The Church of England has taken a long-overdue step on Palestine
The General Synod of the Church of England has committed itself to engaging seriously with major statements and appeals by Palestinian Christians, including Kairos Palestine
The General Synod of the Church of England has committed itself to engaging seriously with major statements and appeals by Palestinian Christians, including Kairos Palestine II, a document I co-authored. It also called for a review of Church investments in light of the International Court of Justice’s Advisory Opinion on the Occupied Palestinian Territory and urged renewed efforts to achieve a just and lasting peace for Palestinians and Israelis. The motion was adopted by an overwhelming majority of the Synod’s bishops, clergy and laity. It signals an important shift in the Church of England’s engagement with Palestinian Christian voices and, more broadly, in the language the Church is willing to consider when addressing the realities of the Holy Land. Viewed alongside a number of the Church’s public statements, especially at the beginning of Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza, the vote represents a significant step forward in its pursuit of truth, justice and peace. Unsurprisingly, the decision was strongly criticised by several pro-Israel organisations and leaders in the United Kingdom and beyond, most notably the Board of Deputies of British Jews. Much of the criticism followed familiar lines, accusing the Church of enabling anti-Semitism or damaging Christian-Jewish relations because of its willingness to engage with documents that speak about Israeli policies in stark terms. Such tactics have become increasingly unconvincing. They ignore the growing diversity of opinion – including among Jewish communities – about what is taking place in Gaza. They also risk undermining genuine efforts to confront anti-Semitism in Britain and Europe by confusing hostility towards Jewish people with legitimate criticism of a state and its policies. What is even more disturbing is that the Board’s response appears to express greater outrage over the Church of England’s decision to listen to Palestinian Christians than over the catastrophic suffering unfolding in Gaza. The Synod did not adopt or endorse the Kairos documents.
It simply resolved to hear them and engage with them seriously. That such a modest decision should provoke such fierce opposition raises profound questions about the Board’s moral priorities. It appears more concerned with policing the language of the Church than with confronting the reality of the genocide itself. Equally troubling is the patronising reference to the “pain” of Palestinian Christians. We are not merely expressing pain or sharing personal feelings. We are bearing witness to a documented reality. Reports by United Nations bodies, international legal experts, humanitarian and human rights organisations, journalists, medical professionals and witnesses – including Israeli Jewish scholars and organisations – have documented in painstaking detail the scale of the devastation and the grave violations taking place. To reduce this testimony to an expression of “pain” diminishes both its substance and its urgency. It is especially disappointing that an organisation which frequently invokes the importance of dialogue appears unwilling to engage seriously with this evidence or with the testimony of Palestinian Christians themselves. Genuine dialogue cannot begin by dismissing or discrediting the lived experience of one of its participants. The chief rabbi of the UK also weighed in, criticising both the Kairos document and the Church of England. It is indeed sad that such a prominent religious figure chose to criticise a church for a decision merely to listen to Palestinian Christians and engage with the question of genocide. At a moment when Gaza’s civilians continue to endure unimaginable suffering, children are still dying, and humanitarian aid remains desperately inadequate, I wish that the same moral authority were directed towards ending the violence, securing unrestricted humanitarian access, and demanding accountability. That would be a far more urgent contribution than attempting to police the language of churches or the testimony of Palestinian Christians. The Board of Deputies and the chief rabbi do not speak for all Jewish people.
The BriefWire