1. Evil not stopped early usually becomes more expensive in blood#

One of the hard lessons of history is that aggressive evil often grows when it is not resisted. Restraint can be wisdom. But restraint toward an actor who interprets restraint as weakness can become permission.

The 1930s appeasement of Nazi Germany is the classic example. Hitler did not begin with the invasion of Poland. He tested the world step by step. Germany openly rearmed in violation of the post–World War I settlement. In 1936, German troops entered the demilitarized Rhineland, violating the Versailles and Locarno agreements. Britain and France did not stop him. In 1938, Germany annexed Austria. Later that year, Britain and France accepted the Munich Agreement, allowing Hitler to take the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia. Czechoslovakia itself was not even a meaningful party at the table. Chamberlain returned declaring “peace for our time.” Within months, Hitler seized the rest of Czechoslovakia. In September 1939, Germany invaded Poland, and the Second World War began.

The point is not that Britain and France were cartoon cowards. They remembered World War I. They feared another generation of dead sons. Their fear was humanly understandable. But by avoiding a smaller confrontation earlier, they helped make a much larger confrontation later more likely. Evil learned that the democratic powers feared war more than they feared aggression.

Rwanda in 1994 gives another terrible example. Before the genocide, UN commander Roméo Dallaire warned of preparations for mass killing and sought authority to act against weapons caches. He was not given the mandate he requested. When the genocide began, the international community did not strengthen the peacekeeping force; after Belgian peacekeepers were murdered, the UN reduced its presence. In roughly one hundred days, hundreds of thousands of Tutsi and moderate Hutu were slaughtered. The U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum and the United Nations have both treated Rwanda as a catastrophic failure to prevent genocide.

The moral lesson is not “every military action is justified if we call the enemy evil.” That would be reckless. The lesson is narrower and more serious: when evil is real, organized, ideological, and willing to murder civilians, delay can multiply the dead.

2. The trolley dilemma and the tragedy of choosing the lesser evil#

Many people know the moral dilemma: a train is heading toward five people tied to the track. You can pull a lever and divert the train onto another track where one person will die. Should you pull the lever?

The point of the dilemma is not that human beings are numbers. The point is that in a fallen world, leaders sometimes face choices where every available path involves tragedy. Doing nothing is also a choice. If five die because I refused to touch the lever, I cannot pretend I had no moral involvement.

This helps us think about war, though imperfectly. Real war is not as clean as the trolley problem. Commanders rarely know with certainty that exactly five will die on one track and exactly one on another. They deal in probabilities, intelligence reports, enemy deception, weather, tunnels, timing, hostages, civilian movement, political pressure, and moral fog. Still, the underlying dilemma is real: sometimes one must choose an action that causes foreseeable harm in order to prevent greater harm.

The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are among the most morally difficult examples in modern history. We must speak carefully. The bombs killed vast numbers of civilians. That fact must not be minimized. Christian truthfulness cannot call the death of children “clean.”

At the same time, the broader Pacific War must also be remembered truthfully. Imperial Japan had inflicted immense suffering across China and Southeast Asia: massacres, forced labor, sexual slavery, famine, occupation brutality, and prisoner abuse. China alone suffered catastrophic losses over years of Japanese aggression. A prolonged war would not have meant merely more American and Japanese soldiers dying; it likely would have meant more civilians dying across occupied Asia.

The planned Allied invasion of Japan, often referred to as Operation Downfall, was expected by many planners to be extremely costly. Historians debate the exact casualty estimates and also debate whether Japan might have surrendered because of Soviet entry into the war, blockade, conventional bombing, or modified surrender terms. Some Allied military leaders later questioned whether the atomic bombs were necessary. So we should not state the matter as if no debate exists.

