Addressing this is essential for maintaining moral credibility, supporting interfaith dialogue, and continuing the path set by Nostra Aetate.

While global attention was focused on the U.S. elections, people continued to die in the most dangerous, horrific war that the Middle East has seen since 1948.

Considering the United States as the center of the issue overlooks the enormity of what is happening to the east of the Mediterranean and the widespread, culpable indifference.

October 7, 2023, is a caesura and periodising date in our history.

There is no possible moral justification for what Hamas did on that day against Israel, a brutal reflection of its appalling commitment to destroying Israel and murdering Jews.

But while Europe and the Western world in general have a well-rehearsed response to antisemitism, their response to what happened after October 7 has been far more problematic.

Either Europe and the Western world do not realize the extent of what is happening to the Palestinian people, or they are in a state of moral and political denial. Or worse.

The behavior of the Israeli government and armed forces is beyond what is morally acceptable and legally permissible.

Israel continues to bomb places that can hardly be said to be a military target or where the proportion between military targets and civilian "collateral damage" goes beyond any understanding of morality and legality.

Civilian victims have become victims twice, thanks to widespread mistrust—or international ignorance—of the news in wartime propaganda. Yet, the reality of what is happening is undeniable.

Navigating religious and political tensions

Israel has a right to exist and to defend itself, and it's hard to fathom what this means from the quiet of the American suburbia where I write this.

However, looking back on it from the start, Israel's action in Gaza cannot be seen solely as a response to October 7.

The ethnic supremacist undertones of Netanyahu and his collaborators had been present long before October 7.

The narrative on the role of religions in world affairs is dominated by extremist positions — in Islam, Judaism, Christianity, not to mention Hinduism and more — that are too often considered the only true ones.

Christians and Catholics, in particular, must walk a very fine line.

There is a significant difference between clearly condemning the Israeli government's specific policies and the violent sentiments held by some Christians and Catholics toward the entire State of Israel, which often extends—implicitly or explicitly—to a broad animosity toward all Jewish people.

Needless to say, this goes back for millennia.

It is striking — and terrifying — to see how some radical-progressive Catholics went from Philo-Semitism in the late 20th century to the risk of seemingly flirting, sometimes unknowingly, with anti-Judaism and antisemitism today.

The pro-Israeli stance of many governments cannot hide the anti-Israeli aversion and sometimes the open antisemitism, especially among those who have not yet renounced political activism.

On the other hand, there is a moral unresponsiveness, even among the most aware and least naïve who acknowledge and defend Catholic-Jewish dialogue as one of the most important fruits of Vatican II and the post-Vatican II period.

Their fear that critique of the State of Israel could morph into new forms of anti-Judaism and antisemitism is real, but no excuse to sit on the sidelines as things progressively escalate.

Historically, the political, cultural, and ecclesiastical elites of countries important for Catholicism, such as France and Italy, have had a different and more intimate relationship with both Muslims and Christians in the Middle East and the Arab world compared to Britain and the United States.

In the last few years, the Catholic perception of the Middle East has been shaped more by the Anglosphere, leading to an undeclared (and occasionally declared) Catholic Zionism.

That often overlooks the heavy toll paid by innocent victims—particularly Muslims, but also Christians and Jews. They are simply "collateral damage."

A call for moral clarity

Now is the time for a moral denunciation of what is happening in Gaza, the West Bank, and Lebanon. This is the work of far more than the Holy See.

In fact, it is not clear how much the Holy See can do. Catholics can act in ways the Vatican and the pope cannot.

Liberal-progressive Catholics, especially, are under an obligation to give more explanations than conservative or traditionalist Catholics.

University professors at Catholic universities cannot teach about Dorothy Day, the Berrigan brothers, liberation theology, and not teach about the Middle East today.

They cannot teach how to do theology inter-religiously without talking about what is happening in Gaza, the West Bank, and Lebanon.

It is morally impossible to condemn "Christian nationalism" without considering the risks of a theocratic turn in the relations between religion and politics in the State of Israel.

