De-Christianizing International Law: US Politics and the Evangelical Legacy

[Ilias Bantekas is Professor of Law at Hamad bin Khalifa University (Qatar Foundation) and Adjunct Professor of Law at Georgetown University, Edmund A Walsh School of Foreign Service

Andrew Dahdal is an Associate Professor at the College of Law and Legal Advisor in the Office of General Counsel at the College of Law, Qatar University]

Modern international law is an outgrowth of the Westphalian system and European geopolitics. Through the West, international law is imbued with certain ideals stemming from the Christian faith and tradition. Notions such as ‘Blessed are the peacemakers’ (Matthew 5:9) are consistent with peacebuilding and justice-seeking institutions such as the United Nations, the preventive role of international courts, as well as human rights and international humanitarian law, among others. The parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25–37) can also be seen as reflected in international refugee law and the work of the International Committee of the Red Cross. Multilateral and regional human rights treaties, including those specifically dealing with discrimination embody the biblical ideals whereby ‘there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus’ (Galatians 3:28). Post biblical era Christian writers, indeed saints, such as St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, enriched these teachings and also laid foundations for international law through meditating on war and conflict. A notion that developed during these early Christian writings, but which blossomed much later in the Catholic Church and which also permeates international law was the construct of ‘just wars’, namely the idea that war should be a last resort, and in any event wars must be proportional and for the protection of innocents. 

Christian (theological) scholarship has informed a big part of the development of international law, even if its contemporary manifestation is necessarily and practically secular. And while religion is no longer an explicit source of law in nearly all jurisdictions, including international law – although Islamic law does still play a minor role in certain countries – politicians in USA often conflate religious rhetoric in order to proclaim or advocate policies. While only the policy (and not its underlying theology) becomes statute or state practice, without its underlying theological underpinnings it might not have received wide public approval or legislative assent. Religion plays a meaningful role in US law making and policy creation. In this sense, religious advocacy might well serve as a sui generis travaux preparatoires of domestic and foreign policy of otherwise secular nations, such as the USA. As this article will go on to show, religiously informed foreign policy is not only common in US politics, but also a ‘legitimate’ tool or weapon through which lobby groups exert pressure on the executive. Be that as it may, this article emphasizes that the theology of US evangelicals in support of Israel’s genocide is fundamentally opposed to simple Christian teachings. 

This divide in US Christianity between born-again Christian belief systems and traditional Protestantism and Catholicism have now influenced the trajectory of international law through the Evangelical support for Israel. In particular, peace-making, brotherly love and proportionality have been rejected for puritanical absolutism.    

The biggest Christian group in the USA, with an alleged membership of 10 million, followers, Christians United for Israel (CUFI), refers to Isaiah 62:1, which reads: ‘For Zion’s sake, I will not keep silent”. This Old Testament phrase features in the form of a banner at the top of CFIU’s website. The CFIU website goes on to declare that: 

We must follow the example of today’s Israeli warriors and the ancient lions of Judah. 

It further exhorts Christians to: 

Support Israel right now as she fights the barbarians at her gates [emphasis added]. 

This is not the message of the New Testament and the peace, forgiveness, and faith in the Lamb of God. It is Old Testament language of unfulfilled prophecy, retribution and conflict. Anyone with even the faintest knowledge of the New Testament – as well as the Christian understanding of the Old Testament – knows that when Christ was asked which was the greatest commandment he responded that in addition to loving God with one’s heart, “you shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 22:39). This is hardly surprising, given that Christ advocated virtues wholly antithetical to ‘castes’, exclusion, hereditary heavenly rights and self-congratulation. His vision of love, irrespective of the other, could not be held back or limited by the status, habits, occupation or ‘vices’ of the other. He made this perfectly clear by his acceptance and unconditional love of repenting prostitutes, the poor, the disabled, women, sinners, non-Jews and everyone that did not fit the pious Jewish lifestyle of his generation (chiefly, John 8:1-8:11). Paul the Apostle takes this further by arguing that a person is not justified by works consistent with the letter of the (Mosaic) law, but can only be justified by acts of faith, which requires humility, love, patience and hope. Paul, therefore, following Christ’s example, views religious writings (in the broad sense, including the New Testament and Old Testament) as mere guidance as to the only real goal, which is universal love. Faith, of course, requires good deeds, but these must be performed in the context of humility and love (1 Cor 13).

The Christian evangelical electorate united with the political influence of AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) have, ironically, influenced the most powerful government in human history to undermine the Christian foundations of international law. AIPAC spent the most money it has ever spent to influence American Policy in favour of Israel in the 2024 election cycle. The very simple admonition of humility and unrestricted love has given rise to a mobilization to exterminate civilians, commit genocide and attack other nations, again in a supposed pursuit of Biblical teachings. The ICC and its officials have been sanctioned by the US, the UN has been turned into an impotent body, and ‘Just War’ theory has been completely abandoned. Pre-emptive war is acceptable, as is the use of disproportionate force. This decay in the international legal order is a consequence of the absoluteness now characteristic of American politics.   

