Israel's Gaza church strike sparks moral debate. Is it losing support from its strongest US allies?
Israel, after a torrent of international criticism including from President Trump, claimed the strike was a mistake.
But no public evidence has yet supported that explanation. Churches, of course, are not difficult to identify: cross, steeple, certain features. And no credible account has emerged explaining how this specific target was mistakenly hit. Many argue that the strike may have been an intentional form of retaliation for Christian leaders' recent criticism of Israeli settler violence in a West Bank Christian town.
Regardless of intent, this strike is an instantiation of a political turning point. The truth is that Israel overstepped not only the line of military proportionality, but the line that keeps even its staunchest allies — American evangelical conservatives — in its corner.
That shift is visible at the top. Even Mike Huckabee, a longtime evangelical ally of Israel and U.S. ambassador to the country, has warned that Israel may be turning openly hostile toward Christians. In a pointed letter to Israel's Interior minister, he threatened visa restrictions on Israel for blocking Christian pilgrims from entering the country.
Huckabee's criticism matters not just because of his stature, but that he represents millions of evangelical voters who have historically provided Israel with a powerful base of bipartisan American support. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), too, voted alongside Democrats to strip Israel of $500 million in funding hours after the bombing. Another Mike, Daily Wire commentator and essential Christian Zionist Michael Knowles, reacted to the strike and said: 'You're losing me. When you strike churches and start interfering with American interests… Now we've got a problem.'
Support for Israel in the U.S. has long rested on two legs: shared strategic interests and shared moral values. The second of those legs is buckling: not just on the left, but now, visibly, among Israel's own evangelical base.
The political backlash already underway clearly shows that Israel's pattern of hostility toward Christians is beginning to carry substantial consequences. Evidently, Israel's gamble with the goodwill of its strongest political base in the U.S. has failed.
And there's another reason why striking a church is politically self-defeating: the West may struggle to communicate empathy for Palestinian civilians, but they brought in the beacon of American conservatism: Christianity and the church.
I say this not as someone predisposed to condemn Israel. I as a Christian was broadly supportive of Israel in the weeks following Oct. 7. Not out of ideology but because, prudentially, I believed Israel's response to Hamas' attacks was warranted and necessary. But I now firmly believe government of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has crossed the proportionality line with its recent food and aid blockade and relentless bombardment of civilians.
Self-evidently, Israel has gone beyond its supposed mission to eliminate Hamas and get the remaining hostages released, and now seem overshadowed by an egregiously destructive military operation.
And just as Israel's moral clarity has eroded, so too has the political cover once granted by its most reliable American supporters. When Israel strikes the church in Gaza they lose Michael Knowles. When Israel starts interfering with Christian pilgrims, they lose Mike Huckabee. And if they lose the Huckabee archetype, whom they rely on, then the Israeli government is badly misplaying its hand.
In any case, an indefinite war, especially one with such a catastrophic civilian toll, cannot retain public or political support in the U.S. Still, the U.S. remains Israel's closest ally. But that support depends on shared values. If those values begin to diverge, so too will the relationship.
William Liang is a writer living in San Francisco. His work has appeared in the Daily Wire, the San Francisco Chronicle, the San Diego Union-Tribune and more.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Taiwan says trade delegation in Washington for talks on potential tariff and trade deal
TAIPEI (Reuters) -Taiwan's government said on Wednesday that a trade delegation led by the vice premier was in Washington, D.C., for a new round of in-person negotiations with U.S. officials this week. U.S. President Donald Trump has proposed imposing tariffs of as much as 32% on Taiwan. No new tariffs have yet been announced for the democratically-governed island, although the 90-day pause on worldwide tariffs Trump proposed in April has already expired. The delegation, led by Vice Premier Cheng Li-chun, seeks to safeguard Taiwan's industrial interests, public health, and food security, according to a cabinet statement. The talks aim to promote balanced trade, and improve the overall economic and trade framework between the two sides, it added. "The team will continue working under the principles of protecting Taiwan's industries and public welfare,' the statement said. 'We hope to optimise the trade system and lay the groundwork for a stronger partnership in the future.' The Taiwan talks come as trade negotiations in the region accelerate. On Wednesday, the United States and Japan announced a trade agreement that includes a 15% U.S. import tariff on all Japanese goods, lower than the 25% Washington had proposed previously. The Japan deal is seen as one of the most significant among several agreements reached ahead of the August 1 tariff deadline the White House set after the original 90-day deadline expired with only a few successfully negotiated agreements. Taiwan has been seeking to strengthen its trade ties with major partners, particularly the U.S., Taiwan's second-largest trading partner after China, amid growing geopolitical and economic challenges. The outcome of the negotiations could play a key role in shaping the island's future trade strategy and its position in the global supply chain, and is crucial to Taiwan's export-driven economy.
