Oofda – Frequently translates to a feeling of being overwhelmed.
Current Assumptions:
When it comes to the topic of Israel/Palestine/Hamas/Gaza I only have one word that immediately comes to mind. It is a Scandinavian word we use often in Minnesota – oofda. This topic is so complex, so nuanced, and so deeply historically tangled it is very difficult to wrap my mind around. At the heart of the issue are two entities, with two distinct worldviews, fighting over the same piece of land that they both have historical and religious ties to.
With that said, my current assumption is more nuanced than the assumptions I was raised in. I was raised in a conservative Evangelical church where Israel was always the ‘good guys’ and Palestinians were always the ‘bad guys.’ In a recently published book from Palestinian theologians, they epitomize this perspective as, “For some Western Christians, especially Evangelicals, the establishment of the settler-colonial regime in 1948 was seen as the fulfillment of biblical prophecies.”[1] My church’s dispensationalist viewpoint led many to believe that heaven was very near, therefore Israel must be supported at all costs. I have grown to question these initial assumptions and challenge their nationalistic tendencies.
Oofda.
Historical and Regional Realities:
Both Jewish and Palestinian people trace lineages back to Abraham and claim long-rooted historical ties to the land “between the river and the sea.” There are many historical religious sites within the land that have exchanged hands a few times. This land is the center of all three major Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. While it would be lovely for the land to be shared and peace to exist on a more permanent basis, it is unlikely to occur anytime soon.
As all the authors this week detailed, there isn’t much room for engaging in a multi-cultural society. Historian Howard Sachar writes, “It was significant that during the first two decades of Israeli independence, the Arab nations underwent some twenty political revolutions…None of the successor military regimes dared adopt less than a hostile policy toward Israel for fear of losing popular support.”[2] He then continues, “As the Israelis saw it, the Arab purpose was single-minded and all-absorptive. It was flatly committed to the destruction of Israel as an independent state.”[3] More recently, Douglas Murray writes “The Israeli government knew–and the Palestinian Authority had always made clear–that no Palestinian state could have Jews in it. The one absolute clear precondition for such a state was that no Jews could exist within its borders.”[4] Ideologically, there is no room for a plurality of religions or cultures. How might the two exist in the same location when the opposing side wants total eradication? This same sentiment was expressed in the book Hamas as well, “For Hamas, the removal of the Zionist state is a necessary condition to achieve its ultimate goal—a Palestinian state governed in accordance with Islam.”[5]
Israel, as a nation, sits as the lone Jewish nation amidst a sea of Islamic majority nations. After enduring the horrific assault of the Holocaust, they are primed to defend themselves at all costs and they have the backing of many Western nations to do this.
Oofda.
The Ethics of Warfare:
Generally speaking, I adhere to a more pacifist approach, but I see the limitations in this. I have read about Just-war theory and understand its approach to war. However, as a follower of Jesus I see his kingdom-centered approach to his ministry. Jesus did not lead a revolution or start a war but rather highlighted a confrontative but not combative approach. Will war be an approach that ever truly wins? Isn’t everyone a loser in a war? Can one worldview fight against another worldview when one perspective is, “We love death more than you love life.” I heard it from al-Qaeda, from Hamas, from ISIS….How could anyone overcome a movement–a people–who welcomed death, who gloried in death, who worshipped death?”[6] If death is seen as a victory and is glorified then is war giving them what they are desiring?
My pacifist approach was challenged last week in Cape Town as we saw the effects of apartheid and heard from the different speakers. Father Lapsley wrote in his book about how he was moved to endorse a more aggressive approach. He writes, “Non-violence becomes most problematic when the oppressor in no way recognizes the humanity of the oppressed.”[7] After October 7th, Israel certainly had a reason to defend herself and to retrieve the hostages that were kidnapped. Yet, they are not just fighting Hamas–a terrorist group–but rather a democratically elected government that blurs the lines between the two. “It wasn’t a choice between resistance and politics, it was to protect the resistance”[8] highlights how Hamas has blurred the line.
