The language of a ‘deep biblical commitment’
Responses to peers’ criticism of Bishop of Gloucester
20 Feb 2026
From the Bishop of Gloucester
Madam, — I write in response to the letter from Baroness Deech and Lord Farmer (13 Feb 2026).
The move by senior church [of England] leaders to use the language of apartheid, ethnic cleansing, and genocide to describe certain policies and actions by the Israeli Government in Palestine is not done lightly or loosely, but judiciously, and always with reference to international law and the respective United Nations conventions and treaties.
Contrary to Baroness Deech and Lord Farmer’s assertion, this does not reflect an over-fixation on Israel, but reflects the natural outworking of having a deep biblical commitment to standing up for the God-given human dignity of everyone, everywhere, and church leaders do indeed advocate for oppressed people in many different places across the world. Simply naming other places, however, as my respected peers Baroness Deech and Lord Farmer have done, fails to address the issues I am seeking to spotlight at this point and at this time.
Furthermore, the letter from Baroness Deech and Lord Farmer focuses on Gaza, which is rather strange, as my comments to the Church Times (News, 6 Feb) explicitly documented the deteriorating situation in the West Bank, which I and the Bishops of Chelmsford and Norwich witnessed yet again on our recent joint visit.
With regard to Gaza, it will be up to the International Criminal Court to determine whether the Israeli Government has committed genocidal acts in Gaza. Whatever the outcome of that case, nothing changes the fact that on 7 Oct 2023 there was a barbaric and heinous attack on innocent life which necessitated a proportionate response by the Israeli government. I have been clear about this in things that I have said and written.
Yet I, like many others, find convincing the September 2025 report by the UN International Independent Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel.
This report analysed the statements made by Israeli authorities and the pattern of conduct of Israeli authorities and the Israeli security forces in Gaza, including imposing starvation and inhumane conditions for life in Gaza. It determined that genocidal intent was the only reasonable inference that could be concluded from the nature of the operations. To dismiss this report as evidence of institutional antisemitism is nonsensical and undermines our rules-based international system at a time when strongmen around the world are straining to free themselves of its shackles. Might does not make right.
To say that the Church should resist from arguing that the Israeli Government should be held accountable under international law, because it risks widening rifts in our own communities, is cynically and dangerously to close down scrutiny. This only feeds the culture of impunity which the Israeli Government has used to good strategic effect to advance its de facto annexation of the West Bank. It undercuts the courageous work that Israeli and Palestinian human-rights organisations do to document human-rights abuses across Palestine.
These organisations need our active support, not our silent sanction, and I, for one, will not be cowed into silence. Alongside other episcopal colleagues, I will continue to speak up unapologetically about what we have seen and witnessed on visits to Palestine and will do so responsibly.
I am very clear that the legitimate anger that many feel towards the Israeli Government for its actions in Gaza and the West Bank can never be used to justify hatred, prejudice, or violence against Jewish people. That is always antisemitic and always abhorrent and must always be challenged. This was stated clearly and robustly in my interview and in my recent podcast.
Healing comes from facing injustices head on. This will require helping all parties to this conflict to face the past through truth-telling and accountability. As we have seen in other contexts, truth-telling can help to correct existing imbalances in power by bringing hidden uncomfortable truths to light in a way that disrupts the dominant narrative and forces a confrontation with structural violence and inequality. Without this, the prospect of rebuilding lives and fostering peaceful coexistence between Israelis and Palestinians will prove elusive.
RACHEL GLOUCESTER:
Gloucester
From the Dean of York
Madam, — The concern expressed in the letter from Baroness Deech and Lord Farmer would carry far more weight if it was not predicated on the idea that to criticise one nation’s immoral behaviour is inappropriate unless one criticises the immoral behaviour of every nation. It is not my place to speak for Bishop Treweek, but I imagine that she shares peers’ disdain of the other atrocities mentioned by them. That does not, however, weaken her very serious critique of the actions of the Israeli Government in Gaza and the West Bank.
