This has been long in the making. Since the outbreak of the present conflict, my views have been misunderstood by friends on the other camp who might have things taken out of context, and reduced to fragments. What follows is my comprehensive response to the issue as a whole. It also reflects a development in my own perspective: while my commitments to biblical truth, conservative politics, and the integrity of international law remain unchanged, I acknowledge that certain emphases have shifted between October 7 and today. That shift arises not from abandoning my convictions, but from seeing the immense human suffering with clearer eyes.
The recent conclusion by the United Nations Commission of Inquiry that Israel has committed genocide against the Palestinian people presents an immense moral and jurisprudential challenge. Genocide is the gravest of crimes in international law, defined under the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide as acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group.¹ To apply this label requires both evidentiary rigor and moral seriousness. To use it carelessly risks transforming international law into a political weapon rather than a shield for human dignity.
At the same time, one cannot ignore the tragic suffering of Palestinians. Families are starving, children are displaced, and civilians are grievously injured, often with little recourse to medical aid or safety. These realities transcend politics. To reduce Palestinian agony to a mere byproduct of armed conflict would be a profound moral failure. Long before blame is exchanged by either party, the provision of dignified and safe living for Palestinian civilians must be recognized as a paramount duty of justice and humanity. This is not optional. It is a requirement that flows both from international law and from the natural law tradition of human dignity.²
Yet, we cannot lose sight of a hard truth: much of this devastation has been orchestrated by Hamas itself. Hamas is not merely a political faction or resistance group. It is an organization built upon terror, indoctrination, and the deliberate sacrifice of its own people. It embeds its fighters and weaponry in civilian areas, ensuring that Palestinian civilians are caught in the crossfire. It has rejected every opportunity for peace and thrives on perpetual conflict.³ In this sense, Hamas is not only the murderer of Israelis but also the betrayer of Palestinians, condemning them to cycles of destruction and misery. To be compassionate toward Palestinians is, paradoxically, to oppose Hamas with unwavering clarity.
Compassion for Palestinians therefore cannot come at the cost of erasing the legitimacy of Israel’s existence. The modern state of Israel was born out of the ashes of Jewish exile and the horrors of the Holocaust, affirming the right of a persecuted people to live in security in their ancestral homeland.⁴ The events of October 7, when Hamas militants unleashed a brutal massacre upon innocent Israelis, remind the world that Israel’s security is not theoretical but existential. To deny Israel the right to defend its citizens is to deny the Jewish people the very right to exist, a right that should never be conditional or negotiable.
The conservative response must therefore be balanced. It must affirm both the legitimacy of Israel’s statehood and the necessity of Palestinian dignity. This balance is not symmetrical, for the responsibilities of a sovereign state are greater than those of a non-state actor. But the obligations remain. International humanitarian law, embedded in the Geneva Conventions and customary norms, requires distinction between combatants and civilians, proportionality in the use of force, and the pursuit of peace over permanent hostility.⁵
Theologically, the Bible calls for justice that is not blind to evil yet never indifferent to mercy. Nations are accountable before God not only for their sovereignty but also for their treatment of the vulnerable. The Jewish people’s covenantal role in Scripture underscores the legitimacy of their nationhood, while the universal command to love one’s neighbor imposes upon all, Jew and Gentile alike, an obligation to recognize and protect human dignity. In this light, antisemitism must be rejected unequivocally, but so too must the dehumanization of Palestinian civilians.
From a jurisprudential standpoint, the UN Commission’s finding raises concerns. The politicization of international institutions is no secret. Selective application of human rights standards has long undermined their credibility. Yet conservatives cannot respond merely by dismissing such findings. Instead, the duty is to engage critically: to examine whether evidentiary standards were met, whether proportionality was rightly evaluated, and whether the term “genocide” was applied with integrity rather than ideology.⁶ To reject politicization must not mean rejecting accountability.
This essay, therefore, is my settled reflection. It has weighed on me since the beginning of the war. In October, I was rightly focused on condemning Hamas’s barbarity and defending Israel’s right to exist. That conviction remains unshaken. Yet with time, as images of Palestinian suffering became undeniable, I came to see that true conservatism, rooted in biblical faith, natural law, and respect for human dignity, requires not only the defense of Israel’s security but also the insistence that Palestinians be afforded dignified and safe living. Any political or theological account that ignores this dual obligation risks reducing justice to ideology.
In conclusion, I reject antisemitism in all its forms and affirm Israel’s right to live securely in its ancestral land. But I also insist that the suffering of Palestinian civilians demands not dismissal but redress. International law must be applied with rigor, not weaponized for political aims. Compassion and jurisprudence must walk hand in hand. This is not a matter of left or right, but of truth, justice, and human dignity.
This is my answer to the conflict, not a reactionary defense, not a partisan polemic, but a principled statement. It embodies my politics, my faith, and my jurisprudential commitments. Misunderstandings may persist, but I stand by this conviction: Israel’s existence and Palestinian dignity are not mutually exclusive, and the pursuit of both is the only path toward peace.
References
-
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide art. 2, Dec. 9, 1948, 78 U.N.T.S. 277.
-
U.N. Charter art. 1(3); Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Co. (Belgium v. Spain), Judgment, 1970 I.C.J. Rep. 3, ¶ 33 (recognizing obligations erga omnes arising from human dignity).
-
See Matthew Levitt, Hamas: Politics, Charity, and Terrorism in the Service of Jihad 1–25 (2006) (documenting Hamas’s use of civilian infrastructure for military operations).
-
Michael Walzer, Exodus and Revolution 149–56 (1985) (arguing for the historical legitimacy of Jewish nationhood).
-
Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War art. 3, Aug. 12, 1949, 75 U.N.T.S. 287.
-
Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment, 2007 I.C.J. Rep. 43 (requiring both genocidal acts and specific intent to destroy a group).