Johnson is a United Methodist pastor, the author of "Holding Up Your Corner: Talking About Race in Your Community" and program director for the Bridge Alliance, which houses The Fulcrum.
As rockets are once again streaking across the skies of the Middle East and the cries of the bereaved echo through its ravaged streets, the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s words and teachings reverberate like a mournful prayer in my spirit. They stir within me a deep sociopolitical and theological question, "Is 'just war' just?”
In this ongoing conflict, as in all wars, nation-states are forced to confront the terrible paradox of the just war theory — that the pursuit of justice can sometimes demand the violence it seeks to vanquish.
Just war doctrine roots trace back to the writings of St. Augustine and St, Thomas Aquinas. Augustine argued that war could be a purpose for the restoration of peace, while Aquinas' commentary is often interpreted as giving allowance to war. Though war was thought to be an inherent evil, there were certain conditions for its justification, including just cause (self-defense or the protection of innocents), last resort (all peaceful means exhausted), probability of success, proportionality (the ends justify the means) and right intention (the goal is peace, not conquest or domination).
However, even when these criteria are met, war inevitably brings about indiscriminate suffering, violating the fundamental principle of noncombatant immunity. Presently, Israel and Hamas are claiming cause. Israel argues its right to self-defense against indiscriminate rocket attacks, while Palestinians point to decades of occupation, blockade and creeping annexation.
The moral calculus of war becomes even more fraught when geopolitical alliances are factored in. The United States has long been Israel's staunchest backer, providing billions in military aid each year. This unwavering support, rooted in a complex mix of strategic interests, ideological alignment and domestic political pressures, significantly bolsters Israel's military might. Conversely, Iran supports Hamas and Hezbollah, funneling weapons and cash to bolster their military capabilities. Tehran views these relationships as a means to project power, challenge Israeli dominance and advance its regional agenda. These external influences further complicate the conflict, making a lasting resolution more elusive.
Such patron-client relationships further entrench the conflict, making a lasting resolution more elusive. Over the years, such relations have created a destructive cycle where escalation by one side is met with counter-escalation by the other, fueled by their respective backers; amidst this tangled web of alliances, the humanitarian cost mounts. Innocent civilians are often left to bear the burden of violence. Thus, leaving the international community struggling to navigate these competing interests hampers efforts to broker peaceable solutions. The longer military conflict persists, the greater the moral imperative to protect innocent lives and arrive at a point of just resolution.
Pursuing peace can be supported even at the height of cyclical violence when retribution continues. The efforts of good-faith actors or humanitarians demand more than a mere ceasefire. What is truly necessary is a commitment to address the underlying grievances, the longstanding grievances fueling historic conflict.
Despite its flaws, just war theory, for some, acts as a moral framework for judgment of their actions in the crucible of conflict. But it must be complemented by a tireless dedication to nonviolence and restorative justice championed by prophetic arbitrators like Dr. King and Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel. In reflection of devastation and unrest across the region, we are reminded that justice is not found in the rubble of war but in acknowledging the dignity and sacredness of all human life.
The query is whether war is a just act. It ought to serve as a mirror held up to the soul of humanity in assessing its most authentic reflection. Forcing nations and individuals alike to wrestle with our respective capacity for cruelty and compassion, our penchant for division and our yearning for unity. As allied forces and regional actors involved in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict consider their next moves, pray all remember that true strength lies not in military might but in the courage to choose peace. All parties should prioritize the most vulnerable while seeking to enact justice. A justice that sincerely seeks peace — respecting and embracing all, regardless of their faith or nationality. Only time will tell.
A view of the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., on June 25, 2026. President Donald Trump jolted Republicans during a fiery appearance at the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, scrapping a housing bill signing ceremony and clashing behind closed doors with a party rebel who challenged him over the Iran war. Trump had been expected to sign the bipartisan housing.
Only Trump doesn’t care about housing
It was August 15, 2024. Then candidate Donald Trump stepped out of his Bedminster, New Jersey, golf club’s columned clubhouse to a gaggle of reporters. He was flanked by tables of groceries and signs showing the rising cost of food. Also on one of the tables was a dollhouse, meant to represent the equally alarming rise in housing prices.
It was a speech about the economy, the single most important issue of the 2024 election cycle, full of promises that went right to the heart of Americans’ anxieties. While former President Joe Biden and then Vice President Kamala Harris were contorting themselves to posture a good economy that just needed more time to recover from the pandemic, Trump was preying on voters’ very real fears of unaffordable gas, groceries, and homes. It was obviously a winning message.
In that speech, Trump promised, “We’re going to open up tracts of federal land for housing construction. We desperately need housing for people who can’t afford what’s going on now.”
As of mid-2023, there had been a housing shortage of nearly four million homes, according to the National Association of Realtors. Americans all over the country were either priced out of buying new homes due to low inventory, trapped in their existing homes by sky-high mortgage rates, or facing exorbitant rent hikes thanks to corporate investors buying up rental properties. Americans needed help, and Trump promised it.
Cut to March of 2026, when Trump reportedly told House Speaker Mike Johnson, “No one gives a sh*t about housing.”
That kind of thinking may explain why Trump this week suddenly announced he was canceling a signing ceremony for the bipartisan “21st Century ROAD to Housing Act,” a housing bill co-sponsored by Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Tim Scott that passed the House 358-32 and was approved in the Senate on Monday.
Trump instead demanded Congress pass the SAVE America Act, his controversial election grievance bill that doesn’t have enough Republican support to get passed in the Senate.
It’s just the latest in a line of policy self-owns where Trump has seemingly intentionally made life more difficult for Republicans hoping to keep their majority. Despite midterm elections occurring in the midst of a blistering economy and an unpopular war, they were surely hoping the housing bill would give them something — anything — to brag about when they returned home to their districts.
And very much to the contrary, Americans do give a sh*t about housing. According to a recent survey by the Bipartisan Policy Center, a whopping 79% say the cost of housing is extremely or very important to them. Eighty-three percent say Congress should take action on the issue — like it just did. Eighty-nine percent say the House and Senate need to work together to pass affordable housing legislation — like they just did. And 63% say they would be more likely to vote for a lawmaker if they helped pass legislation to build more affordable homes and lower housing costs — like they just did.
There aren’t many issues that unite Americans like housing does, and very few bipartisan policy wins Congress can point to, and yet, Trump is holding that bill hostage in order to get his pet project — which doesn’t even have the support of his own party — pushed through.
If you’re trying to make sense of something so nonsensical, as I’m sure many Republican lawmakers are, it’s certainly sad but not actually all that complicated. Trump said what he needed to get reelected and then promptly abandoned his promises in order to pursue his own self-interests, even if those interests are bad for Republicans and bad for voters.
That’s just the kind of guy he is.
S.E. Cupp is the host of "S.E. Cupp Unfiltered" on CNN.