Personally, my perspective is that Israel has a right to defend herself against terrorism, especially state-backed terrorism. However, it is easy to go from the oppressed to becoming the oppressor. When this occurs, you have lost the plot line and the support of many. A recent look at the ANC in South Africa highlights how they have now become the oppressors and the pendulum has swung too far. Likewise, Israel swung the pendulum too far and it will only illicit more violence and resentment.
Oofda.
The Language of Apartheid and Genocide:
Douglas Murray writes, “Because in this era war is not just waged on the battlefield, but in the efforts to delegitimize a conflict abroad, turning victims into culprits into victims.”[9] The battle of language rages on. Is what was going on in Gaza genocide? Is the push of Israeli settlers into Palestinian territory an act of apartheid? Both sides argue for their own use of terminology and often they do not mean the same thing. We must insist on using terminology with similar definitions when discussing hot-button topics. It is also important that we not simply use trigger words simply to use a trigger word. However, there are times that these words can and should be used to highlight what is going on.
Yet, this is where I think it is important to listen to voices that have reach beyond where we normally get our information. In every essay written in “The Cross and the Olive Tree” by Christian Palestinian theologians they declare the onslaught against Gaza a Genocide. Recognizing that their voices are biased, we must listen to their perspective and give credit to the role they play.
Oofda.
Responding to this Theologically:
A couple of thoughts permeate my perspective here. First, both sides have historically committed wrongdoings and neither side has been morally upright. Secondly, tit-for-tat is never going to get us anywhere. Thirdly, we must guard against nationalism that does not allow for a common humanity to develop together. Fourthly, both Zionists and Hamas-Palestinians are humans created in the image of God and what is being fought is a battle that is beyond humanity and enters the spiritual realms. Fifthly, poor theology has led to uninformed and poor decisions.
One of the Palestinian theologians argues his case for an alternative imagination. To imagine something different he argues that we must acknowledge the truth of what is going on and lament the course history has taken. He states, “Without lament–without a sacred witness to the brutality of the present moment–an alternative imagination cannot be born.”[10] As leaders, we must lament the ongoing tragedy that is Israel/Hamas and pursue a new dialogue, born in an imagination that holds a high value of humanity as image-bearers and a high value of the reconciliation and hope that the future might bring. Is not this the work of the kingdom of God?
Oofda.
Oofda.
__________________________________________________
[1] John S. Munayer and Samuel S. Munayer, eds., The Cross and the Olive Tree: Cultivating Palestinian Theology Amid Gaza (Orbis Books, 2025), 15.
[2] Howard Morley Sachar, A History of Israel: From the Rise of Zionism to Our Time (Oxford Univ. Press, 1993), 429.
[3] Sachar, A History of Israel, 430.
[4] Douglas Murray, On Democracies and Death Cults: Israel and the Future of Civilization, First edition (Broadside books, 2025), 4.
[5] Milton-Edwards and Farrell, Hamas, 17.
[6] Murray, On Democracies and Death Cults, 196.
[7] Father Michael Lapsley, Redeeming the Past: My Dourney from Freedom Fighter to Healer (Self, 2011), 87.
[8] Beverley Milton-Edwards and Stephen Farrell, Hamas: The Quest for Power (Polity, 2024), 163.
[9] Douglas Murray, On Democracies and Death Cults: Israel and the Future of Civilization, First edition (Broadside books, 2025), xix.
[10] Munayer and Munayer, The Cross and the Olive Tree, 72.
About the Author
Adam Cheney
I grew up in California, spent five years living along the beautiful coast of Kenya and now find myself working with refugees in the snow crusted tundra of Minnesota. My wife and I have seven children, four of whom have been adopted. I spend my time drinking lots of coffee, working in my garden, and baking sourdough bread.7 responses to “Oofda – Frequently translates to a feeling of being overwhelmed.”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Hi Adam, “oofda” is a word my Norwegian in-laws use all the time. I kind of like it, because it expresses what our normal vocabulary struggles to express.
