Israeli forces made a major advance overnight toward Gaza City, marking their deepest push into Palestinian territory since they entered the strip last week. An Israeli soldier who was kidnapped by Hamas on October 7 was freed overnight during ground operations as well. Meanwhile, in a rare news briefing, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ruled out a cease-fire in Israel’s conflict. He was answering calls for such action from the United Nations and Amnesty International among others.

Critics of Israel’s continuing military action against Hamas are responding to reports from the Gaza Health Ministry that the death toll among Palestinians has already passed eight thousand, mostly women and minors. Many doubt the veracity of this organization’s numbers since it is run by Hamas, but the pictures of devastation in Gaza tell a tragic story of their own.

We should all grieve the loss of life in this conflict. However, Israel’s military must contend with the fact that Hamas has hidden weapons under hospitals, schools, and mosques while disguising its fighters like civilians. Their strategy is intended to escalate Palestinian deaths and provoke an international backlash against Israel.

Hamas’s strategy appears to be working. So, should Israel seek a cease-fire with Hamas?

“The next round of war will be inevitable”

As I have followed reporting on this conflict from a wide variety of sources and viewpoints, I found a New York Times guest essay by Dennis B. Ross to be especially informative. Mr. Ross served in the State Department under President George H. W. Bush, was the special Middle East coordinator under President Bill Clinton, and has served as a special advisor for the region as well. His article is headlined, “I Might Have Once Favored a Cease-Fire With Hamas, but Not Now.”

His central thesis: “It is clear to me that peace is not going to be possible now or in the future as long as Hamas remains intact and in control of Gaza. Hamas’s power and ability to threaten Israel—and subject Gazan civilians to ever more rounds of violence—must end.”

Ross notes that if Israel agrees to a cease-fire now, Hamas’s military infrastructure, leadership, and control of Gaza will remain intact. As it did after conflicts with Israel in 2009, 2012, 2014, and 2021, the terrorist group will almost certainly rearm for the next conflict. It will be able to add to its system of tunnels running under the area as well.

As a result, he warns, “the next round of war will be inevitable, holding both Gazan citizens and much of the rest of the Middle East hostage to Hamas’s aims.”

What makes this conflict different from those in the past? While the atrocities of October 7 have understandably heightened Israel’s outrage and justify a much stronger military response than in previous conflicts, there is more to the story.

“If we do not defeat Hamas, we cannot survive here”

As I have been reporting throughout this conflict, the aim of Hamas and Hezbollah, both of which are backed by Iran, is to eradicate Israel and reclaim the area for Palestine. But these groups acting alone or in concert do not possess the military means to defeat Israel in a conventional war. Nor does Iran, even if it were to engage directly with the Israel Defense Forces.

But what they can do, as Ross notes, is to make Israel unlivable and thus drive Israelis to leave. This seems to be their clear goal now. Ross points to predictions by Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, that Israel will not survive another twenty-five years. And he quotes an Israeli commander who said after October 7, “If we do not defeat Hamas, we cannot survive here.”

I understand the commander’s sentiment in a way I would not if I had not led more than thirty study tours to Israel over nearly thirty years. Israel is a tiny country, approximately the size of New Jersey. Iran continues to arm Hamas and Hezbollah with ever more sophisticated technology now capable of launching missiles in such numbers that Israel’s Iron Dome defenses cannot protect all their civilians in Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, and across the country. And the October 7 invasion has shocked the Israelis, who believed their sophisticated military intelligence and powerful defense forces would protect them from such atrocities.

Israel’s previous wars were fought by their soldiers against the soldiers of their enemies. Never before have so many civilians been slaughtered or taken hostage. All this to say, in the new world created by the October 7 invasion, if a cease-fire is declared and Hamas survives, Israelis will know that they and their families will be in danger in ways unprecedented in the nation’s seventy-five-year history.

“Be strong and courageous”

This fact is crucial to the calculus because so many Israelis live in Israel by choice. Theirs is one of the best-educated, most skilled workforces in the world. Every Israeli I have met would be imminently employable in any nation in the Western world. They have chosen to live in the State of Israel for the purpose of securing a future for the Jewish people.

If the nation can no longer defend them, its very reason for existence is in question. And the willingness of its citizens to risk their lives and their families could come into question as well, perhaps leading to an exodus of Israelis out of the nation.

As a consequence, through a combination of more advanced weaponry and brutal terrorist attacks, Hamas and its allies have raised for the first time the specter of a world without the State of Israel as we now know it. This is why my friends in Israel have said since Hamas’s horrific October 7 invasion that these terrorists must be defeated. They understand firsthand what I have attempted to explain today: the future of the nation is now in the balance.

This fact leads me to conclude this Daily Article by asking you to join me in urgent, consistent intercession for Israel and her people.

