In a recent op-ed for L’Osservatore Romano, a Vatican newspaper, German-Israeli Jesuit priest and scholar David Neuhaus explored the challenging task of reconciling biblical texts with the realities of the current conflict in Gaza. His experiences, including his family’s escape from Nazi Germany and his birth in apartheid South Africa, have “profoundly influenced” his perspective. While acknowledging the moral questions that stem from interpreting texts to justify violence, his argument risks mischaracterizing the nuanced relationship between faith, history, and the modern State of Israel.
Neuhaus’s personal lens seems to color his interpretations, leading to alarming conclusions. He accuses Israeli leaders of “weaponizing” biblical narratives to justify “extermination” and “ethnic cleansing,” even labeling Israel’s actions in Gaza as “genocide.” He also equates Israel’s “ethnocentric form of administration” with apartheid and the Palestinian “Nakba” with the Holocaust.
These profound moral condemnations demand a clear, factual response.
Three Errors
First, accusing Israel of “genocide” is inaccurate and dangerous. This term, precisely defined under international law to describe the deliberate destruction of a group, was coined to describe the Nazis’ systematic extermination of Jews. Experts agree that applying it to Israel’s actions in Gaza is misleading.
Israel’s stated objective is to dismantle Hamas, a designated terrorist organization, not to destroy the Palestinian people. The Israel Defense Forces have taken steps to minimize civilian harm, including relocating more than a million civilians, designating humanitarian corridors, and issuing warnings to the populace before they strike. While tragic civilian casualties occur in urban warfare — often exacerbated by Hamas’s use of human shields and operating from civilian areas — this does not constitute genocidal intent. For example, the UN reported that as of this month, approximately 1.7 million people in Gaza (out of 2.2 million) have been internally displaced, primarily due to Israeli warnings and evacuation orders.
Next, Neuhaus’s interpretation of the biblical references Israeli leaders have made distorts their meaning. He claims that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu quoting Deuteronomy 25:17 is a “chilling reminder” of how the Bible is used to justify “extermination.” However, biblical scholars clarify that Netanyahu used it as a historical warning, not a direct geopolitical mandate.
Similarly, Neuhaus’s assertion that David Ben-Gurion used the Bible to justify Arab “extermination” is refuted by historical records: Ben-Gurion affirmed Arabs’ full rights and stated that nothing would be taken from them. The Israeli Ambassador to the Vatican has further clarified that Israeli decision-makers rely on defense against tangible threats, not biblical texts, for security decisions.
Fatal Flaw
Perhaps the most fundamental flaw in Neuhaus’s argument is his dismissal of the Jewish people’s deep, continuous, and indigenous connection to the land of Israel. To suggest that Jewish migrants “ignored the presence of the natives” is to ignore millennia of history.
The Jewish claim to indigeneity is based on a 3,000-year-old continuous history. Archaeological evidence, such as the Merneptah Stele from 1208 BCE, provides the earliest extrabiblical mention of “Israel” in Canaan. Ancient Hebrew texts, synagogues dating back to the third century CE, and Jewish communities thriving under various empires all attest to an unbroken presence. Jews are not “settler colonists”; they are a people with profound, ancient roots in their ancestral homeland.
Finally, any honest assessment of the conflict must acknowledge Palestinian leaders’ consistent pattern of rejecting peace initiatives. From the Grand Mufti’s refusal of the 1947 UN Partition Plan to Yasser Arafat’s rejection of the 2000 Camp David proposals and Mahmoud Abbas’s dismissal of the 2008 Olmert offer, opportunities for peace have been repeatedly squandered. Even Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from Gaza in 2005, a significant concession, was met not with peace but with Hamas’s violent takeover and a constant barrage of rockets. Since 2005, Gaza has fired tens of thousands of rockets and mortars into Israel. This consistent rejectionism, often driven by an ideological refusal to acknowledge Israel’s right to exist, has been a primary impediment to lasting peace.
For many Christians, support for Israel is not merely political but deeply theological. The Abrahamic Covenant promises blessings to those who bless Abraham’s descendants. Scripture identifies the Land of Israel as uniquely belonging to God, irrevocably committed to Abraham and his offspring “forever.” This perspective rejects “Replacement Theology,” which falsely asserts that the Church has superseded Israel. Antisemitism, often fueled by pervasive hatred, seeks to nullify God’s promises to the Jewish people.
While raising important questions about the ethical use of sacred texts, Neuhaus’s op-ed ultimately falls short by misrepresenting historical facts, distorting biblical interpretations, and overlooking the complex realities of the conflict. Israel’s right to exist is not predicated on a selective reading of ancient Scripture, but on a confluence of historical indigeneity, international law, and the enduring will of a people to live securely in their ancestral homeland. To truly seek peace, one must confront the uncomfortable truths of rejectionism and acknowledge the legitimate claims of all parties, especially those rooted in millennia of continuous presence and unwavering faith.
Amine Ayoub is a policy analyst and writer based in Morocco.