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Russian delegation heads to Turkey for talks with Ukraine, news agencies say
MOSCOW (Reuters) -Russian negotiators are flying to Turkey for the first peace talks with Ukraine in more than seven weeks, Russian news agencies reported on Wednesday. State agency TASS said talks would take place later on Wednesday in Istanbul. Data from tracking site Flightradar24 showed the plane used by Russian delegation chief Vladimir Medinsky to fly to previous talks in Istanbul had taken off from Moscow. The warring sides held two previous rounds of talks in Istanbul, on May 16 and June 2, that led to the exchange of thousands of prisoners of war and the remains of dead soldiers. But they have made no breakthrough towards a ceasefire or a settlement to end almost three and a half years of war. U.S. President Donald Trump last week threatened heavy new sanctions on Russia and countries that buy its exports unless a peace deal was reached within 50 days. But three sources close to the Kremlin told Reuters that Putin, unfazed by Trump's ultimatum, would keep on fighting in Ukraine until the West engaged on his terms for peace, and that his territorial demands may widen as Russian forces advance.
Vox
25 minutes ago
- Vox
The lawsuit seeking to kill Trump's tariffs is back
is a senior correspondent at Vox, where he focuses on the Supreme Court, the Constitution, and the decline of liberal democracy in the United States. He received a JD from Duke University and is the author of two books on the Supreme Court. Three very important tariff-related stories loom over the US economy this month. The first is that, after a few weeks of relative quiet, President Donald Trump is once again threatening to raise tariffs on a whole raft of other nations. According to the New York Times, 'Trump has threatened 25 trading partners with punishing levies on Aug. 1,' including major importers to the United States such as Mexico, Japan, and the European Union. SCOTUS, Explained Get the latest developments on the US Supreme Court from senior correspondent Ian Millhiser. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. During Trump's brief time back in office, he raised the average effective tariff rate — the average of what all countries must pay to import goods into the US — from 2.5 percent to 16.6 percent, increasing US tariffs nearly sevenfold. If Trump's new tariffs take effect — an uncertain proposition, because Trump's trade policy has been so erratic — the average tariff rate will rise to 20.6 percent. That's the highest rate since 1910. The second story is that, after a brief period when the stock market and the broader US economy seemed to stabilize, inflation rose in June from 2.4 percent to 2.7 percent. Beforehand, US inflation had declined fairly steadily since 2022, when it spiked due to the aftereffects of the Covid-19 pandemic. Products that are particularly exposed to the tariffs, such as furniture and appliances, saw the highest price hikes in June. The delay between Trump's decision to impose high import taxes in the spring, and the onset of induced inflation in June, was widely predicted. After Trump's election, many US companies went on a buying spree, overstocking their inventories with foreign goods in anticipation of Trump's trade war. But those expanded inventories are now starting to run out, and inflation is expected to keep rising. Both of these stories, moreover, are hitting at a terrible time for Trump — at least if he wants his trade war to continue. On July 31, one day before the new round of tariffs are supposed to take effect, a federal appeals court will hear oral arguments on whether Trump's tariffs are illegal and should be struck down. The judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in other words, will hear these arguments while they are surrounded with headlines about an escalating trade war and the harm it is imposing on the US economy. The plaintiffs' legal arguments in this case, known as V.O.S. Selections v. Trump, are quite strong. So strong, in fact, that a bipartisan panel of three judges struck down the tariffs in May — that decision is currently on hold while the Federal Circuit considers the case. The Federal Circuit's hearing is largely an exhibition game before this case reaches the Supreme Court. Ultimately, the fate of the tariffs will almost certainly be decided by the justices, with their Republican supermajority that has thus far shown extraordinary loyalty to Trump. But that doesn't mean that the Federal Circuit's decision is irrelevant. At the very least, the Federal Circuit is likely to determine just how fast the justices will need to weigh in on V.O.S. Selections, and whether the Supreme Court can make this case disappear without having to produce an opinion explaining why. If the Federal Circuit upholds the tariffs, the Supreme Court could potentially end any legal threats to Trump's trade war by simply refusing to hear V.O.S. Selections. Conversely, if the Federal Circuit issues a broad injunction blocking the tariffs, the justices will need to decide very quickly whether to halt that injunction or the tariffs will go away, at least temporarily. The legal arguments against Trump's tariffs, explained Trump relied on a federal law known as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA) when he imposed the tariffs that are now before the Federal Circuit. These tariffs include a broad range of import taxes that Trump claims are necessary to combat trade deficits — meaning that Americans buy more goods from many countries than they sell. They also include additional tariffs targeting Canada, Mexico, and China, which Trump claims