Central Thesis

      In Part One I summarized Paul’s view, set forth in Romans 9-11, that the New Covenant in Jesus in no way meant that God had abandoned the Covenant of Moses.  Indeed, God intends for the two communities to live in peace until a final time when God will reconcile all things.  I want to use this perspective for understanding the current relations of Christians and Jews, especially in light of contentious issues in the Mideast as well as the United States.

1. The State of Israel should have access to land in Palestine.

      Anyone who has looked at material relating to the creation of the State of Israel after WWII finds that while there was general agreement that Israel should have land, it has never been decided how much or how Jews and Palestinians should share the land.  As a result, the history of the State of Israel has been one of several wars and continuous disputes over land.  For the record, I am in favor of the existence of the State of Israel, but even more, that Jews live in peace.

      If peace is the ultimate goal, then it follows that such a peace must involve the Palestinians.  This is implied in the persistent attempt to find a Two State Solution—an idea that no one has been able to achieve. But the idea is essential for peace, since it affirms that Jews and Palestinians both have some level of claim to the land and that the two sides can only find peace if they acknowledge this.

      This brings us to the great problem, leadership on either side seems unwilling to make this commitment.  Mr. Netanyahu and Hamas have opposed the Two State Solution and actions by both sides further alienate the other side.  (I am referring to the brutal massacre of Oct 7 and the war against Gaza since then.)  Hamas must take responsibility for that atrocity and Netanyahu must take responsibility for the military strategy since Oct 7.  Most important, Netanyahu and Hamas must take responsibility for not pursuing a settlement before Oct. 7, 2023. Recall that Netanyahu first came to power in 1996.  There were precedents for the two sides seeking a solution.  For example, in 1993 Israel and the PLO chose to work toward peace.  From the standpoint of all the violence and suffering this was unthinkable.  But when the alternatives are more war or some form of settlement, it is necessary.  It was this which prompted Yitzhak Rabin to say: “Peace is not made with friends.  Peace is made with enemies, some of whom—and I won’t mention names—I loathe very much.”  (New York Times, Sept. 5, 1993, sec. 4, p. 1) 
      There is an inevitable dynamic between possessing the land and peace.  Israel wants land and peace, but there can be no peace if it does not involve peace for Palestinians.  Another way of saying this is that peace in the region cannot be found by military force. In fact, it might be said that attempts to acquire all the land makes the chances for peace less likely.

      Given this complexity, it becomes all the more important for there to be leadership toward a settlement from states in the region as well as Europe and the United States.  One of the disappointments is the failure of American presidents to work for peace on a continuous basis and not just when it is politically appropriate in terms of elections.  My impression is that while Biden disagreed with Netanyahu, he was unable to change the war policies, whereas Trump has given unqualified support to Netanyahu and has been intermittent in pressing for a settlement.  Now, in the midst of a crisis of starvation in Gaze, Trump makes public statements about the need for assistance, but without comment on the military policies of Netanyahu which produced the humanitarian crisis.  This is also unfortunate in that while the current warfare works against a solution, it would appear that in 2025 there are more Arab states open to a settlement than in many years. 

2. Issues in the US

      In Part One, the point was made that Christians need to examine their own tradition and documents, as well as preaching and teaching, in order to determine whether there is an anti-Jewish bias. The point is worth repeating. This is something Christians should do in order to change the way Christians think about Jews. It is the basis for a comprehensive strategy of living with Jews in peace. It is not enough to show remorse and sympathy when violence occurs against Jews and places of worship.  Before dealing with public crises we need to have in place a culture of friendship and trust.   

      If Paul wrote in a time when Christians were the minority with respect to both Jews and Gentiles, today we find that Christians far outnumber Jews in the US.  Given that, it is appropriate to emphasize the need for Christians, as citizens, to ask how government and other institutions can protect the Jewish communities.  Living in peace does require some restraint of those intending ill will.

      Another issue is evangelization of Jews.  In light of the long history of tensions, the tragedies of the 20th century as well as the current problems, I think it is inappropriate to sanction programs to evangelize Jews.  To seek to convert Jews to Christianity is to take away their tradition and identity as Jews.  If we are to live in peace and wait for God to resolve the differences between the two covenants, then we should not threaten families and synagogues with the loss of members to Christian churches. 

      Finally, if we are to live in peace, then we might consider simple acts of religious friendship: we ought to pray for Jews; engage in celebrations together (e.g., Thanksgiving), learn to listen to our Jewish neighbors, and as Rabbi Soloveitchick has proposed, share in discussing humanitarian concerns.

