an end-times event. Reference texts such as Psalm 83, the Gog-Magog War (Ezekiel 38), or even the invasion of Israel by nations according to Zechariah 12 cannot currently be used to interpret the events, as there are not enough parallels. However, the situation could develop into the aforementioned end-times scenarios. This is quite possible and should be closely monitored.
21. “Israel has to go through all of this; it is written in the Bible for the end times. This is God’s will. It simply has to happen.”
Whether the current situation has anything to do with biblical end-times prophecies, we do not yet know. If so, this does not mean that attacks on Israel are in accordance with God's will. It is also possible that prophets predict events that do occur, but are not in accordance with God's will. This undoubtedly includes all attacks on Israel, which God will ultimately repel (Ezekiel 38; Zechariah 12; Revelation 20). Our fundamental mission to bless Israel remains—especially in difficult times (Genesis 12:3).
In Matthew 25, Jesus takes up this fundamental command. He describes various situations of need, which arise particularly during the turmoil of the end times, and says: “Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me” (Matthew 25:40). If we take this statement literally, then we can apply it to the Jews (as Jesus’ physical brothers). We then have a commission from our Lord to help the Jews in their need to the best of our ability, in order to serve Jesus in this way.
But honestly, we don't need such a mandate. It's enough to have a healthy heart, one that can empathize, feels compassion, and has respect for the Jewish people, to help in this dire situation and to be there for them. You don't even have to be a Christian. It's enough to be an ordinary person with a healthy heart.
22. “What Would Jesus Do? (WWJD)”
That's a good question, and a daunting one at that. Because there's a danger of projecting one's own views onto Jesus, who in reality might think quite differently.
The fact is that Jesus was a preacher of peace and love. It is also a fact, however, that Jesus did not comment on situations like the one we are currently witnessing in Israel/Gaza, just as he generally refrained from taking a stance on day-to-day political issues. Whether Jesus was a pacifist is a matter of theological debate. It is clear that Jesus himself did not use violence (perhaps with the exception of the cleansing of the Temple; John 2:15), yet his disciples carried swords and knew how to use them (Luke 22:49; John 18:10). We know that Jesus was a realist regarding political realities (Matthew 20:25; 24:6) and knew how to deal with those in power (Luke 13:31-33). Jesus understood the laws of the world; he was not a naive dreamer.
In his interactions with people, it becomes clear that Jesus was by no means conflict-averse; indeed, he could be quite radical (Matthew 23). Jesus was no pushover, but could even accept a death sentence (carried out by God) and even announce it threateningly (Luke 13:1-5). Furthermore, Jesus dared to launch a movement that he knew would cost many of his followers their lives (Matthew 24:9-12). When Jesus returns, he will be ready to hold the final judgment and send sinners to eternal fire (Matthew 25:41). Finally, he will destroy the "Whore of Babylon"—the end-times, anti-Christian world order—in order to establish the Kingdom of God universally.
However, all these clues only help to a limited extent. The problem is that Jesus was the Messiah and, as such, had a specific program to which he was committed (Luke 4:16-20). In Jesus' ministry, the Kingdom of God broke into our ailing world. People were healed and freed, called to discipleship, and restored as individuals. Jesus' ethics were specifically for his disciples, whom he trained as representatives of the Kingdom of God (Matthew 5:1-2); one searches in vain for an ethics for "the world" in Jesus' teachings.
Jesus doesn't teach just anyone: He first calls people to him, then he teaches them (Matthew 28:18-20); that was true then, and it's no different today. Those who don't follow Jesus' call remain on their own and must go their own way. Jesus was also sent to all Israel (Matthew 15:24). He wanted to make Israel his disciples and partakers of the Kingdom of God; he wanted to prepare his people for eternity. Jesus pursued this program, well aware that he was moving in a world that was completely different—and which he didn't comment on much (John 18:36). Overall, the Gospels give the impression that Jesus concentrated fully on his mission, while largely letting everything else take its course.
What would Jesus do today if he were in Israel? Probably the same as back then, because bringing about God's kingdom is his mission. How would he comment on the current situation? That's difficult to say, because back then there wasn't a group explicitly intent on annihilating Israel. It's quite possible that Jesus would leave the decision to those in power, since that's what they're in office for. Would Jesus allow his disciples to join the IDF or even encourage them to do so? Certainly not to establish the kingdom of God, but probably to defend their country and their fellow citizens. And if all of Israel followed Jesus and he had to make a decision—what would he say to Netanyahu? Jesus certainly wouldn't be driven by feelings of revenge, but would go to prayer. He would do everything to avoid the worst, but he would also be prepared to do what is necessary. However, all of this is just speculation.
Why do these answers remain so strangely vague? Because in Jesus we find only an ethic for his disciples, an ethic of the Kingdom of God, not a general and all-encompassing one. Jesus never devised a political ethic for the sinful world and for secular politicians, let alone concepts for such extreme situations. What is important is this: because of his specifically Messianic mission, Jesus was more narrowly and focused than his Father, the God of Israel. Jesus was precisely the one who brings salvation, forgiveness, and life. That was his task, and that was his focus. But God encompasses all things.
Therefore, we will likely find more guidance for the current situation in the Old Testament than in the New. But frankly, even that ultimately overwhelms us. What is good or bad, right or wrong, in this situation is simply difficult to judge.
So, should we as Christians throw in the towel? No. We can pray that God blesses the Israeli government's struggle to make good decisions. We can pray that he guides those in positions of responsibility to the best possible plans and then grants them the best possible outcome. That is our contribution. Independent judgment on our part is not necessary at all.
23. “What should Christians do now?”
Christians should stand behind Israel in prayer these days, show solidarity with Israel, support Jews worldwide to the best of their ability, counter lies and misrepresentations, combat anti-Israel sentiment in their own countries, and publicly raise their voices in support of Israel. Remembering the Holocaust requires giving real meaning to "Never again." Never again is now. And it is our responsibility. A crucial point today is to become thoroughly informed and critically examine the way the events are portrayed in the media.