This war is changing interreligious relations in ways that will continue for decades, even for the rest of our lives.

The fact that this is complicated is no excuse and never has been for Catholic understandings of moral culpability.

Forgetting the victims has become one of the most typical moves today—and perhaps the most subtle form of contempt.

The deafening silence of Catholics on this topic carries profound long-term consequences for the relations between the Church and Islam that will endure far longer than the effects of the vote of Arab-American voters in the 2024 U.S. presidential election.

To the historical guilt of the European and Western Churches for the Holocaust is now added the guilt toward the Middle East.

Such a burden cannot be alleviated by the clear and pressing need to respond always and everywhere to the return of antisemitism.

The question for Catholics is how to raise their voices so as not to leave the victims of the ongoing war in oblivion. It is simply wrong to expect that only the pope and the Vatican should do it.

Central to the Francis papacy has been a push for a new vision of Global Catholicism. What is happening in the Middle East could turn it into a graveyard of this vision for Global Catholicism, along with many other dreams and lives.

The institutional silence or hesitation of Church leaders and Catholic authorities, both clergy and lay, regarding Gaza and Lebanon in Europe and the broader West aligns with the prevailing interpretation in the Anglosphere and translates into a strong push for the re-Westernization of Catholicism.

The turn towards a more global Church, requiring a break from the Anglosphere and attention to a diverse and local-global dialogical Catholic self-understanding, cannot be reduced to something like a "diversity, equity, and inclusion" corporate programme.

Global Catholicism is not about recruiting more diverse personnel. It is about diverse understandings, ones that truly reflect global realities and not simply power plays or historical amnesia.

This is not the time for an ersatz orientalist nostalgia for the status of Christians under the Ottoman Empire or in the post-World War I "mandate system."

As Christians and Catholics, we cannot ignore or overlook what is happening in the Middle East, especially the catastrophe facing the Palestinian people.

Of course, the caution of Catholics in taking a stand on the conflict in the Middle East must be understood in light of their role in the history of antisemitism up to the Holocaust.

Within the Western world, Christians carry a heavy responsibility. The most conscientious quarters know that antisemitism is alive and well and must be fought tooth and nail.

But keeping the legacy of Nostra Aetate and continuing that path will be much more difficult, or impossible, should Catholic voices fail to recognise that the post-October 7 war in the Middle East is one of the signs of our times that we need to read in light of the Gospel.

• First published in La Croix
• Massimo Faggioli is an Italian academic, Church historian, professor of theology and religious studies at Villanova University, columnist for La Croix International, and contributing writer to Commonweal.

"A year ago, the fuse of hatred was lit; it did not sputter, but exploded in a spiral of violence," he said in an open letter to Catholics in the region.

"It seems that few people care about what is most needed and what is most desired: dialogue and peace," he wrote. "Violence never brings peace. History proves this, yet years and years of conflict seem to have taught us nothing."

Francis, who has also made Monday a day of fasting and prayers for peace for Catholics globally, has spoken more openly in recent weeks about the Hamas-Israel conflict and has become more vocal in his criticism of Israel's military campaign.

Read More

Once again, it seems that the negotiations, which resumed August 21 in Cairo, are likely to fail.

During the Democratic convention, U.S. President Joe Biden stated August 20 that Hamas was "backtracking" on the negotiations for a potential agreement between Israel and the Palestinian movement.

Thousands of deaths changing the dynamics

Hamas rejected the American statement, labeling it as a "green light" for Israel to continue the war.

The Palestinian movement argued that the latest proposals differ significantly from the original plan proposed by the American president, which they claim has now "conceded to new Israeli demands."

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government is demanding a permanent Israeli military presence along the Philadelphi Corridor, a 14-kilometer border between Gaza and Egypt, as well as the Netzarim Corridor, an Israeli-controlled axis that bisects the Gaza Strip.

