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
The Hill
10 minutes ago
- The Hill
Jay Leno rips partisanship in late night shows
Comedian Jay Leno bemoaned increased partisanship and political humor on late night shows, saying comics who opt for political jokes are making a mistake. 'I love political humor, don't get me wrong,' the former host of 'The Tonight Show' said during a recent interview. 'But it's just what happens when people wind up cozying too much to one side or the other.' The former TV host's comments were first highlighted by Mediaite. Leno's comments come just days after CBS announced it was canceling 'The Late Show with Stephen Colbert,' a move that the network said was financially necessary but some critics have pointed to as evidence of sensitivity by the network's parent company to President Trump. Trump celebrated Colbert's cancellation and suggested in a social media post last week, ABC late night comedian Jimmy Kimmel could be ousted soon. Leno, who left the world of late night in 2014, suggested leading comics are under increased pressure to give their opinion on political matters and as a result are only connection with 'half your audience.' 'I'd like to think that people come to a comedy show to get away from the pressures of life,' he said. 'Why shoot for just half an audience all the time? … I mean, I like to bring people into the big picture. I don't know why you would want to alienate one specific group.'
The Hill
10 minutes ago
- The Hill
Rep. Ralph Norman launches bid for South Carolina governor
Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.) on Sunday announced he's launching a bid to succeed term-limited South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster (R), making him the latest Republican to throw his hat in the mix. 'I've seen way too many corrupt politicians in Columbia, South Carolina, looking out for themselves and not for you. And in Washington, I've seen career politicians who care more about their next election than they do securing our future generations,' Norman told supporters in Rock Hill, S.C. 'We do not need more career politician folks or lawyers running government,' he continued. 'We need business leaders, people who have signed the front of a paycheck and people who have signed the back of a paycheck, folks who have built something, taken risk, made money, yes, and lost money.' Norman joins several other prominent Republicans in launching a bid for South Carolina governor. South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson and state Sen. Josh Kimbrell have also announced campaigns to succeed McMaster. Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) is expected to make a decision on whether to run for governor soon. Nikki Haley, a former U.N. ambassador who also served as South Carolina governor, and former Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) have endorsed Norman in the race. Former Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows has also backed Norman. While the House Freedom Caucus member praised President Trump in his remarks, the question of who the president endorses in the race still looms. Norman endorsed Haley in the 2024 GOP presidential primary, later getting behind Trump once the former U.N. ambassador dropped out of the race. But Trump places a lot of weight on loyalty and has been unafraid to go after Republicans who he's believed have been insufficiently loyal. Whoever wins the Republican primary next year is seen as the heavy favorite to win in the November election.
Los Angeles Times
10 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
How the E.U. trade deal wards off more escalation but could raise costs for companies and consumers
U.S. President Donald Trump and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen have announced a sweeping trade deal that imposes 15% tariffs on most European goods, warding off Trump's threat of a 30% rate if no deal had been reached by Aug. 1. The tariffs, or import taxes, paid when Americans buy European products could raise prices for U.S. consumers and dent profits for European companies and their partners who bring goods into the country. Here are some things to know about the trade deal between the United States and the European Union: Trump and von der Leyen's announcement, made during Trump's visit to one of his golf courses in Scotland, leaves many details to be filled in. The headline figure is a 15% tariff rate on about 70% of European goods brought into the U.S., including cars, computer chips and pharmaceuticals. It's lower than the 20% that Trump initially proposed, and lower than his threats of 50% and then 30%. The remaining 30% is still open to further decisions and negotiations. Von der Leyen said that the two sides agreed on zero tariffs on both sides for a range of 'strategic' goods: Aircraft and aircraft parts, certain chemicals, semiconductor equipment, certain agricultural products and some natural resources and critical raw materials. Specifics were lacking. She said that the two sides 'would keep working' to add more products to the list. Additionally, EU companies would purchase what