It is telling that the peers’ claim that the Bishop’s moral voice is being “applied selectively” is made in a letter that speaks only of the suffering of the 251 hostages seized by Hamas, and ignores the deaths of more than 72,000 Gazans (as compared with 1700 Israelis) during the ensuing war.
The peers also claim that we are “approaching a turning point in Israeli-Palestinian relations”. This is manifestly true, but not for the reasons that they state. In the wake of the Israeli Security Cabinet’s decision last week to approve measures that tighten yet further Israel’s grip on the West Bank, the Finance Minister, Bezalel Smotrich (himself a settler living on land that the UK Government considers illegally annexed by Israel), claimed with visible satisfaction that this would “bury the idea of a Palestinian state” — echoing his Prime Minister’s stated opposition to any concept of Palestinian sovereignty.
I have yet to encounter anyone with the authentic capacity to address every single injustice through which the world is living. This does not diminish the truth and force of Bishop Treweek’s accurate and courageous words. People of all faiths should be grateful for her leadership.
DOMINIC BARRINGTON
York
This was the letter the Bishop and Dean were responding to, in the Church Times of 13 Feb 2026.
Bishop and the danger of ‘hyper-fixation on Israel’
From Baroness Deech and Lord Farmer
Madam, — We write with deep concern after the words of the Bishop of Gloucester, the Rt Revd Rachel Treweek (News, 2 Feb).
In an environment of such heightened antisemitism, we are troubled by what appears to be a persistent hyper-fixation on Israel. In particular, we are concerned by the casual use of terms such as “apartheid” and “genocide” in relation to Israel. These are words that describe some of the gravest crimes in human history. To deploy them loosely in polemical debates is to strip them of their true meaning and to cheapen the very real suffering of those who endured them.
The charge of genocide is especially serious. In both moral and legal terms, it rests not merely on the scale of suffering involved, but on the demonstrable intention to destroy a people, in whole or in part. That element of intent is what distinguishes the horrors of war, no matter how tragic and devastating, from one of humanity’s most heinous crimes.
Israel did not start this conflict; nor did it seek it. Its declared purposes have been purely to degrade Hamas’s military capabilities after the atrocities of 7 Oct 2023, which its own leaders have vowed to repeat, and to secure the release of the 251 hostages taken from their homes, some of whom had spent more than 700 days in captivity.
As the Chief Rabbi recently reminded readers of The Sunday Telegraph, drawing on the reflections of Professor Victor Klemperer: “Words can be like tiny doses of arsenic: they are swallowed unnoticed, appear to have no effect, and then after a little time the toxic reaction sets in after all.”
Many faith leaders act from a genuine moral responsibility to speak out against injustice and to highlight human suffering around the world, which is both important and honourable. The problem arises when that moral voice is applied selectively, when certain conflicts attract sustained condemnation while others are largely ignored. In doing so, instead of alleviating suffering or advancing peace, this approach can deepen divisions at home.
Christians understandably have a deep historical and spiritual connection to the Holy Land and concern for its conflicts, but the role of a faith leader should be to unite communities and to advocate consistently for all who suffer. If moral outrage is to be credible, where are the same cries for persecuted Christians in Nigeria, for the Uyghurs facing brutality in China, for those displaced and starving in Sudan, or for Iranians being killed simply for demanding freedom?
We are, we hope, approaching a turning point in Israeli-Palestinian relations, one in which Hamas plays no part in a future Palestinian state, and where diplomacy rather than armed struggle becomes the chosen path. After more than 800 days of profound suffering for both Israeli and Palestinian communities, the task now must be reconstruction: rebuilding lives, trust, and the possibility of coexistence. Yet, as we look toward that future, we must recognise that both Israelis and Palestinians are deeply scarred by violence, trauma, and mistrust.
Those same scars are keenly felt in our communities in the UK. In such fragile and divided contexts, the language that we choose matters profoundly. Words can either widen rifts or help to bridge them; they can inflame resentment or encourage understanding. At a time of such fragility, faith leaders should choose words that heal rather than harm.
DEECH, FARMER
House of Lords, London