However, just two days after the discussions began in Doha August 17, the United States, Qatar, and Egypt had assured that an agreement was "close" to being signed.

But the number of victims in the Gaza Strip—over 40,200 dead, according to the Islamic movement—has changed the situation.

"Hamas cannot sign a discounted agreement.

"It knows full well that, from the perspective of the Palestinian population, particularly in the Gaza Strip, there will be a sense of having suffered for ten months, lost thousands of people, only to settle for an agreement that doesn't even meet the primary demands of its population," said Thomas Vescovi, an independent researcher and specialist on Israel and Palestine.

On the other hand, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu faces a similar dilemma with the victims of October 7 and the hostages.

"The final decision comes from the Gaza Strip"

The centralisation of Hamas's power in Gaza over the past few months, which intensified after the July 31 assassination of Ismail Haniyeh, the main interlocutor and official leader of the Palestinian movement, further diminished the hope for an agreement.

The late Haniyeh was replaced by Yahya Sinwar, Hamas's leader in Gaza, who is entrenched in tunnels and is considered the mastermind behind the October 7 attacks.

"For now, the final decision comes from the Gaza Strip, and therefore inevitably from Yahya Sinwar and other leaders present there," Vescovi explained.

"We can see that, after ten months of war, Hamas is still able to rebuild its forces in Gaza, recruit, and arm itself, so from that point, I don't see any other political force capable of competing with this leadership, at least in Gaza."

During negotiation sessions, the Israeli delegation interacted with a Hamas representative team, which, in reality, holds very little power. Khalil Al-Hayya, the unofficial foreign affairs minister based in Qatar, generally represents the team.

According to Vescovi, "As long as there is no ceasefire in the Gaza Strip, we cannot imagine a reduction in tensions."

• First published in La Croix International
• Kilian Bigogne is a journalist at La Croix

Pizzaballa says that the current negotiations represent the "last chance" for peace between Israel and Hamas.

Speaking at the Rimini Meeting in Italy, the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem described the situation as a "fateful moment", calling for an immediate ceasefire to prevent the crisis from deteriorating further.

The war, which began on 7 October following a Hamas attack on Israel, has led to unprecedented suffering for both Israeli and Palestinian populations.

Pizzaballa highlighted both sides' deepening hatred, resentment and mistrust, stressing the urgent need for political and religious leadership to guide the region out of its current turmoil.

"We cannot talk about peace at this moment" the Patriarch stated, reflecting on the persistent violence. He acknowledged that while a path to peace exists, institutional leaders lack the resolve to pursue it.

"War will end" he added. "I hope that the negotiations will resolve some problems: I have my doubts, but this is the last train."

Anti-semitism condemned

The Latin Patriarch noted the internal strains within the Catholic Church, with some members serving as soldiers in the Israeli army. In contrast, others endure the hardships of living under bombardment in Gaza.

Amidst this, the small Christian community in the Holy Land continues to face significant challenges. Despite their political insignificance, Pizzaballa emphasised that the mere presence of Christians in the region is symbolically important.

The Patriarch also condemned the resurgence of anti-Semitism, calling it a "drama" and a sign of "deep decadence of civilisation". He stressed the responsibility of religious leaders to oppose ideologies that deny others the right to exist.

Push for diplomatic solutions

Meanwhile US Secretary of State Antony Blinken has been actively engaged in Middle East negotiations, urging both Israel and Hamas to agree to a ceasefire.

Blinken highlighted the importance of humanitarian aid reaching affected areas and called for the protection of civilians. His involvement underscores the Biden administration's push for diplomatic solutions amid escalating violence.

Blinken also stressed that any ceasefire must include provisions for the safe release of hostages held by Hamas. His diplomatic efforts are seen as crucial in preventing further deterioration of the conflict and fostering a sustainable peace in the region.

Sources

Vatican News

Katholisch

The Guardian

CathNews New Zealand

In a letter published in the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano, Suhail Abo Dawood emphasised the significance of practices like daily Mass and the Rosary amidst the backdrop of war and food scarcity.