Like you, I have a sense of “oofda” over this matter. You wrote, “Personally, my perspective is that Israel has a right to defend herself against terrorism, especially state-backed terrorism. However, it is easy to go from the oppressed to becoming the oppressor. When this occurs, you have lost the plot line and the support of many.”
At what point does self-defense become disproportionate retaliation?
Graham,
I think that was the line that was so hard for many to draw. Certainly there can’t be an exact measurement of how many deaths equal another death. Yet, somewhere along the line the scale tipped and the response seemed to become more vengeful against a people all together rather than trying to remove leadership and retrieve hostages. It doesn’t help that Hamas is willing to have civilian causalities and consider it an honor. Maybe the response of Israel was completely justified but they lost the social media war and thus the narrative?
Adam,
Love your question “If death is seen as a victory and is glorified then is war giving them what they are desiring?” It seems the answer to that question would be yes.
Somewhat different topic, but as one who practices hospitality towards Muslims, may I ask your thoughts on the prayer room for Muslims being set up in the Vatican library? Is this compromising our faith or is this a way to love our neighbor?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/vatican-allows-designated-muslim-prayer-room-in-apostolic-library/ar-AA1OCr9o?ocid=BingNewsSerp
Jeff,
This is a great question and I would invite others, especially Kari and Elysse to jump into the discussion…
My answer is with a question of my own. Do we worship a God who is big enough to receive prayers from people who do not yet know him through his Son?
Of course I would answer this in the affirmative and while I understand the concern people may have I also wonder if this is a way of building bridges and offering an on-ramp into faith in Jesus for those who are entrenched in Islam. I would doubt that this would be used by many Muslims (as most are afraid of stepping foot into a church) but rather it would be used by Muslims who are followers of Jesus and yet maintain their Islamic cultural identity. So, does this actually support fellow believers in Jesus in a culturally sensitive way, allowing them to pray and worship while also staying relevant within their cultures?
I have addressed this question on a personal level before when I have given a room of my house to a Muslim friend to pray when they were visiting. Or have given a side room at a church for a Muslim attending a wedding to go and pray. Offering a place for someone to pray is affirming their humanity and their religion without necessarily affirming that it is the correct pathway to God.
I would love to hear other responses though…
Hi Jeff,
Great question! One of my favorite memories here was an Easter celebration I hosted. The call to prayer went off, and a Muslim friend was praying in the carpeted area that I had desginated as a prayer spot. As she was praying, the Resurection story was being read outloud in Arabic. The spiritual battle was palpable.
Adam nailed it: welcoming others is acknowledging that they are created in the image of God. My friends know they will have a space to pray at my house and I know what direction they need to face. I will never offer them anything but halal food in my home. I want them to be as close to Ambassadors of Christ as often as possible. That means providing a space where they feel safe and welcomed. May hundreds of Islamic scholars pick up and read the Gospels in the Vatican library because they feel accepted!
Adam, great blog on a difficult subject. I appreciate you bringing in the voices of Palestinian Christians and lament. In his book, “Dark Clouds, Deep Mercy,” Mark Vroegop defines lament as “the honest cry of a hurting heart wrestling with the paradox of pain and the promise of God’s goodness.” This is exactly what we need to do in this and similar messy situations.
Thank you, Adam. Your post is courageous, historically grounded, and theologically reflective. It wrestles with the ethics of warfare, the fragility of pluralism, and the spiritual cost of violence.
In a land sacred to three faiths and scarred by cycles of trauma, how can Christian leaders speak prophetically about the dangers of becoming what one once fled—calling both Israel and Palestine to recognize the humanity of the other, even when ideologies deny coexistence and warfare tempts us to abandon the ethics of the kingdom?
Shela,
I wonder if they simply all need to resort to the basic needs of humanity as something to rally around. All humans need basic food, water, shelter, family.
Can both sides at least recognize this in other human beings? Honestly, I don’t think they are willing to even do this right now.