But one serious moral argument remains: if the bombs, together with Soviet entry and the collapse of Japan’s strategic position, brought the war to a sudden end, then they may have prevented an even longer slaughter in Japan, China, Korea, Southeast Asia, and among Allied forces. This is not a celebration of nuclear weapons. It is a recognition that in war the morally relevant comparison is not “bombs versus peace.” The real comparison may have been “bombs and immediate surrender” versus “invasion, blockade, famine, firebombing, continued occupation, and months or years more killing.”

Christians can disagree about the atomic bombings. But we should at least understand the kind of tragic moral reasoning involved. Sometimes leaders are not choosing between good and evil in the abstract. They are choosing between one terrible path and another even more terrible path.

3. Israel’s wars: largely self-defense, but not a blank check#

Looking at Israel’s military history, there is a strong case that many of its major wars were rooted in self-defense.

In 1948, after Israel declared independence, surrounding Arab states invaded. The new state fought for survival. Whatever one says about the Palestinian tragedy and displacement—and Christians should not ignore it—the basic military reality was that Israel faced invasion from neighboring states.

In 1967, the case is more complex but still strongly defensive in character. Egypt moved forces into Sinai, expelled UN peacekeepers, and closed the Straits of Tiran, which Israel considered an act of war. Arab rhetoric at the time was openly threatening. Israel struck first militarily, but many defenders of Israel argue that it was an anticipatory act of self-defense under existential pressure.

In 1973, Egypt and Syria attacked Israel on Yom Kippur. Israel’s military response was plainly defensive.

After October 7, 2023, Israel again had a real self-defense claim. Hamas-led attackers massacred civilians, attacked communities and military bases, and took hostages into Gaza. A state has a duty to protect its people from such attacks.

But “largely self-defense” does not mean “always self-defense in every action.” Some cases are more complicated. The 1956 Suez Crisis involved secret coordination between Israel, Britain, and France against Egypt. Israel had security concerns, including fedayeen raids and maritime restrictions, but the operation cannot be described simply as “Israel was attacked first.” The 1982 Lebanon War began with real security concerns regarding PLO attacks, but its expansion and conduct became deeply controversial. The post-1967 occupation and settlement project also cannot be morally covered merely by saying, “They attacked first.” A defensive war can be followed by policies that require separate moral evaluation.

So the truthful statement is this: Israel has repeatedly faced real aggression and has often fought wars that are substantially defensive. But self-defense is not a magic word that sanctifies every tactic, every policy, or every later decision.

A just cause does not automatically make every act just.

4. Hamas and the duty of Israel’s army#

Hamas has a long history of deliberately attacking Israeli civilians. In the 1990s and early 2000s, Hamas carried out or claimed responsibility for suicide bombings against buses, restaurants, markets, and public places. Major examples include the 1994 Dizengoff bus bombing in Tel Aviv, the 1996 Jerusalem bus bombings, the 2001 Sbarro restaurant bombing in Jerusalem, the 2002 Passover massacre in Netanya, and later bus bombings in Jerusalem and Beersheba. These were not attacks only on soldiers. They targeted civilians in ordinary life: eating pizza, riding buses, celebrating Passover.

October 7 was the most horrific expression of this pattern. Hamas-led attackers invaded southern Israel, massacred civilians, attacked the Nova music festival and multiple communities, and took hostages. Human Rights Watch later described Hamas-led crimes that day as war crimes and crimes against humanity. The U.S. State Department and many democratic governments classify Hamas as a terrorist organization.

Given this history, Israel’s army has a duty to defend its people. This is not merely a right; it is a responsibility. If a government cannot or will not protect its citizens from massacre, kidnapping, and rocket fire, it has failed one of the basic tasks of government.

Here the Mike Tyson analogy helps, up to a point. If a weak man attacks Mike Tyson, the attacker does not get to complain that Tyson is stronger. The aggressor is morally responsible for unleashing a violent situation whose consequences may exceed what he expected. Hamas cannot massacre civilians, take hostages, hide among civilians, and then claim moral immunity because Israel is militarily stronger.