"We parishioners, refugees in the church of the Holy Family, are getting used to the current condition of war, reconstructing our lives in a situation where everything has been destroyed. The war put an end to freedom, comfort and unity" wrote Dawood, highlighting the stark reality of life in Gaza.

Living as a refugee in the Holy Family Church, the parishioner described the harsh realities of life in a war-torn environment where freedom, comfort and unity have been replaced by destruction and uncertainty.

Despite the devastation wrought by conflict, the community have found solace in their faith, navigating through the darkest moments with Jesus by their side.

Glimmer of hope

The recent reopening of the Rafah crossing brought a glimmer of hope, allowing much-needed aid to reach the markets, particularly in the city's southern region.

"Fortunately, the Rafah crossing has been reopened for a few days and a lot of help and rescue has arrived at the city's markets, especially in the south" the parishioner wrote, acknowledging the relief brought by outside assistance.

This relief comes at a crucial time as the community have grappled with soaring prices and widespread unemployment due to the ongoing Gaza conflict.

Immense challenges

A recent gesture of kindness from the church brought joy to the community, as each family received chickens—a rare treat after months of deprivation.

"A few days ago, our Lord Jesus gave us a beautiful gift: we received a chicken or two from the church for each family in the parish, and we also shared it with some neighbours of the complex" the parishioner recounted, expressing gratitude for the act of generosity.

Notwithstanding the immense challenges, the parishioner highlighted the resilience and determination of the community in persevering for a better future.

"Despite all the challenges we are facing, we still show the whole world an incredible sign of sacrifice and hope to achieve a better life for ourselves and our families" the letter expressed, reflecting the unwavering spirit of the Catholic community in Gaza.

Sources

Catholic Culture

L'Osservatore Romano

When it is distant, it involves people whose nationality and culture we do not share, and wrongs of whose cause are disputed.

But it does not affect us at gut level.

When it is someone who has walked our streets, swum on our beaches, speaks our language as their own, and dies when helping victims of war, war becomes personal.

Israel and Hamas

The killing of Zomi Frankcom, together with other members of the Charity organisation World Central Kitchen, made the war between Israel and Hamas personal.

It has led many people to see the destruction of Gaza and its people as not only regrettable but intolerable.

For many Australians, of course, the war was already personal.

Many people of Israeli and Palestinian origin had already lost family members and friends and grieved for their fellows abused, wounded, driven from their homes and starved.

Yet other Australians did not take their suffering personally.

It was distanced by being set within the framework of international relations and military strategy.

Faces became numbers and the human destruction of war a regrettable necessity.

Now that the victims of the Israeli armed forces' invasion of Gaza have a human and Australian face, we shall be called on take a stand.

We ought to heed that call to pressure the opposed parties to end the war. War is the enemy.

Taking sides

To take a stand, however, is not the same as taking sides.

That is a fatal mistake.

Both sides contribute to the making and sustaining of war. To take sides is to perpetuate the war.

To take sides with the Israeli Government or with Hamas inevitably leads us to move away from the human, disfigured faces whose destruction is the business of war.

It leads us to see the dead and injured and homeless as statistics.

Their value then depends on the side to which they belong.

The deliberate killing of non-combatants associated with the other side will be called an accident or a mistake and their faces whitewashed.

The similar killing of people on one's own side will be seen as an atrocity and their faces weaponised.

Taking sides will deepen the hostility that led to war and will perpetuate the cycle of violence.

To take a stand against the war in Gaza demands focusing on the human faces of the persons destroyed by it.

To do that, of course, we must also engage in arguments whether the war and the actions taken in it are just. But we must not be trapped in them.

Justice and justification

Argument about whether a war is just is generally rigged to produce reasons why one's own side is justified in fighting the war and the other side is not.

It is also used to justify the strategies and actions that the chosen side adopts. It assumes that if God is on your side you can do anything you want to God's enemies.

Once again the human face of war, central in evaluating its justification, is disregarded.

