The Story: Israel’s Plan to Take Control of Gaza City
On August 8, 2025, Israel’s Security Cabinet approved Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s plan to take military control of Gaza City, marking a significant escalation in the nearly two-year conflict that began after the October 7, 2023 Hamas attacks. The plan involves mass displacement of Palestinians in Gaza, with Netanyahu stating that around 75% of Gaza is already under Israeli military control. The deadline for the first phase of the operation, which includes the evacuation of Gaza City and an expansion of aid distribution, is October 7, 2025 — the second anniversary of the Hamas-led attack.
This expansion faces widespread opposition, with tens of thousands of Israelis protesting the plan and hostage families denouncing the move, demanding Netanyahu’s government strike a ceasefire deal instead. The situation has been further complicated by Israel’s killing of four Al Jazeera journalists, including correspondent Anas al-Sharif, in what the network calls a deliberate targeting of witnesses to the military’s plans.
Christian Perspective: The Struggle Between Justice and Peace
From a Christian theological standpoint, this conflict presents a profound moral dilemma that touches on core Gospel teachings about peace, justice, and human dignity. The Christian response is necessarily complex, reflecting different denominational traditions and interpretations of Scripture.
The Peace Imperative: Central to Christian teaching is Jesus’s declaration in Matthew 5:9: “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.” Many Christians, particularly from peace church traditions like Mennonites and Quakers, would emphasize that any military expansion contradicts the fundamental Christian call to be agents of reconciliation. They would argue that the displacement of over one million Palestinians represents a failure to seek justice through peaceful means, as commanded in Micah 6:8 to “do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with God.”
The Just War Tradition: However, other Christian traditions, drawing from Augustine and Aquinas, might apply just war theory to evaluate the morality of the operation. These Christians would ask whether the action meets criteria such as just cause (defending against terrorism), right intention (protecting civilians rather than conquest), and proportionality (whether the means match the ends). The planned mass displacement would likely fail the proportionality test for many Christian ethicists.
Liberation Theology: Christians influenced by liberation theology would likely emphasize God’s “preferential option for the poor” and question any action that increases suffering among the most vulnerable. They would point to Luke 4:18-19, where Jesus declares his mission “to bring good news to the poor… to proclaim release to the captives,” as demanding solidarity with displaced Palestinians while also mourning Israeli victims of terrorism.
Prophetic Witness: Many Christians would invoke the Hebrew prophetic tradition, calling both sides to account. Drawing from Isaiah 1:17 (“learn to do good; seek justice, rescue the oppressed”), they would demand that both Israeli and Palestinian leaders prioritize civilian protection over military objectives.
The Interfaith Dimension: Christian leaders increasingly emphasize dialogue and shared responsibility. Organizations like the World Council of Churches would likely call for international intervention, arguing that Christians must work to break cycles of violence that trap both peoples in perpetual conflict.
Islamic Perspective: Between Resistance and Mercy
Islamic theology offers a rich framework for analyzing this conflict, emphasizing principles of justice (adl), mercy (rahma), and the protection of innocent life that shape Muslim responses to the Gaza crisis.
The Principle of Justice (Adl): In Islamic thought, justice is not merely a human construct but a divine imperative. The Quran states in 4:135: “O you who believe! Stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to Allah, even if it be against yourselves, your parents, and your relatives.” Many Muslims would view the displacement of Palestinians as a fundamental violation of justice, arguing that any military action must be proportionate and must not harm innocent civilians (mustadafin).
Protection of Sacred Life: The Quranic principle that “whoever saves a life, it is as if he has saved all of humanity” (5:32) places supreme value on protecting civilian life. Muslim scholars would likely condemn any military action that knowingly displaces civilians, arguing that the preservation of life takes precedence over political objectives. The concept of maslaha (public interest) would demand prioritizing civilian welfare over military gains.
The Right to Resistance: Islamic jurisprudence recognizes the right of oppressed peoples to resist occupation, but within strict moral boundaries. The principle of proportionality in warfare (found in verses like 2:190: “Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress”) would lead many Muslims to support Palestinian resistance while condemning actions that target civilians on either side.
The Mercy Imperative: Islam’s emphasis on God as “Ar-Rahman” (The Merciful) creates an obligation for Muslims to embody mercy in human relations. The Hadith tradition includes the saying: “He is not one of us who does not show mercy to our young ones and does not acknowledge the honor due to our elders.” This would lead many Muslims to call for immediate humanitarian aid and protection for all civilians, regardless of nationality.
The Broader Ummah: The concept of ummah (the global Muslim community) creates a sense of solidarity with Palestinian suffering, but also obligations to seek just solutions. Many Muslim leaders emphasize that true Islamic solidarity requires working for sustainable peace rather than perpetual conflict.
Prophetic Example: Muslims often invoke the Prophet Muhammad’s conduct during conflict, particularly his emphasis on protecting non-combatants, religious sites, and infrastructure. The destruction in Gaza would be measured against these prophetic standards, with many arguing that current military tactics violate fundamental Islamic principles of warfare ethics.
Common Ground and Divergent Responses
Both traditions share commitments to human dignity, justice, and the protection of innocent life, yet they often reach different conclusions about how to implement these values in complex political situations.
Shared Concerns: Both Christians and Muslims express deep concern about civilian casualties, the humanitarian crisis, and the long-term prospects for peace. Both traditions emphasize that political solutions must address root causes rather than symptoms of conflict.
Divergent Emphasis: While Christians might emphasize reconciliation and healing between peoples, Muslims might place greater emphasis on ending occupation and achieving political justice as prerequisites for genuine peace.
The Path Forward: Both faiths would likely agree that the current escalation represents a failure of moral imagination. The expansion into Gaza City, rather than solving the conflict, risks deepening trauma and hatred that will persist for generations. True religious leadership from both traditions would call for creative alternatives that honor the legitimate aspirations of both peoples while protecting the most vulnerable.
The tragedy of this moment is not just the immediate suffering it will cause, but the way it hardens hearts and closes minds to the possibility of a future where Israeli and Palestinian children can grow up in security and dignity. Both Christian and Islamic teachings demand that believers work toward that future, even when political leaders seem determined to make it impossible.