3. The current war in Gaza          

      The attack of Oc. 7, 2023 by Hamas involved a campaign of terror which included murder, rape and destruction of communities.  Over 2000 Israelis were killed and around 250 were taken hostage.  Some hostages have been return, but not all, and some have died while held prisoner.  Netanyahu responded with a general military response leading to over 60,000 dead and the destruction of much of Gaza. The food supply has been interrupted and reports of starvation and lack of medical care appear each day.

      Given the brutality of this attack against Gaza, it has been very difficult to talk about this war.  Any expression of sympathy for the people living in Gaza, as well as charges of genocide against Israel, prompt charges of lack of support for Israel and antisemitism.  By contrast, support of Israel’s military strategies is criticized for being blind to the horrors of this war and enabling the war to continue.  The immediate needs, however, are a ceasefire and enabling food supplies to reach Gaza.

       In this situation I would prefer to keep separate Mr. Netanyahu’s military strategies from the State of Israel.  In the United States it is assumed that one may criticize a president and still be a loyal American.  War is a strategy which must be chosen from many military and political options, in light of consequences and goals.

      The first problem with Netanyahu’s military strategy is the difference between the harm done on Oct. 7 and the effects of the war in Gaza since then.  Not only are the consequences disproportionate, it must be asked how high must the death count go before enough is enough.   Some would dismiss this question by referring to the fact that all war is horrible and compare the damage in Gaza to that of other wars; where the US has engaged in examples of indiscriminate killing of civilians.  But such a reference does not justify more examples of this.  The bombing of German cities in WWII, which has come under serious criticism both from the perspective of whether it was effective as well as whether it was moral.  Nor is it effective to argue that the bombing of Gaza is justified because Hamas uses civilians and hospitals as shields.  But that assumes the strategy of bombing civilians is the only alternative.  If we declare Hamas to be a terrorist organization, should we not be held to a higher standard?  If the bombing has not been enough to prompt a call for a ceasefire, certainly the current crisis of starvation should motivate the Netanyahu government to rethink the indiscriminate military campaign and allow the food and medical supplies to reach the people of Gaza. 

      The second problem is the lack of clarity regarding goals.  Upon taking office in 1996, Netanyahu rejected the idea of a Two State Solution.  It is also the case that Hamas has rejected it as well.  While the Two State Solution was never achieved and may be difficult to enact, endorsing it at least made clear that one recognizes the right of the other to be in Palestine.  Without it, one’s intentions are unknown.  This becomes important when we see the general destruction of buildings in Gaza as well as the crisis of starvation.  Without knowing what Netanyahu intends, it would appear that the goal is the annihilation of the Palestinians in Gaza, or at least their removal.  At the current rate of destruction, Gaza will become uninhabitable. Moreover, since both Netanyahu and Trump openly discussed the removal of the Palestinians from Gaza, there is a serious need for a clear statement of goals.

      The final issue that needs to be raised is the lack of American leadership in discussions for a ceasefire and ultimately a settlement.  The recent bombings of Iran also raise this question.  To be sure, there can be no peace in the region as long as Iran funds and encourages groups like Hamas or on its own seeks nuclear weapons.  But these matters cannot be settled solely by military force.  It is difficult to see how Iran will change its policies without initiatives from the US, Europe and Arab states. In that process, the US has usually taken a leadership role.  

      This two part essay started out with an interest on my part to talk to Christians about the relation of Christians and Jews. I was also concerned about the danger of making things worse by the way we speak about this very subject.  The discussion of Paul’s views in Romans 9-11 brought me to something which I can heartily affirm: God had created the covenant of Moses and has not abandoned the Jews: God has also created the covenant of Jesus as a message of peace to all nations.  In the comments offered her, I have tried to draw out the implications of this Pauline perspective.   

      Whether these comments are helpful is not for me to say. I have tried to stay within the perspective provided by Paul: God intends Christians and Jews to live in peace.  By extension I think this must include Muslim neighbors.  Many things have not been addressed.  I do not think it helpful to raise the question of genocide, since such a category only enflames passions.  Nor is the discussion aided by rejecting all comment on the war as antisemitic.  It also needs to be noted that behind the Pauline perspective are the traditions which Christians share with Jews regarding the sanctity of life, the need for justice and the ultimate goal of peace.  Paul clearly speaks from within those traditions, namely, that God intends us to live in peace.  History has demonstrated that while military action may be necessary in the cause of peace, such action alone cannot generate a ceasefire or a settlement for the long term.