If we reflect on whether a war is justifiable while at the same time attending closely to its human face, the classical rules for waging a just war are helpful.

Their starting point is that all human lives are precious.

For war to be justified, a number of conditions must be met both in its declaration (ius ad bellum) and in its conduct (ius in bello).

Today's wars

Classical rules envisage conflict between the armed forces of different and recognisable states, not military action against minority groups or with failed states.

Therefore, some of the traditional tests for declaring a war just are not applicable to situations today.

The two central rules, however, remain relevant.

Both must be satisfied for a war to be called just. The first is that war is unjustifiable unless it is fought in defence of a just cause.

This is most often self-defence, but it could also include responding to serious injustice perpetrated by the other side.

In Gaza, as in most military conflicts both sides claim that their continuing military action is justifiable because it is taken for self-defence and for the redress of injustice.

Even if a war is held to be for a just cause, however, it must also meet a second condition.

It must be proportionate.

This means that its goal of redressing injustice or defending the nation must be realisable and that the human good achieved by the military action must exceed the human harm.

It is difficult to see how the conduct of the war in Gaza by Hamas or by Israel satisfies either of these criteria. Nor does it satisfy the third test of a just war: that it should be waged only after negotiation to avoid war.

Just war theory

In just war theory a just cause and proportionate framing of the action do not alone make a war just.

The military strategies and actions adopted taken must also satisfy strict criteria.

First, they must be discriminating.

They must not target civilians.

The value of each human life demands that the loss of civilian lives must be coincidental to military action and not intended by it.

In Gaza, the huge number of deaths of non-combatants reported by the Hamas-controlled Gaza Health Ministry, and accounts of such things as the use of AI to identify suspected members of Hamas and of unguided bombs to kill both them and those around them, witness to a disregard for human lives in both strategy and in rules of engagement.

The second criterion for justice in the conduct of war is proportionality.

The human benefits achieved by military action must outweigh the human harm caused by it. It is difficult to see that the war in Gaza, and particularly the military action by the Israeli armed forces, satisfy this criterion.

The stated means to achieve the goal of self-defence is to destroy Hamas.

This is then taken to demand destroying the human habitat of Gaza in order to eradicate the presence and influence of Hamas within it.

The massive number of civilian casualties, the destruction of the necessary conditions for human life such as houses, meeting places, hospitals, health services and schools, and the starving of the civilian population deny the equal value of each human life.

They are massively disproportionate.

Furthermore, this strategy and the actions that flow from it will not lead to peace but to the hatred that will ensure future conflict and breed the soldiers who will fight in it.

Their logical endpoint is the destruction or enslavement of the people of Palestine.

Making a just peace

The present path is inconsistent with the conviction that each human being matters equally, the necessary belief for establishing a lasting and just peace.

These considerations explain why recent Popes have said that modern war can never be justified.

The destructive power of modern weapons inevitably leads to the denial of the unique value of human being and the consequent destruction of the conditions necessary for living with human dignity.

It also corrupts even in those whose cause is just the respect for humanity essential to its justice.

That moral corruption was evident in the bombing of Dresden and Hiroshima and in the defences subsequently made for them.

Gaza is yet another demonstration of the injustice of war and of its power to corrupt human judgment. It must be met by seeing and feeling the lives of those destroyed in it as personal.

• First published in Eureka Street
• Andrew Hamilton is consulting editor of Eureka Street, and writer at Jesuit Social Services. Reproduced with the author's permission.

Questioning the proportionality of Israel's military operation, Parolin highlighted the significant death toll.

"Israel's right of self-defence which has been invoked to justify this operation must be proportional and, with 30,000 dead, it certainly isn't" Parolin stated.

The Israeli Embassy to the Holy See initially described Parolin's comments as "deplorable". The embassy asserted that Parolin overlooked pertinent facts when assessing the legitimacy of Israel's actions.

