Laszlo Bartus
Benjamin Netanyahu is unmatched in fueling anti-Israel sentiment, but few expected that he would even provoke anger among American neo-Protestant evangelical Christian nationalists—who themselves played a significant role in enabling Netanyahu to draw the United States (Trump) into the long-desired war against Iran. Quoting writer Will Durant, Netanyahu claimed that “Jesus Christ has no advantage over Genghis Khan” (that is, he is not better than him), because, in his view, “if evil is strong enough, it will defeat good; aggression defeats moderation” (that is, gentleness).
Netanyahu sides with Genghis Khan against Jesus Christ. Genghis Khan was infamous for his cruelty; his name is synonymous with barbarism, often depicted alongside piles of skulls. His methods of torture were unmatched, and historians estimate that he slaughtered at least 30–40 million people. Netanyahu elevates this man above Jesus Christ and sides with him against Jesus, who chose self-sacrificial love and the cross to redeem the world. Genghis Khan ruled through intimidation and extortion, destroying those who refused to submit. This was the “Mongol peace.” To be sure, this does resemble Trump and Netanyahu. But it bears no resemblance whatsoever to Jesus Christ.
Netanyahu’s statement relativizes the moral superiority of Jesus Christ over Genghis Khan. He said aloud what modern power politics actually believes: that violence is more effective than morality, and therefore legitimate. (Incidentally, this same logic is used by former liberals who support Péter Magyar, who in many ways resembles Trump.) This is not an exception, but a system. Trump, evangelical Christian nationalism, and the logic of war all point in the same direction. These are not isolated mistakes, but an ideological structure that turns Christianity into a tool while denying its essence. Yet a Christianity that legitimizes violence ceases to be Christianity. The same is true of democratic and moral principles.
Netanyahu attempted to justify the war against Iran with this argument, claiming that “you have no choice”—that one must choose violence over moderation: the Mongol Genghis Khan over the Jewish Jesus Christ. He sought to justify this by arguing that “you must confront your enemies in time, while there is still time.” Netanyahu’s legendary timing is well known; twenty years ago, he was already claiming that Iran would have a nuclear bomb within five days. Yet Iran still does not have one, and was likely farthest from it precisely when he was finally able to launch a war against them—having at last found an American president willing to do so.
It is difficult to imagine another American president who would have done what Trump did. Every previous president, Republican and Democrat alike, had rejected Netanyahu’s decades-long ambitions for war. They likely understood from the outset what would happen if Iran were to close the Strait of Hormuz. Trump did not consider this possibility, and has no idea—let alone a plan—how to handle such a scenario. Netanyahu, however, is not particularly concerned; he can finally realize Genghis Khan’s vision, eliminate Iranian leaders, replace them with others, and change nothing.
The obvious senselessness of the war against Iran is underscored not only by the fact that it was launched on the basis of an ordinary lie, but also by the complete uncertainty of its outcome. It may end in a deeply humiliating defeat for the United States, because there is no viable strategy for concluding it. More importantly, however, America and Israel have now truly lost their security. Iran cannot be defeated from the air, nor can regime change be achieved (the much-anticipated Iranian revolution ended with American-Israeli bombing), and Iran may retaliate in ways for which no one can ever be fully prepared.
This alone is sufficient to refute Netanyahu’s glorification of Genghis Khan and his dismissal of Jesus Christ, even without pointing out that Netanyahu lied: his so-called “preemptive strike” prevented nothing—it rather created new threats and dangers. By contrast, the Iranian nuclear agreement negotiated by Obama with European partners—terminated by Trump among his first acts (to Netanyahu’s great delight)—provided far greater security than what these two “geniuses” have now produced. All of this proves that Jesus Christ is right against Genghis Khan, and that Obama stands closer to Jesus than Trump does.
For American white Christian nationalist evangelicals, this would be an opportunity to confront themselves: their support for Netanyahu and Trump (for imperial violence) aligns them more closely with Genghis Khan than with Jesus Christ. And since their false prophecies, their aggressive and violent mentality—alien to the nature of Christ—played a significant role in enabling Netanyahu to lure Trump into this reckless and unconsidered war, they themselves stand much closer to Genghis Khan than to Jesus Christ. This is the opposite of everything that Jesus’ teaching and person represent.
In evangelical Trumpism, an entire religious-political movement stands opposed to the teaching of Jesus Christ. What Netanyahu said applies to them as well. Their protests to defend Jesus are therefore meaningless, because through their actions they affirm exactly what Netanyahu said: they choose Genghis Khan over Jesus. This traces the path from the Garden of Gethsemane to the Rose Garden of the White House. Christianity has not merely “lost its way”; it has turned into its opposite. The cross has become a sword. Redemption has become violence. True strength is the ability to renounce brute force. Where violence is celebrated, Genghis Khan is chosen.
A Christianity that chooses the sword over the cross is not Christianity, because it stands closer to Genghis Khan than to Jesus Christ—this is what the world has learned from Netanyahu’s candid statement. It is therefore incomprehensible why evangelical leaders were outraged by his words instead of facing the reality that this man quite rightly compares himself and Trump to Genghis Khan against Jesus Christ—and that, as their supporters, they themselves stand closer to Genghis Khan than to Jesus Christ.
Genghis Khan would bomb Iran after it refused to submit to Trump’s threats, just as the leaders of Venezuela did not submit. Jesus Christ would not bomb, would not threaten, and would not seek to crush or kill anyone. Whether this is weakness, whether the cruelty of Genghis Khan or the humility and self-sacrificial love of Jesus Christ is stronger—opinions may differ. For true Christians, however, this is not a question. István Bibó, in his essay „The Meaning of European Social Development”, wrote that Christ’s gestures—if struck on one cheek, turning the other—are “not the gestures of a helpless man; on the contrary, they belong among those disarming gestures before which senseless aggression suddenly recognizes its own senselessness.”
In our case, it is senseless aggression that is being carried out by Trump and Netanyahu, supported by evangelical Christian nationalists, while they confront another theocratic religious state that likewise believes in Genghis Khan rather than in Jesus Christ. For this reason, the meaningless killing will not end. The Kingdom of God stands outside all of this, as does the true Church of Jesus Christ, which bears the cross and not the sword. One might say how much better it would be if Jesus and His Church were advising Trump. But this is impossible, because the Church that entangles itself with the world abandons the cross. It knows only the sword.