The Weaponization of American Morality 

The vast majority of Americans are not biblical scholars. They do, however, and despite the genocidal aspects of their own history, have an innate sense of what is fair. It is often said that the American Revolution was a political consequence of rational philosophy and the Enlightenment. Any rational examination of the grievances leveled against the British by the American colonies, however, would have revealed that, compared to other parts of the Western Hemisphere, British North America had very little to complain about. What ignited the American Revolution was the feeling among the colonies that, as Englishmen, they were being treated unfairly (mainly regarding taxation and political rights). Down to the present, this inherent sense of right and wrong continues to flow through American political life. This fundamental goodness has, however, been weaponized by organisations like CUFI.   

There is nothing in CUFI that is remotely Christ-like. 

The Christ who broke tradition with the ritualistic (but not the spiritual) Judaism of his time has become a mute symbol and political prop justifying support for what many credible international scholars have labeled ‘text book genocide’. What is equally spectacular is that the Christian right in the US interprets the Old Testament on behalf of Jews in a manner intended to validate Zionism, despite the fact that a significant portion if not a majority of Ultra-Orthodox and Hassidic Jews are non-Zionists (i.e. Agudath Israel), or even anti-Zionists (i.e. Neturei Karta, Satmar). As a whole, the early fathers of the Church viewed the Old Testament as largely allegorical and certainly as a prophecy for the coming of Christ the Messiah. To now re-interpret passages from the Old Testament out of context from the teaching of Church fathers and against the grain of long-established Christian scholarship is sinister, disingenuous and obviously politically engineered to co-opt the god-fearing US masses to support the political project of Zionism. 

How then has it transpired that Americans, with this purportedly deep sense of at least superficial morality, have come to accept some of the most egregious civilian casualties in military conflicts to which the US is party? 

CUFI-affiliated Christian groups have their fingers on the moral scale. Fueled by misguided biblical interpretations, American political discourse has evolved to frame even the most contentious social, economic or political issue within the manipulative language ‘fairness’. The CUFI apparatus provides the ultimate platform for pro-Israel groups to be ‘Evangelical-whisperers’. These groups know how to package the message and speak to the Midwest about the Mid-East. 

Within this context, what is palatable among the US population as to acceptable civilian casualties in Gaza has shifted markedly towards a higher and higher threshold. No doubt Americans see the images on their mobile devices of shredded bodies and have a gut feeling that something is not right. Luckily for Israel, CUFI is there to reassure the masses through their religious leaders and rhetoric that this dark war is all part of the divine plan. In this mindset, civilian casualties are not seen as a necessarily evil, but in fact a harbinger for the ultimate good – the second coming. By  interfering with Israel and this prophetic course, international law, even with its Christian foundations, is presented as a false idol. International accountability on the part of Israel is proof that international organisations are part of a plot for world government and, like the tower of babel, should be destroyed.      

‘Winning’ and ‘staying the course’, in US political rhetoric, have become virtues in and of themselves. Just as Christ triumphed over death so too shall the US and Israel triumph over their enemies. Questions about what contest is being won, or where does this course actually lead, are beside the point. This is a symptom of a culture that glorifies the contest not the context. 

Since the time of the first Quakers and Puritans, the American people see the world in term of moral absolutes – as George W. Bush put it: ‘you are with us or with the terrorists’. This has dovetailed with Dispensationalist Christianity and the absolute belief that the restoration of Jews to Palestine will precipitate the return of Jesus. In this world view, everything is existential. The existential threat could be physical: ‘weapons of mass destruction’; or moral: ‘protecting our values and way of life’. Faced with such a closed moral loop, anything is justifiable, even the deaths of a million Iraqi children as stated by former Secretary of State the late Madelaine Albright. It is the culmination of an epistemic rot deep in the linguistic and psychological fabric of the modern liberal-capitalist mind.   

Beyond categories of the mind, Americans, deep down, in their ‘gut’, still have a sense of fairness. In technological terms, the source code is good but the American mental operating system needs a serious update. They glorify winning not because they hate losers, but because they always assume contests are fair. The ordinary American dislikes bullies, abhors cheating and values fair competition. So, when international law says ‘proportionate’ civilian casualties are legally acceptable when in furtherance of a legitimate military target, this arrangement resonates with Americans as being ‘fair’. The very term ‘proportionate’ leaves open great ‘leeway’s of choice’ for politicians and religious leaders to exploit. So, when the ultimate objective is enabling the return of the Messiah, no measure can be disproportionate. In this equation, ‘proportionality’ becomes a subjective moral measure of commitment and belief to the Dispensationalist mission and how far one is willing to go (or allow) for God. It is a cult mentality. On this skewed scale where on one side you have the promise of the infinite universe manifest, and, on the other, a few ‘inevitable casualties’, ‘proportionality’, as an instrument of international law, is meaningless. 

This moral manipulation and religious framing have allowed the deepening and broadening of categories of acceptable civilian death. Through a distorted Zionist Christianity, the very Christian foundations of international law have now been undermined.