Accusing Hamas of transforming Gaza into a significant terrorist stronghold, the Israeli Embassy defended the actions of the Israeli armed forces (IDF). They cited compliance with international law and compared civilian casualty rates to other conflicts.

Pope Francis has consistently denounced violence in the Middle East, yet comments involving Israel are particularly sensitive due to historical and cultural complexities.

Tensions between the Vatican and Israel have escalated since the Gaza conflict began, with Israeli groups accusing Pope Francis of failing to recognise Israeli actions as self-defensive after Hamas attacks.

Rabbis thank Pope

Meanwhile, a group of Rabbis and scholars specialising in Jewish-Christian dialogue have penned a heartfelt letter to Pope Francis, expressing profound gratitude for his unwavering support of Jews globally.

Signed by prominent figures such as Rabbi Jehoshua Ahrens, Rabbi Yitz Greenberg and others, the letter underscores the transformative impact of the Church's efforts in fostering understanding and friendship between once-opposing communities.

In light of recent tragedies and escalating tensions including the October massacre and the surge in anti-Semitic incidents worldwide, the letter resonates deeply with Pope Francis' call for reconciliation among diverse peoples.

Translation error

In regard to its response to Parolin's statement, the Israeli Embassy later said that "regrettable" would have been a more appropriate word than "deplorable".

The embassy attributed the misunderstanding to a translation error.

The Israeli embassy said the original English text of its statement had used the word "regrettable" and its staff had translated that into "deplorevole" in the Italian version they released.

"A more precise" Italian translation would have been "sfortunata" the embassy said, a word which means something more like unfortunate.

According to Israeli figures, at least 1,200 Israelis were killed and around 250 taken hostage in a raid by Hamas militants on southern Israel on October 7.

The offensive that Israel launched in response has so far killed 28,663 Palestinians in Gaza, according to health authorities in the Hamas-run territory.

Sources

AP News

Crux Now

Vatican News

Reuters

The claim is that the pope has not sufficiently condemned the crimes of Hamas and, furthermore, that he has created a symmetry between Hamas and Israel in his comments.

If that were not enough, apart from the pope, the church officials charged with dialogue with the Jewish people—first and foremost among them Cardinal Kurt Koch, head of the church's Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews— have chosen thunderous silence, not responding at all to the horrific events that took place in Israel.

The Jewish expectation was that as the fruit of the blessed process of dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Jewish people, the church and its leader would stand by our side in our fight against the terrorism of Hamas.

It is not my interest here to enter into a debate with the criticism that is being leveled, and there might or might not be some truth in it.

Rather, I seek to present the issue within a broader context, that of interreligious dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Jewish people.

Interreligious dialogue, by its very nature, is expressed through formal institutions, whether they be those of the Jewish rabbinic establishment or those of the church.

At the same time, precisely because the dialogue is developing in positive ways, it inevitably breaks through the formal frameworks that have been established and is practiced in the best possible way — through people rather than through institutions, and through those who do not need an official role in the dialogue in order to talk to one another.

In other words, the most successful interfaith dialogue takes place between religious leaders who desire to talk to one another, rather than between those who are formally obligated to talk to one another.

When we began to realise the extent of the horrors of Oct. 7, many of my Catholic friends contacted me immediately because of their deep concern.

This concern was personal and human, and my friends also expressed genuine anguish for the Jewish people because of the tremendous crisis it was experiencing. Such concern, bursting from the heart, is dearer to me than a thousand official letters from senior bureaucrats in the church.

On the night of Oct. 7, I discovered that my friends in the Catholic Church do not simply engage in diplomatic relations with me. Rather, they are truly my friends and friends of the Jewish people.

One good example of the kind of friendship I am referring to was provided by Cardinal Pierbattista Pizzaballa, the Latin patriarch of Jerusalem.

He expressed himself in an exceptional way on Oct. 16, when he offered himself in return for the Israelis who had been kidnapped: "I am ready for an exchange, anything, if this can lead to freedom, to bring the children home. No problem. There is total willingness on my part."

