A Day of Horror
The October 7th Hamas assault on Israel was a brutal rupture — a day of horror that left more than a thousand Israelis dead, communities shattered, and families ripped apart. For many in Israel, it was the darkest moment in decades, a reminder of vulnerability in a region where history is written in cycles of grief. No serious observer disputes the tragedy or the cruelty of the attack. However, I watched videos where people gleefully agreed with this horrifying attack. I made a video condemning them and what Hamas did.
Yet tragedy, however searing, does not erase the boundaries of international law, nor does it absolve a state of moral restraint.
From Defense to Devastation
What has followed October 7th is a war that increasingly risks being remembered not as defense but as devastation. In Gaza, entire neighborhoods have been flattened, hospitals struck, refugee camps targeted, and basic infrastructure systematically degraded. Over 90,000 Palestinians, many of them women and children, have been killed in the onslaught. Due to this onslaught and the mass casualties, more and more people in the US do not support the Jewish narrative to defend themselves against a vulnerable population that has been displaced multiple times. At the same time, they have left their dignity in the bombed homes and destroyed hospitals.
“To call this merely ‘self-defense’ strains both the language and the conscience of the world.”
Supporters of Israel’s campaign frame it as existential: defeat Hamas at all costs, or risk repeating October 7th indefinitely. But this framing risks becoming a dangerous blank check. If every escalation is justified by October 7th, then limits on warfare vanish. That logic makes no civilian too innocent, no hospital too sacred, no neighborhood too dense to escape destruction.
Such reasoning veers perilously close to collective punishment, which is explicitly barred under international humanitarian law.
Rights and Responsibilities
The grief of Israeli families whose loved ones were killed or kidnapped is real and enduring. Israel has the right to defend itself against armed groups that target civilians. But rights are not absolute. They are tethered to responsibilities.
When defense crosses into indiscriminate bombardment, mass displacement, and starvation, it ceases to be defense at all. It becomes retribution — and retribution at such a scale risks earning a heavier word: genocide.
The term must never be invoked carelessly. Yet human rights organizations, legal scholars, and even the International Court of Justice are considering whether Israel’s conduct meets the threshold. Civilian death tolls, dehumanizing rhetoric from officials, and systematic destruction of life-sustaining infrastructure make the question unavoidable.
A Fractured Global Response
Reactions abroad have exposed deep fault lines. The United States maintains its security embrace of Israel while urging “restraint.” Europe is divided, some governments echoing Washington while others call for limits. Across the Global South, however, the message is clearer: the war in Gaza is intolerable, unjustifiable, and destabilizing the region. South Africa’s genocide case against Israel at The Hague reflects this growing sentiment.
For Palestinians, October 7th was not the beginning but a continuation of decades of blockade, occupation, and statelessness. Checkpoints, restrictions, and despair have long shaped their lives. None of these excuses terrorism, but it underscores that to answer desperation with overwhelming firepower is to deepen the cycle of violence.
Silence of the Faithful
One of the most striking elements of this crisis has been the silence of the global Christian community. The vast majority of churches, pastors, and Christian leaders — particularly in the West — have remained muted in the face of Gaza’s suffering. For a faith that proclaims solidarity with the oppressed and the sanctity of life, such silence is deafening.
“When the faithful stay silent before mass killing, neutrality becomes complicity.”
This failure of moral witness will not be forgotten by those who suffer, nor by history itself.
The Narrow Path Forward
October 7th was a tragedy, but tragedy does not authorize erasure. To mourn Israeli lives lost is a moral imperative; to ignore Palestinian lives lost is a moral failure.
A just response to terror cannot itself become a campaign of terror. That means:
- Immediate humanitarian access for food, medicine, and aid convoys.
- A cease-fire to halt the hemorrhaging of civilian life.
- Accountability not only for Hamas’s crimes but also for Israel’s conduct.
- A political horizon that restores dignity, rights, and the prospect of statehood for Palestinians alongside security for Israel.
“The measure of a nation is not how it suffers, but how it responds to suffering.”
Israel’s leaders face a choice: to honor October 7th’s victims by seeking justice, or to accept the peace plan which President Trump’s administration proposed on September 29th. Hamas has already accepted the proposal to dishonor the victims by unleashing destruction in their name, as Netanya has been doing since this very proposal..
History’s Verdict
The world too faces a choice: to watch silently as Gaza is reduced to rubble, or to insist that even the deepest wounds do not justify the gravest crimes. History will judge not only the perpetrators of October 7th but also those who use that day as a pretext for devastation — and those who, by silence, allowed it to continue.
Tragedy is not a license for genocide. To believe otherwise is to forfeit the very humanity we claim to defend.
0 Comments