The Central Committee of the World Council of Churches, meeting in Johannesburg, South Africa, on 18-24 June 2025, identified the crisis in Palestine and Israel as “escalation to levels that flagrantly violate international humanitarian and human rights law as well as the most basic principles of morality.”

Daily reports of the war waging in Gaza routinely comment on the role of humanitarian law. However, there is a dearth of commentary on the “basic principles of morality,” or ethics.

It may be because the reality of existential ethics has been questioned by philosophers for centuries. Therefore, it is difficult to defend a universal ethic for the waging of war. For example, is it ethical to manipulate the food supply to innocent human beings living in war torn Gaza? Or how many Palestinian deaths, due to the collateral damage of war, are ethically acceptable? Without seeking answers to these and similar ethical questions, deaths and injuries to non-combatants may be treated as inconsequential.

The U.S. executive and legislative branches of government seldom choose to include a discussion of the nation’s ethics in the context of support for Israel in the war in Gaza. American good, ethical principles are just assumed. The important factors in discussing the United States support for Israel are budgets, ideologies and the supremacy of United States financial and military power.

For example, lobbyists advocating the end of the war in Gaza have learned to gain the attention of elected officials by ignoring discussions of ethics and instead base their asks on money and United States supremacy.

However, there is no reluctance to project unprincipled ethics onto the enemy, Hamas. There is no caution concerning the falsifying of the enemy’s morality as totally corrupt and evil, necessitating that the good side go to war against that evil force. For example, the justification for eliminating Hamas rests on the claim that Hamas has no ethical conscience to prevent them from killing and kidnapping innocent Israelis and allegedly advocating for the elimination of the State of Israeli. However, the United States cannot comprehend that Hamas’ ethics might include the right to resist Israeli occupation, keep their land, assert their dignity and maintain the right to administer civil rule.

Friend and foe: The first assumes noble morality, the latter is assumed to be totally immoral. This dilemma hovers over any attempt to accomplish a negotiated peace between the two forces.

Therefore, it may be prudent to discover shared ethical principles between enemy and friend. The World Council of Churches has recently introduced ethics into the discussion of the war in Gaza. “The unbearable suffering inflicted on the people of Gaza, and the escalating violence and oppression in the West Bank and in Jerusalem compel the global fellowship of churches to speak with clarity, urgency and commitment to the principles of justice under international law and ethics.”

Their statement continues, “We uphold the inalienable human rights of Palestinians to freedom, justice, return and self-determination…”

The Oxford Dictionary defines ethics and morals as “concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior.” The question becomes: Are there any such principles that might be agreed upon by Americans, Palestinians and Israelis?

Perhaps.

A study by Helwig & Turiel in 2002 found that “children, starting at about 10, in most cultures come to a belief… that harming others, either physically or by violating their rights, is wrong.” Back in 1997, Larry Colero from Vancouver, Canada, wrote, “If there was a set of universal ethical principles that applied to all cultures, philosophies, faiths and professions, it would provide an invaluable framework for dialogue.”

His six Principles of Global Ethics include: reverence for life (in all its forms), interdependence and responsibility for the ‘whole’; society before self / social responsibility, blobal justice, as reflected by international laws; environmental stewardship; and reverence for place.

The question before our country is: How might any of these principles influence our relationship with Israelis and Palestinians? How might they assess the United States involvement in the Israeli – Palestinian conflict? Ethics are closely tied to the motives for the war. It behooves the elected leaders in the U.S. to be guided by their ethics when making decisions about U.S. complicity with Israel’s war activity in Gaza.

Applying ethics to an examination of the ravages of war might make all the difference to a Palestinian population suffering injury, death, starvation, indignities and homelessness. May it be so.

Rev. John D. Buttrick writes from his Vermont Folk Rocker in his Concord home, Minds Crossing. He can be reached at johndbuttrick@gmail.com