From the JC – “The objection is not that the Church of England listened to Palestinian Christians but that it chose to do so through one of the most extreme documents produced in recent years – one that portrays the Jewish state as inherently genocidal and racist“:
The question is why, from among the many Palestinian Christian perspectives, the Church of England chose to elevate one of the most extreme manifestos.
The document does not merely criticise the policies of the Israeli government but depicts the Jewish state as founded upon genocide, ethnic cleansing, apartheid, racism and Jewish supremacy. It denies that the conflict involves two peoples with legitimate rights, presenting it instead as the straightforward oppression of blameless victims by an inherently illegitimate and racist coloniser. It rejects the Jewish people’s historic and indigenous connection to the land and, in substance, denies Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state.
Criticism of Israeli policy is not antisemitic, and no serious defender of Israel claims otherwise. But the IHRA definition of antisemitism, which the Church of England has itself adopted, identifies denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination – including by claiming that the existence of Israel is a racist endeavour – as an example of modern antisemitism.
The Church has therefore chosen to confer standing upon a document whose central claims are in direct tension with its own declared understanding of antisemitism. Indeed, it is precisely this kind of demonisation of Israel that has fuelled antisemitism in Britain and across the West.
Kairos II is especially troubling in its treatment of October 7. By presenting Hamas’s massacre within the context of the occupation, even though Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, it comes perilously close to an apologia for the sadistic mass murder, torture, kidnapping and sexual violence inflicted upon Israeli civilians. The Hebrew Bible teaches that God created humanity in his image, a belief Christianity inherited from Judaism, and one that confers upon us all moral worth as well as moral agency. Any serious effort to understand Palestinian suffering must include an equally serious discussion of Islamist extremism and Palestinian rejectionism.
The document’s opposition to dialogue with Zionist voices is equally troubling, as it would exclude most of this country’s Jewish community. A text that demands to be heard while declaring most Jewish interlocutors morally disqualified is a poor foundation for reconciliation.
Leave a Reply