Trump said was $750 billion (638 billion euros) worth of natural gas, oil and nuclear fuel over three years to replace Russian energy supplies that Europe is seeking to exit in any case. Meanwhile, European companies would invest an additional $600 billion (511 billion euros) in the U.S. under a political commitment that isn't legally binding, officials said. Brussels and Washington will shortly issue a joint statement that frames the deal but isn't yet legally binding, according to senior officials who weren't authorized to be publicly named according to European Commission policy. The joint statement will have 'some very precise commitments and others which will need to be spelled out in different ways,' a senior European Commission official said. EU officials said that the zero tariff list would include nuts, pet food, dairy products and seafood. Trump said that the 50% U.S. tariff on imported steel would remain. Von der Leyen said that the two sides agreed to further negotiations to fight a global steel glut, reduce tariffs and establish import quotas — that is, set amounts that can be imported, often at a lower rate or tariff-free. Trump said that pharmaceuticals weren't included in the deal. Von der Leyen said that the pharmaceuticals issue was 'on a separate sheet of paper' from Sunday's deal. And von der Leyen said that when it came to farm products, the EU side made clear that 'there were tariffs that could not be lowered,' without specifying which products. The 15% rate removes Trump's threat of a 30% tariff. But it effectively raises the tariff on EU goods from 1.2% last year to 17% and would reduce the 27-nation's gross domestic product by 0.5%, said Jack Allen-Reynolds, deputy chief eurozone economist at Capital Economics. Higher tariffs, or import taxes, on European goods mean sellers in the U.S. would have to either increase prices for consumers — risking loss of market share — or swallow the added cost in terms of lower profits. The higher tariffs are expected to hurt export earnings for European firms and slow the economy. Von der Leyen said that the 15% rate was 'the best we could do' and credited the deal with maintaining access to the U.S. market, and providing 'stability and predictability for companies on both sides.' German Chancellor Friedrich Merz welcomed the deal which avoided 'an unnecessary escalation in trans-Atlantic trade relations' and said that 'we were able to preserve our core interests,' while adding that 'I would have very much wished for further relief in trans-Atlantic trade.' Senior French officials on Monday criticized the accord. Strategy Commissioner Clément Beaune said that the deal failed to reflect the bloc's economic strength. 'This is an unequal and unbalanced agreement,' he said. 'Europe didn't wield its strength. We are the world's leading trading power.' While the rate is lower than threatened, 'the big caveat to today's deal is that there is nothing on paper, yet,' said Carsten Brzeski, global chief of macro at ING bank. 'With this disclaimer in mind and at face value, (the) agreement would clearly bring an end to the uncertainty of recent months. An escalation of the U.S.-EU trade tensions would have been a severe risk for the global economy,' Brzeski said. 'This risk seems to have been avoided.' Asked if European carmakers could still sell cars at 15%, von der Leyen said the rate was much lower than the current 27.5%. That has been the rate under Trump's 25% tariff on cars from all countries, plus the preexisting U.S. car tariff of 2.5%. The impact is likely to be substantial on some companies, given that automaker Volkswagen said that it suffered a 1.3 billion-euro ($1.5 billion) hit to profits in the first half of the year from the higher tariffs. Mercedes-Benz dealers in the U.S. have said they were holding the line on 2025 model year prices 'until further notice.' The German automaker has a partial tariff shield, because it makes 35% of the Mercedes-Benz vehicles sold in the U.S. in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, but the company said that it expects prices to undergo 'significant increases' in coming years. Before Trump returned to office, the U.S. and the EU maintained generally low tariff levels in what is the largest bilateral trading relationship in the world, with around 1.7 trillion euros ($2 trillion) in annual trade. Together the U.S. and the EU have 44% of the global economy. The U.S. rate averaged 1.47% for European goods, while the EU has averaged 1.35% for American products, according to the Bruegel think tank in Brussels. Trump has complained about the EU's 198 billion-euro ($232.5 billion) trade surplus in goods, which shows Americans buy more from European businesses than the other way around, and has said that the European market isn't open enough for U.S.-made cars. However, American companies fill some of the trade gap by outselling the EU when it comes to services such as cloud computing, travel bookings and legal and financial services. And about 30% of European imports are from American-owned companies, according to the European Central Bank. McHugh and McNeil write for the Associated Press.
