October 21, 2023
In their podcast on the Israel-Hamas war (full disclosure: Zealots at the Gate is part of Comment magazine’s podcast offerings), Shadi Hamid and Matthew Kaemingk referenced the competing “original sins” which frame the conflict. For those with pro-Israel sympathies in this conflict, Hamas’s October 6th terrorist actions were the starting point for the war and justify Israel’s response. For those who have pro-Palestinian sympathies, the starting point in the conversation is the 1948 events surrounding the creation of the State of Israel. The details are complex but the basics are this: Post-World War II, a UN-sanctioned plan partitioned Palestine into two separate countries: Israel and Palestine. Not all accepted this, resulting in a 10-month war during which Israel gained additional territory. The entire question remained a matter of tension even though the fighting mostly stopped until 1967. After the “Six-Day War,” Israel prevailed again militarily and increased its borders further. Palestinian self-government was subsequently negotiated for parts of that disputed territory, but the peace process has never really resulted in a lasting settlement. From the perspective of the Palestinians, land that is theirs has been “occupied” by Israel since 1948.
This “bare-bones” account doesn’t account for a host of complicating realities. The 1948 settlement came as part of the resolution of World War II which includes the Holocaust, the persecution and killing of six million Jews. This is just the most horrific, but by no means isolated, illustration of anti-Semitism that had caused significant Jewish suffering. Both Jewish and Christian theology make distinctions between Jews and Gentiles, loaded with theological and historical implications. As a Gentile Christian, I recognize the Jews as having a special place in the Biblical story. While I don’t equate that (disagreeing here with some other Christians) with any political organisation or the State of Israel, it does provide a subtext to the preceding paragraph that cannot be ignored. When trying to put this into a larger frame, we cannot be insensitive to the magnitude of Hamas terrorism, killing over 1,300 unsuspecting civilians just two weeks ago and continuing to hold 200 hostages. Even if we broaden the lens to account for Iran and potentially others advancing their geo-political interests through these events, there is no defence for Hamas’s brutal actions. We need a higher-level analysis but not without an empathy for the very real and raw emotion that continues to accompany this very current tragedy.
All I can do is empathise and pray as I try to understand. In reflecting on this, the usage of the term “original sin” did prompt some thoughts about bigger framework questions.
“Original sin” is a theological term referencing Adam and Eve’s fall into sin in the Garden of Eden. The notion is that Adam was a representative head of the entire human race and when he fell from his perfect state, all of humanity fell with him. The Protestant Christian narrative includes evil entering into the perfect creation as a result of Adam’s sin, with a consequent guilt (that deserves to be punished by death). The corruption and brokenness that are part of everyday life are other consequences of this original sin.
They say religion and politics don’t mix but our basic assumptions about human life are part of what goes into living alongside other people. Don’t talk about it if you don’t want to, but you can’t run from the reality that beliefs matter and shape behaviour. And while I certainly am not able to translate these musings into a concrete analysis or recommendations regarding the Middle East news of our day, there are two framework observations which I think might be helpful for our analysis.
The first regards the futility of starting with original sin. When encountering any analysis, it’s worth asking about the starting point (or premises) on which this analysis is based. If we choose either the “original sin” of Hamas on October 2023 (or everything about Hamas that led to this) or if we choose the “original sin” relating to the establishment of the State of Israel in May 1948 (or everything about Israel that led to this), we will end in very different places. But should the starting point be either “original sin,” I wonder?
More than a decade ago, a colleague on a research team was fond (in a very different context) of asking, “Is this proceeding from a two-chapter or a four-chapter gospel?” What he meant was that many Christians were proceeding from problem to solution and in the process, overlooking the all-important question of purpose. He often said that too many people start as if the Bible begins in Genesis 3 with the fall of humanity and moves through the indispensability of the cross to a redemptive solution. Reading the Bible and referencing Genesis 3 through Revelation 20 sounds orthodox and proper. But, and this was his core point, it only contains two chapters: fall and redemption. The Biblical story is one that starts with creation in Genesis 1 and leads to the new heaven and new earth described at the end of the Revelation. Trying to understand fall and redemption without creation and restoration prevents us from seeing the whole picture, and often the real solutions that might exist. The gospel has four chapters, not just two.
The second observation regards the norm for politics, namely justice. Often that term is understood as retribution. To be sure, justice involves penalties for sin. Wrongs need to be addressed. The evil events that preceded the present conflict can’t just be hidden under the rug—they need to be answered. However, while retribution is a component of justice, it’s not its definition. Justice more fully understood has to do with giving each his or her due. It involves providing people with that to which they are properly entitled.
If the present conflict is to be understood only in the context of a specific “original sin,” no solution will be found. We will always be peeling back to a previous original sin that provides context for the current one, until we find ourselves back to Eden and the original “original sin” of Adam and Eve. And from a Christian perspective, that is a necessary place to go. But that’s not a place to stop. The creation recounted in Genesis 1-2 precedes the fall of Genesis 3, just as the new earth of Revelation 21 follows the darkness of the preceding chapters. Creation and purpose precede the fall and brokenness.
Is retribution against the various “original sins” justified? Yes. I’d argue (making the important distinction here between Hamas and Palestine), that there is a valid justice argument for destroying Hamas to the extent that it is incapable of continuing to hold power. How can that justified retribution be achieved in a manner that it does not turn into an unjust revenge? How do we find a solution to this brokenness that narrows and restrains the conflict rather than broadens it, ruining many additional lives through collateral damage? These are important questions to consider as we ponder not just what should be done, but also how it should be done.
Whatever solutions are proposed, if we desire a balanced Christian response, it might be valuable to examine those proposals through the lens of a four-chapter gospel framework with politics that strives for a norm of justice.
