A Rebuttal: On Truth, Power, and Christian Witness
The following is written in response to a recent article published by The Spectator. Since I do not subscribe to the publication nor its views, it is fair to assume there would be no point me posting it as a reply in the comments section. So instead I will post it here.
The article, simply entitled Where is the Voice?, is written from the perspective of a Christian Zionist, and constructs a narrative of a world deceived by Palestinian propaganda and a church silent in the face of this alleged falsehood. However, this narrative itself is built on a selective and wilful ignorance of documented facts, a misrepresentation of international law, and a theology that conflates modern state policy with divine mandate. A response is not only necessary but demanded by truth and conscience.
The author speaks of falsehoods travelling the world, yet ignores the most credible sources of information: major human rights organisations (Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch), United Nations agencies, and international legal bodies like the International Court of Justice. These entities do not rely on unverified social media posts; they conduct rigorous, evidence-based investigations. Their consistent findings point to a stark reality:
· The systematic targeting of Gaza’s healthcare system is documented and comprehensive. The World Health Organisation has recorded hundreds of attacks on medical facilities, leaving almost none fully functional. This is admitted by Israeli authorities. When the Israelis apologise for bombing a hospital, calling it a mistake, it means THEY BOMBED A HOSPITAL. This is a WAR CRIME.
· The Committee to Protect Journalists reports that over 100 journalists and media workers have been killed in Gaza, an unprecedented toll. While the author dismisses reports from Gaza, these journalists were also working for international outlets like Reuters and Al Jazeera. When the Israeli authorities apologise for killing journalists, calling it a tragic mishap, it means THEY KILLED JOURNALISTS. This is a WAR CRIME.
· UNRWA, the WHO, and countless aid agencies have pleaded for access to the Gaza Strip, detailing how aid is blocked or delayed at Israeli checkpoints, leading to a man-made famine. When Israel blocks humanitarian aid delivery to Gaza pending an extension of ceasefire agreements, it means THEY ARE BLOCKING HUMANITARIAN AID. Using starvation as a method of warfare is a WAR CRIME.
These are not isolated ‘fog of war’ incidents. Rather they illustrate a pattern of conduct which, according to the ICJ, plausibly amounts to genocide.
The article’s focus on Hamas as a "recognised terrorist group" is a deliberate oversimplification. While it is proscribed as such by a minority of nations (including the US, UK, and EU), it is crucial to note that only 9 out of 194 UN recognised countries formally designate Hamas as a terrorist organisation. Many nations, while condemning its violence, view it as a legitimate political and militant resistance movement in a context of prolonged occupation and blockade. Furthermore, the policies of the Israeli government, including its documented support of Hamas in its early days to undermine the secular PLO, have contributed to the group's rise. Reducing the complex reality of Palestinian governance to a simple terrorist label is a tactic to avoid engaging with the underlying political conflict and the rights of the Palestinian people.
On the point of undefined borders, the accusation against Palestine is profoundly cynical. The primary reason Palestine lacks defined borders is Israel’s 57-year military occupation and its continuous expansion of illegal settlements across the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Israel itself refuses to officially declare its borders precisely to allow for this expansion. The international consensus for a two-state solution is based on the 1967 borders. For the author to blame the victim of occupation for not having fixed borders is a gross inversion of reality.
Most disturbingly, the article ignores the evidence from Israeli sources themselves. When Israeli Defence Minister Yoav Gallant admitted the application of the “Hannibal Directive” on October 7—a protocol that involves preventing the capture of soldiers by any means necessary, even if it kills them—he admitted that ISRAEL KILLED ITS OWN CITIZENS. When Israeli politicians, journalists, and soldiers openly call for Gaza to be turned to rubble, for its people to be forcibly displaced, and to deny them food and water, they are, by the legal definition, espousing genocidal intent. When a figure like Donald Trump speaks of turning Gaza into a "Riviera," he is explicitly advocating for the war crime of forcible transfer, as defined under the Rome Statute Article 8(2)(a)(vii)), and a crime against humanity (Rome Statute, Article 7 (1)(d)).
Finally, we must address the article’s call for the Church to find its voice. The author longs for a church that echoes the state power of Israel, a voice of dissent against recognising Palestinian statehood. But is this the voice of Christ?
The true teachings of Christ are not found in alignment with empire and military power but in solidarity with the oppressed, the poor, and the marginalised. Jesus stated his mission was to "proclaim good news to the poor... liberty to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed" (Luke 4:18). The biblical prophets consistently railed against powerful rulers who neglected justice and oppressed the vulnerable.
If Christians were to be consistent with their own theology, the response from the church would not be a silent pulpit, but one crying out for:
· An immediate and permanent ceasefire.
· The unimpeded flow of humanitarian aid to prevent famine.
· A commitment to a just peace that guarantees security, dignity, and self-determination for both Israelis and Palestinians.
· Condemnation of war crimes and violations of international law, regardless of the perpetrator.
The voice of the church should be a voice for the value of every human life, made in the image of God—Israeli and Palestinian alike. It should be a voice that challenges the powerful, comforts the afflicted, and seeks a peace built on justice, not on the subjugation of one people by another. In contrast, the author’s lament of a church which refuses to raise its voice in support of an ongoing genocide, is a sordid and pathetic inversion of christian doctrine.
In the end, the true silence which should be lamented is not that of a church failing to endorse a state’s military campaign, but of a conscience refusing to speak truth to power. The authentic Christian witness called for by the Gospel is not one of blind allegiance to any nation, but of prophetic courage in defending the image of God in every person. It is a voice that must, without ambiguity or fear, condemn war crimes, demand an end to suffering, and call for a just peace for all. To remain silent in the face of documented atrocity is not neutrality; it is complicity. The church’s voice, therefore, must rise not in defence of empire, but in solidarity with the oppressed—for that is the only voice that echoes the true mission of Christ.