But the analogy also has limits. Tyson may use enough force to stop the attacker. If the attacker is still reaching for the knife, Tyson may continue. But if the attacker is unconscious, Tyson may not keep stomping his head and call it self-defense. Force must remain ordered toward stopping the threat, not indulging vengeance.

Therefore, if Hamas remains armed, organized, holding hostages, firing rockets, rebuilding tunnels, and declaring its intention to repeat October 7, Israel may be morally required to continue military action. But the object of that action must remain Hamas’s military capacity, command structure, hostage infrastructure, tunnels, weapons, and fighters—not the punishment of Gaza’s civilian population as such.

5. The practical impossibility of zero civilian deaths#

Some people speak as if the only moral war is one in which no innocent person dies. The desire is noble. The standard is impossible.

This is especially true when the enemy hides among civilians. Hamas has operated from densely populated areas, built tunnel networks under urban space, used civilian infrastructure for military purposes, and benefited politically from civilian suffering. When combatants embed themselves among civilians, they create a horrifying moral trap: if Israel attacks, civilians may die; if Israel does not attack, Hamas survives and repeats its attacks.

This does not make every Israeli strike justified. It does mean that “civilian casualties occurred” is not by itself proof that the action was immoral. The relevant questions are harder:

Was there a legitimate military target? Was the expected military advantage real? Were feasible precautions taken? Were civilians warned when possible? Was humanitarian access allowed? Was the force used excessive relative to the military objective? Were commanders acting to stop evil, or to punish a population?

Proportionality in just-war thinking does not mean equal casualties. It does not mean, “Hamas killed 1,200, therefore Israel may only cause 1,200 deaths.” Nor does it mean a stronger army must fight weakly. Proportionality means the force used must be proportionate to the legitimate military objective. It is about the relationship between means and morally lawful ends, not about matching body counts.

This is why armchair certainty is dangerous. From a safe distance, we say:

“Just send special forces.” “Just wait.” “Just use precision weapons.” “Just don’t strike if civilians are nearby.”

But real options may be:

Wait, and the hostage is moved or killed. Strike, and civilians may die. Send soldiers in, and more soldiers, hostages, and civilians may die. Negotiate, and reward hostage-taking as a successful strategy. Do nothing, and invite the next massacre.

Refusing armchair certainty does not mean refusing moral judgment. Christians must still judge murder, hostage-taking, rape, terrorism, cruelty, and the shedding of innocent blood. But we must be cautious about judging specific battlefield decisions when we do not know the intelligence, timing, alternatives, enemy location, civilian movement, or operational constraints.

An impossible standard can become morally perverse. If we demand that Israel may only act when no civilians can possibly die, then Hamas has discovered the perfect strategy: hide behind civilians, and the world will forbid Israel to destroy Hamas. That does not protect innocent life in the long run. It rewards the very evil that endangers innocent life.

6. The judgment we use will be used against us#

Jesus warns us:

“For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you.”
— Matthew 7:2

This does not mean “never judge anything.” Jesus himself commands righteous judgment elsewhere. But it does mean we must tremble before applying standards to others that we would not be willing to bear ourselves.

So here is a question that should humble every commentator:

If your own children were taken hostage, and you were told there was a real chance to rescue them quickly, but the operation would likely cause some civilian casualties because the kidnappers were hiding among civilians—would you be able to refuse the operation?

Some people might say yes. Perhaps they are morally stronger than I am. But many parents, if honest, would beg the army to act. They would not speak in abstractions. They would say, “Save my child.” At that moment we begin to feel the weight of Jesus’ words: “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.”

This does not prove that every rescue operation is justified. It does expose the danger of judging others from a place where our own children are not in the tunnel.

The Christian posture should be humility, not moral paralysis. We can say:

Hamas is guilty of murder, hostage-taking, and hiding among civilians. Israel has a duty to rescue hostages and defend its people. Civilian life remains sacred. Specific military actions may still be wrong or excessive. Those of us far away should speak with moral clarity, but not with smug certainty.