will somehow help prevent illegal activity such as fentanyl trafficking. The IEEPA permits the president to 'regulate…transactions involving, any property in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest,' but this power 'may only be exercised to deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat with respect to which a national emergency has been declared.' The plaintiffs challenging these tariffs raise several statutory arguments. Among other things, they argue that a statute giving Trump the power to 'regulate' trade does not permit him to impose import taxes. They claim that the Canada, Mexico, and China tariffs don't actually do anything to 'deal with' fentanyl. And they argue that trade deficits, which have 'been a consistent feature of the U.S. economy since the mid-1970s' are common and ordinary – not 'unusual and extraordinary' as the IEEPA requires. All of these are plausible statutory arguments — the last argument is particularly strong — and the plaintiffs' case against these tariffs should be a slam dunk under something known as the 'major questions doctrine.' This doctrine, which was recently invented by the Supreme Court's Republican majority, requires Congress to 'speak clearly' before it can give the executive branch the power to make decisions of 'vast 'economic and political significance.'' Related How the Supreme Court put itself in charge of the executive branch According to the Budget Lab at Yale, Trump's tariffs will cost Americans 'the equivalent of an average per household income loss of $2,800 in 2025,' and they will reduce employment by 641,000 jobs. So they are clearly a matter of great economic and political significance. Under the major questions doctrine, that means that any uncertainty about how to read the IEEPA must be resolved against Trump. The strongest argument for the tariffs, meanwhile, is not legal but political. Republicans control six of the nine seats on the Supreme Court, and the major questions doctrine is brand new — it has never been used against any president who isn't named 'Joe Biden.' So it is far from clear whether the Republican justices, who held last year that Trump is allowed to use the powers of the presidency to commit crimes, will actually apply this new constraint on executive power to a president of their party. (Trump's lawyers, for what it is worth, do make legal arguments against applying the major questions doctrine in V.O.S. Selections. Their primary argument is that the doctrine doesn't apply to policy decisions made directly by the president himself, an argument that at least three federal appeals courts have previously rejected.) The Federal Circuit, however, is a highly specialized court that primarily deals with patent law. Patents aren't a particularly polarizing topic — or, at least, they aren't a topic that tends to divide Democrats from Republicans — so Federal Circuit judges tend to be more technocratic than the highly vetted political operatives who are typically appointed to the Supreme Court. For this reason, partisan politics are likely to play less of a role in the Federal Circuit's deliberations over V.O.S. Selections than they will when this case reaches the justices. There are also many prominent voices within the Republican Party that oppose the tariffs. The lead attorney representing many of the plaintiffs is Michael McConnell, a prominent conservative legal scholar who spent seven years as a federal appellate judge after he was appointed by President George W. Bush. At a recent conference hosted by the Federalist Society, a highly influential bar association for right-wing lawyers, several speakers criticized the tariffs. So, even in a Supreme Court that is typically in the tank for Donald Trump, there is a very real chance that these tariffs could fall. The Federal Circuit is likely to determine when the justices have to decide this case Realistically, the Federal Circuit is unlikely to have the final word on the tariffs. If the appeals court blocks the tariffs, Trump's lawyers will race to the Supreme Court seeking a stay of that decision. That said, the Federal Circuit's decision is likely to decide how quickly the justices must take up this case, and whether they need to explain their ultimate decision to support or oppose the tariffs. Broadly speaking, the Federal Circuit could decide this case in one of three ways: First, the appeals court could strike down the tariffs and issue an injunction prohibiting the Trump administration from enforcing them. If that happens, Trump will ask the Supreme Court to block that injunction on its 'shadow docket,' a mix of emergency motions and other matters that the justices decide on an expedited basis. In this scenario, we are likely to know whether the justices support the tariffs or not within a few weeks of the Federal Circuit's decision. At the other end of the spectrum, the Federal Circuit might uphold the tariffs. If that happens, the plaintiffs will ask the Supreme Court to review the case on its merits docket, but that process can take more than a year to resolve. And the Court may refuse to hear the case, which would mean that the tariffs will remain in effect and the justices will likely never have to explain why they sided with Trump. A third option is that the Federal Circuit could rule against the tariffs, but not issue an immediate injunction blocking them. If that happens, the Supreme Court is still likely to take up the case, but it will do so on its merits docket rather than on the fast-moving shadow docket. We will likely have to wait months or longer before the justices show their cards — and the tariffs will likely remain in place during that entire wait.