• Pray that they will heed God’s instruction to the military general who first led them into their promised land: “Be strong and courageous. Do not be frightened, and do not be dismayed” (Joshua 1:9a).
• Pray for Israeli forces to defeat the terrorists who threaten the future of their nation.
• Pray for the protection of Palestinian and Israeli civilians in this conflict.
• And pray that all will turn to the one and only Prince of Peace (Isaiah 9:6) so they can testify, “The Lᴏʀᴅ Gᴏᴅ is my strength and my song, and he has become my salvation” (Isaiah 12:2).

Will you join me in such intercession right now?

Denison Forum

Israel began its incursion into Gaza over the weekend and, as we wait for further details to emerge, that will be the focus of tomorrow’s Daily Article. Today, however, I’d like to discuss the new Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, and some comments that are revealing of both the divide among those he is charged with leading and what we might expect from his time as speaker.

Johnson has represented Louisiana’s fourth congressional district since 2017. Prior to running for office, however, he was a lawyer with the Alliance Defending Freedom and defended the state’s anti-abortion laws and same-sex marriage ban. While he has never chaired a committee in the House, he has served in increasingly prominent roles as his terms in Washington have progressed.

Still, the fact remains that he has spent less time in the House of Representatives prior to becoming speaker than any other speaker in the last 140 years. That inexperience, however, might be part of why he was eventually selected.

As Rep. Tom Cole of Oklahoma put it, “Politics is like the fight business, the longer you’re in it, the more beat up you get.” It is likely that Johnson benefitted from his relative anonymity when compared with those who had sought the role before him.

That anonymity, however, has also resulted in a steady stream of deep dives and strong opinions on the new speaker across the days since he ascended to that role.

The stories have largely fallen along partisan lines, with one side seemingly convinced he’s going to save the government while the other is convinced he’ll usher in its final downfall. What’s most interesting, however, is that both sides are largely relying on the same evidence to draw those conclusions. It is a clear example of the divide that exists between political parties in our culture today and offers us the chance to discuss two aspects of Johnson’s career to date that might be particularly instructive to us as well.

A biblical worldview

When asked about his stance on controversial topics like same-sex marriage and abortion, Johnson replied, “Go pick up a Bible,” later adding that he “genuinely love[d] all people regardless of their lifestyle choices” and that “this is not about the people themselves.”

He concluded by saying that the best way to understand what he believes about a given subject is to “go pick up a Bible off your shelf and read it—that’s my worldview. That’s what I believe and so I make no apologies for it.”

Of course, for those who disagree with what the Bible teaches on many of these controversial topics, a biblical worldview is hardly a valid perspective from which to govern. And that should be expected.

Such opposition does not invalidate the truth of God’s word or the authority it should have in the lives of all Christians, but we should not be surprised when it also serves as a lightning rod for criticism and derision. That’s why a biblical worldview alone is not enough to transform our culture or the lives of those still lost within it.

Here too Johnson’s example can offer us some help.

More than a political prop

As Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick described, Johnson has not “acquired a single enemy in his time here.” And, as discussed previously, it’s not because he refused to take a strong stance on controversial issues. Even beyond his past arguments in favor of biblical marriage and the sanctity of life, his most contentious stance was in working to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

Regardless of how you feel about those results—for more, see “How fair are the US elections?”—several of the previous candidates for speaker had lost in no small part due to their decisions in the aftermath of that election. And while the majority of Congress still disagrees with what Johnson attempted to accomplish, Rep. Don Bacon spoke for many when he said that he still believes Johnson “is a man of strong character” and “treats everyone with tremendous decency.”

Others have added that “he’s a really nice guy, and he’s good at getting along with people.”

As such, it seems at least that the biblical worldview to which Johnson claims to subscribe is more than the political prop it is often used as by others. After all, Scripture should inform not only the way we think, but also the way we act and the way we approach other people. When the kindness of Christ characterizes our interactions with others, it can earn us the latitude to disagree without being seen as disagreeable.

The highest reward for a faithful life

It is impossible to know, sitting here less than a week out from Mike Johnson being sworn in as the new Speaker of the House, if he will do a good job managing the often-difficult factions within his party and within the House as a whole. And the nature of politics is such that there will almost always be one side convinced that he has failed in that endeavor.

My prayer this morning, though, is that as he attempts to lead the House through those struggles, the same things regarding his commitment to Scripture and to being a kind person can be said of him when the next speaker takes his place.

That consistency will prove difficult, but it is how God will define if Johnson’s term is successful. And the same is true for each of us as well.

Warren Wiersbe once wrote that “the highest reward for a faithful life is not what you get for it but what you become by it.”

If our worldview is truly defined by a commitment to God’s word, then we should become more kind and caring as a result.

Will your life show that kind of commitment today?

Denison Forum