Netanyahu’s Unholy War

Dr. Zulfiqar Ali Shah

Gaza City, home to over 2.2 million residents, has become a ghostly emblem of devastation and violence. This catastrophic transformation, occurring under the watchful eyes of the modern world, often garners implicit or explicit approval, highlighting a striking paradox of our era. The conflict in Gaza is mired in moral complexity for some, while others view it as a straightforward battle between good and evil. Influenced by religious beliefs, colonial attitudes, and geopolitical considerations, a significant portion of Western policymakers appear to support this severe aggression. This support primarily comes from extreme Zionist Jews, ultraconservative Evangelists, and their secular counterparts, who see little moral conflict in their stance. Their interpretation of the conflict is deeply rooted in biblical narratives, perceived through a scriptural lens, and entwined with expectations of significant cosmic consequences, framing it as a divinely sanctioned war.

The belief in a holy war, aimed at defeating perceived enemies of God and reclaiming a biblically ordained Holy Land, purged of Palestinian presence, is prevalent among some factions. The term “Peleshet” in Hebrew, mentioned over 250 times in the Hebrew Bible, historically refers to invaders settling along Gaza’s coast. These groups, known as Philistia or Palestina, are depicted in biblical texts as despised outsiders encroaching upon land reserved for God’s chosen people. Their presence, marked by practices contrary to Jewish customs, is seen as contamination and an obstacle to divine plans for a pure Holy Land.

This extreme ideology, an embodiment of a dualistic biblical worldview, categorizes people as either Jews or non-Jews, asserting Jewish theological and political superiority. Based on extensive references in classical Jewish texts, including the Hebrew Bible, Rabbinic exegeses, and various Talmudic and medieval commentaries, this perspective draws justification from these sources.

From a scholarly standpoint, this ideology is deeply rooted in scriptural and historical contexts. The Hebrew scriptures and history showcase instances of racism, supremacy, and discrimination. A literal interpretation of these texts has long served as the basis for this dualistic view. However, during the Enlightenment, progressive Jewish intellectuals challenged and refuted this literalist tradition, advocating for a shift towards universal ethical principles. Regrettably, recent literalist extremism coupled with unprecedented destruction in Gaza appears to reverse these Enlightenment achievements, undermining the Jewish community’s global welfare and progress.

The Hebrew Bible’s division of the world into Jews and Gentiles, portraying the latter as impure and idolatrous, has historical and theological significance. The term “goy,” used for Gentiles, often carried negative connotations in the Talmud, implying uncleanliness. Scholars like Rebecca Einstein Schorr and Andrew Silow Carroll have highlighted the derogatory usage of this term in Jewish lexicon. The Bible’s narrative of Israelite supremacy and divine-sanctioned violence is exemplified in passages like Deuteronomy 7:6 and 20:10-18, which mandate the purification of the Holy Land and subjugation of Gentiles.

Modern figures like Richard Dawkins have criticized the moral basis of such biblical narratives, questioning their role as moral guides. Similarly, biblical accounts, such as the annihilation of the Midianites under Moses’ command, as detailed in Numbers 31:1-18, are seen as examples of indiscriminate killing justified by religious belief. Dawkins argues that modern morality surpasses that of biblical figures, emphasizing that it does not stem from the Bible.

The recent actions of Israeli leaders like Netanyahu, invoking biblical commands to justify military actions in Gaza, are seen as a continuation of this scriptural ideology. The devastating consequences of such actions, leading to massive civilian casualties and destruction, have sparked widespread condemnation and accusations of genocide. This alignment with a radical, divisive biblical interpretation underscores the ongoing moral and ethical challenges posed by the conflict in Gaza.

The narrative of Joshua, Moses’ successor, in the biblical context, presents a striking case of how ancient texts describe divinely endorsed genocide and violence. In the Book of Joshua, passages such as Joshua 6:2-25 depict the capture and destruction of Jericho under divine command. This portrayal of divine intervention in the military campaigns of Israelites raises moral questions, especially when viewed through a contemporary lens.

Joshua’s actions, as narrated, include the stoning and burning of enemies, as described in Joshua 7:24-26, where Achan and his family are punished for transgression. Moreover, the complete annihilation of both the Southern and Northern Kingdoms, including their inhabitants, as depicted in Joshua 8 and Joshua 10, highlights a pattern of total genocide and destruction attributed to divine instructions. These passages describe the destruction of cities and the killing of their inhabitants, including the execution of captured kings.

The culmination of Joshua’s campaigns, according to Joshua 11, involves the conquest of northern kings and their cities, emphasizing total destruction and sparing no one. This conquest is presented as a purification of the Holy Land, bequeathing it to the Hebrew tribes, as stated in Joshua 11:23.

Richard Dawkins, a prominent atheist and critic of religious texts, compares the moral implications of these biblical narratives to modern acts of war and genocide. He questions the morality of using the Bible as a guide, especially given its descriptions of conquest and destruction, likening them to actions by historical figures like Hitler and Saddam Hussein. Dawkins’ critique focuses on the ethical implications of deriving moral lessons from biblical texts that describe such violence.

In contemporary times, the use of ancient biblical texts as templates for modern actions raises concerns, especially when political leaders and radical groups interpret these narratives literally. This can lead to justifications for aggression and conflict in modern societies, which are vastly different from the ancient contexts of these texts.

The use of biblical symbolism by political figures like Netanyahu, who draw parallels between recent Gaza military campaigns and biblical narratives, highlights a trend where ancient texts are employed to shape contemporary political and military strategies. This approach risks perpetuating cycles of violence and conflict, particularly in regions with deep historical and religious significance.

The propensity of some groups to adopt a literalist and extreme interpretation of biblical texts, potentially advocating for aggressive or even genocidal tactics, calls for a collective response from various faith communities. Emphasizing compassionate teachings and moving away from fundamentalist interpretations is crucial for promoting peace and preventing the misuse of religious narratives in justifying contemporary conflicts.

The situation in Gaza and the broader Israeli-Palestinian conflict are influenced by these interpretations, impacting the lives of civilians and shaping regional dynamics. There is a pressing need for a more benevolent approach, focusing on peace and the well-being of all affected communities, rather than perpetuating cycles of violence based on ancient texts. This approach should be guided by a desire for peace and reconciliation, rather than an adherence to divisive and destructive ideologies.

Summary of the longer article.