It was completely evident that his words were sincere, and the sorrow he expressed was completely authentic.

In all of Cardinal Pizzaballa's statements, even those in which he expressed his deep concern for the residents of Gaza and criticised the practices of the State of Israel (perfectly logical considering that he is the patriarch first and foremost of his Palestinian flock), he continued to harshly condemn the criminal acts of Hamas on Oct. 7. Continue reading

• Guy Alaluf is an Israeli Orthodox rabbi and teacher who researches the relationship between Judaism and the Catholic Church. He leads the Daath and Tvuna (Knowledge and Understanding) Orthodox Jewish Community in Rosh HaAyin, Israel.

In our local park each junction of the path is marked by a stenciled message demanding a ceasefire and withdrawal of Israeli troops from Gaza. Large, mainly peaceful, demonstrations in favour of the people of Gaza and of Israel have been held in the major Australian cities.

The media have highlighted increased prejudice and threats made against Jewish people, and have also reported similar experiences by Muslims.

Protagonists for Israel and Hamas have urged the Government and people to support one side whole-heartedly and to reject totally the other.

This pressure to make such a choice is understandable after so many innocent people have been killed. But it should be rejected.

For the people of Israel and Gaza, and so for Australians, the real enemy is war itself.

We should privilege compassion for all the human beings whose own lives and relatives have been destroyed by war, including those in the Jewish and Palestinian communities in Australia.

The object of our policy should be a settlement that respects equally all the people in the region and is not built on deterrence.

Such a strategy may seem to be unrealistic.

But the alternative of endorsing the use of armed force by either side in order to annihilate its declared enemies and to turn its borderlands into shooting alleys is a sure recipe for deepening hatred and future conflict.

The families of those whom our chosen side has killed will breed and inspire the next generation of patriots, freedom fighters or terrorists, call them what you will.

They may very well be confused about what they stand for, but they will be sure about whom they stand against. The resulting entrenched hostility will then corrupt the civic values we claim to be at stake in endorsing the war.

Those who declare that the real enemy is war and who advocate for peace are usually criticised for being naively optimistic.

Some will denounce them as stooges of a hostile power. That may sometimes be the case, but not necessarily so. It is possible to recognise war to be the real enemy, while simultaneously recognising the complex challenges involved in avoiding war and encouraging peace.

In Israel, for example, the Government certainly has a duty to keep its people safe.

It is certainly responding to an attack by a group that wants to destroy Israel. That group is prepared to take and use hostages in order to deter military action.

It may also place its command posts and other military centres close to schools and hospitals, making it certain that many non-combatants are bound to be injured and killed in military action. Nor can a ceasefire be guaranteed to secure the return of hostages, the separation of civilians from combatants, and lead to peace.

These considerations, however, do not justify a war in which many people will die and be left destitute, in which there is no strategy for securing a just peace, and which will be followed by further human misery and the seeds of further wars.

Australia should focus on support for the people who are the victims of war and on pressing for an end to the war and for a just peace.

The focus on persons affected by the war extends beyond Israel and Gaza to Palestinian and Israeli communities in Australia.

They will have lost relatives to war, will be deeply concerned for their countries of origin and fearful for the future.

They should be able to express their convictions and solidarity with their kinsmen and plead their cause publicly in a way that does not lead to conflict with other opposed groups.

Media have a responsibility to report the activities and views of these groups without using them to make political points. This involves taking account of the complexity and volatility of public life.

Demonstrations allow people to take stands. They also draw in partisan people from outside the communities who seek disruption and confrontation.

In times of war these voices can always draw on such creative and tendentious reporting as that of the raped nuns of the First World War and the Weapons of Mass Destruction during the Iraq invasion.

Immigrant communities will always be vulnerable to racial and xenophobic discrimination, doubly so when racist attitudes recently evident in Australia are magnified by the lack of social cohesion associated with economic hardship. Both Muslims and Jews will be subject to racist abuse with all its memories of past trauma.