In other words: not “cast stones,” but also not “wash hands.”

7. Human nature is evil; therefore Israel must also be held accountable#

The final truth is perhaps the most sobering: human beings are sinful.

“The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?”
— Jeremiah 17:9

A just cause can be corrupted by hatred. A defensive war can be stained by vengeance. A soldier who begins by protecting his people can take shortcuts. A commander under pressure can dehumanize the enemy population. A government can hide mistakes. A nation under trauma can become blind to the suffering of others.

This is not unique to Israel. It is human nature. That is exactly why Christians must hold Israel accountable even while defending Israel’s right to exist and to fight Hamas.

Accountability is not betrayal. Accountability is moral seriousness.

The world community, and especially Christians, should insist that Israel distinguish Hamas from Gaza’s civilians as much as possible; allow humanitarian aid; investigate credible allegations of wrongdoing; punish deliberate abuse; avoid collective punishment; and keep the war aim focused on stopping Hamas, rescuing hostages, and protecting Israeli civilians—not on revenge.

At the same time, the world community must not create an impossible standard that effectively gives Hamas immunity. To demand zero civilian death in urban war against an enemy hiding among civilians is not moral seriousness. It is an invitation for terrorists everywhere to adopt the same method.

The correct standard is not “Israel may do anything because Hamas is evil.”

The correct standard is also not “Israel may do almost nothing because civilians may die.”

The Christian standard is harder:

Evil must be resisted. Innocent blood must be mourned. Hostages must be rescued. Civilians must not be treated as disposable. Commanders must be accountable. Judgment must be humble. Truth must not be sacrificed to ideology.

Conclusion: moral clarity with trembling#

Hamas bears primary guilt for October 7, for hostage-taking, for targeting civilians, and for using Gaza’s civilian population as cover. Israel has a real moral duty to defend its people and to prevent such evil from recurring. History warns us that evil not stopped early often sheds more innocent blood later.

But Israel’s military strength does not remove Israel’s moral responsibility. Self-defense is not a blank check. The image of God remains on every civilian. Every dead child matters before God. Every shortcut taken in rage matters before God. Every lie told for propaganda matters before God.

So the Christian answer cannot be a slogan.

It must be this: resist evil early, defend the innocent, rescue the captives, mourn every innocent death, reject impossible armchair standards, and hold even the just warrior accountable before the Judge of all the earth.

“Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?”
— Genesis 18:25

Yes, he shall. And because he shall, we must speak the truth with courage—and with fear.

Finally, Christians must not only analyze war; we must obey God’s command to pray for the peace of Jerusalem:

“Pray for the peace of Jerusalem! May they be secure who love you! Peace be within your walls and security within your towers!” For my brothers and companions’ sake I will say, “Peace be within you!” For the sake of the house of the LORD our God, I will seek your good.
— Psalm 122:6–9

We pray for Israel, and we pray for the civilians of Gaza. We pray for the hostages, and we pray for parents who have buried their children. We pray for justice, and we pray for mercy. We believe that human war cannot bring final peace. Only the Prince of Peace can.

“For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.”
— Isaiah 9:6

So we resist evil while longing for peace. We speak for justice while waiting for the Prince of Peace to heal the nations.

Selected sources for factual grounding#

• U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, articles on appeasement, the Rhineland, and Rwanda genocide prevention failures.
• Encyclopaedia Britannica, entries on the Munich Agreement, Yom Kippur War, and October 7 attack.
• United Nations historical material on Rwanda and UNAMIR.
• U.S. Department of State historical material on the 1948 Arab-Israeli War and reports on terrorism.
• Human Rights Watch, report on Hamas-led crimes on October 7.
• Imperial War Museums and National WWII Museum materials on the planned invasion of Japan and the end of the Pacific War.
• Historiographical debates on Hiroshima/Nagasaki, Operation Downfall, Soviet entry into the war, and Japanese surrender.