The Church of England has taken a long-overdue step on Palestine

This article is written by Rev Dr Munther Isaac.

The Church of England’s General Synod recently voted to engage with Palestinian Christian appeals and review investments in light of the International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion on the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

A Palestinian pastor and theologian.

Published On 17 Jul 202617 Jul 2026

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.

Passed by a large majority across all three houses of the Synod, the motion signals a notable change in how the Church of England engages with Palestinian Christian perspectives and the language it is willing to use regarding the Holy Land. Alongside earlier Church statements, particularly those at the start of Israel's genocidal war on Gaza, the vote is a meaningful advance toward 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.

Even more troubling is that the Board's response appears to show greater outrage at the Church's decision to listen to Palestinian Christians than at the immense suffering in Gaza. The Synod merely agreed to hear and seriously consider the Kairos documents, without adopting or endorsing them. That such a modest step drew fierce opposition raises serious questions about the Board's moral priorities—seeming more concerned with policing the Church's language than 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. Jewish Voice for Liberation publicly welcomed the Synod’s decision and urged the Church to hear the Palestinian Christian plea rather than dismiss it. This reflects a broader reality: Growing numbers of Jewish voices – religious and secular, in Israel and around the world – have opposed the destruction of Gaza and spoken critically of Zionism and the policies of the Israeli government. Churches should listen to these voices alongside those of Palestinian Christians.

Perhaps what some within the Zionist establishment fear most is the loss of their claimed monopoly over the Jewish voice. More and more Jews are refusing to allow their faith and identity to be weaponised in defence of policies that have brought such devastating suffering to Gaza. Their witness deserves to be heard and creates the possibility of a more honest and courageous dialogue.

The Synod’s long-awaited decision to hear the appeals of Palestinian Christians, including the Kairos Palestine II document, did not come out of nowhere. For many years, Palestinian Christians have engaged openly and consistently with leaders of the Church of England. Successive archbishops of Canterbury and other senior church leaders have visited the Holy Land, met Palestinian Christians and witnessed firsthand the realities of military occupation and, more recently, the devastation in Gaza. Having seen these realities and heard our testimony directly, it would have been morally and pastorally indefensible to refuse even to hear our cry.

The decision must also be understood within its wider historical context. The Church of England, like British society, cannot escape the legacy of Britain’s role in Palestine. The Balfour Declaration, the British Mandate and restorationist interpretations of the Bible all contributed to an environment that enabled the dispossession of the Palestinian people. Many within the Church historically viewed the Zionist project sympathetically without giving comparable attention to the rights and experiences of the Indigenous Palestinian population.

Against this background, the Synod’s decision represents an important, if overdue, willingness to hear Palestinian Christians and reckon with a history in which the Church has at times been complicit through its theology, silence and assumptions.

The vote also demonstrates a willingness to engage courageously with one of the defining moral issues of our time. This is not only about responding to Palestinian Christians. It is about responding to questions being asked across British society. Hundreds of thousands have marched, debated and wrestled with what is unfolding in Gaza. Palestine has become a pressing public, political and moral issue. The Church cannot remain silent or detached if it wishes to speak meaningfully to the society it serves.

Far from being controversial, this is precisely what the Church is called to do: Confront difficult moral questions with honesty, humility and courage. My hope is that the Church of England will now read these documents carefully, receive the testimony of Palestinian Christians and engage seriously with the growing legal, theological and humanitarian evidence concerning Gaza.

Palestinian Christians are now arguing for the imperative of a theology after Gaza. Things cannot continue as they were. The Church cannot return to business as usual. Something fundamental must change. In Kairos Palestine II, we have sought to identify where that change must take place: In theology, public witness and solidarity.

It is my hope that this vote marks the beginning of that necessary journey – a journey towards a theology, a public witness and a discipleship that remain faithful and credible in the aftermath of Gaza.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial policy.

The Synod’s vote, while symbolic, represents a concrete shift in the Church’s stance. It remains to be seen how the investment review will unfold and what impact it will have on relations with Jewish groups. The debate underscores the enduring tensions within religious institutions over how to address the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.