Seeing war as the enemy abroad entails working to heal and to soothe wounds in the local community, not to exacerbate them.

• Andrew Hamilton S.J. is a Eureka Street editorial consultant and a policy officer with Jesuit Social Services. He taught theology for many years, has contributed widely to theological and religious journals and has had a long-standing engagement with refugee communities and issues.
• First published in Eureka Street

So said Francesca Albanese to a Catholic audience in Wellington recently.

Albanese is the UN's Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

But the Israel-Palestine issue has a simple solution, she says.

Israel needs to end its military occupation of the West Bank and its blockade of Gaza.

An international peacekeeping force then needs to move in to protect civilians for as long as it takes to reach a permanent solution.

Albanese said this "two-state solution" was where the international consensus lay, but that could not happen until Israel ended its occupation of the Palestinian territories it seized in the 1967 war with its neighbours.

Governments around the world needed to stop tip-toeing about the issue - they need to pressure Israel to withdraw.

"It's very simple. The solution cannot start without ending the military occupation, removing the soldiers and tanks.

"There should be an international force there to ensure stability and peace for the Palestinians and protection of the Israeli settlers [in the West Bank] until they withdraw and give back the land they have stolen.

"We need to go to a place where these two peoples live in peace and, when it happens, it will be the most beautiful place in the world. That is my hope."

Albanese, an Italian human rights lawyer, was appointed the Special Rapporteur in May last year. She has been making a brief visit to New Zealand.

The Ecology, Justice and Peace Commission of the Catholic Archdiocese of Wellington invited her to speak about the bloody war between Israel and Hamas.

It started on 7 October when Hamas, the group which controls Gaza, attacked Israeli civilians on a public holiday, killing 1200 and taking more than 200 hostages.

The Israeli response of declaring war on Hamas has led to a humanitarian crisis in Gaza, with thousands killed and more than a million people displaced.

"The seventh of October has been a ground zero moment" Albanese said. "The status quo between Israel and Palestine is gone. Nothing will ever be the same."

Israel had the right to self-defence but it was illegal to wage war against a civilian population.

"It is an inferno on Earth. I don't know anyone who would identify with the massacre Hamas did, but Palestinian civilians should not have to atone for what Hamas did."

The war was apocalyptic she said. Twelve thousand people had died and almost 30,000 injured.

Some 1.6 million people had been displaced by Israel, emptying 60 per cent of Gaza's small area. The UN had lost a record 100 staff. Forty-five journalists had been killed.

Gaza had been bombed for 46 days, with entire residential areas flattened. There was no water, no food. People were recharging their phones from bicycle-wheel generators.

"An ethnic cleansing will happen if Israel is not stopped" she said. "You can understand my shock when I hear Western leaders struggle to say the one word that can stop all this - ceasefire."

Mons. Gerard Burns of the Archdiocese Ecology, Justice and Peace Commission said Albanese's particular knowledge of the issues was helpful for local Catholics' understanding, preaching and action.

"As members of Christian Churches we have a special interest in what happens in the lands Jesus walked" he said.

"The conflict in those lands over the last 100 years, but especially since 1948, is deeply painful for all involved. It has also been a special concern of the UN, being so closely connected to the first steps of that organisation.

"The land is important to three great faiths which is why the UN, in 1947, proposed a special status for Jerusalem and Bethlehem."

Footnote: The Catholic Church and bishops of Aotearoa NZ have been concerned about events in the Holy Land. These links are to recent commentaries and articles.

• Supplied

More than two dozen incidents occur every day on average, according to the group's calculations.

The ADL said in a press release on Monday that according to preliminary data, "in the month following Hamas' terror attack on Israel, antisemitic incidents in the US increased by 316% compared [with] the same time period last year."

Hamas' attack on Israel unfolded Oct 7 when the terror group invaded Israel, killing over 1,000 and taking hundreds of hostages. Israel quickly declared war on Hamas, with the two sides fighting throughout the region throughout October and into November.

Read More