By Brain Brivati
BPP Executive Director 17 July 2026
On Sunday 12 July 2026, the General Synod of the Church of England passed an amended Carlisle Diocesan-Synod motion concerning the Kairos Palestine documents, including Kairos Palestine II (2025).
Contrary to some public commentary, Synod did not adopt Kairos Palestine II as Church doctrine and did not make a legal determination that genocide is occurring in Gaza. Instead, it resolved to hear the Kairos documents as “heartfelt expressions of the lived experience of Palestinian Christians” rather than receive them as originally proposed and to stand in solidarity with Palestinians Christians.
The amendment also reaffirmed the Church’s commitment to:
- reject antisemitism and anti-Muslim hostility;
- continue dialogue with Jewish and Muslim communities; and
- review Church investment policy in light of the International Court of Justice’s July 2024 Advisory Opinion on the illegality of the occupation.
It will be particularly interesting to see how the Church implements this last bullet point on its investment policy.
The motion passed comfortably in all three Houses:
- Bishops: 25–0 (5 abstentions)
- Clergy: 115–20 (30 abstentions)
- Laity: 113–27 (35 abstentions).
The amendment from “receive” to “hear” was intended to distinguish between listening to Palestinian Christian testimony and endorsing every theological or political claim contained within Kairos II.
Shameful’…what the Chief Rabbi objected to, in six points
Before and after the vote, Britain’s Chief Rabbi, Sir Ephraim Mirvis, argued that Kairos Palestine II is not simply testimony from Palestinian Christians but a theological and political document that:
- presents a one-sided account of the conflict;
- marginalises Jewish history and legitimate security concerns;
- portrays Zionism as inherently racist and colonial – using the term settler colonialism;
- challenges the legitimacy of Israel as a Jewish state;
- rejects important forms of Jewish-Christian dialogue; and
- risks undermining decades of interfaith relations.
Following the vote, he described Synod’s decision as “shameful”, characterising Kairos II as “a document full of falsehood” that reduces a complex conflict to “a single, warped narrative” and represents “a sad day for Jewish-Christian relations.”
The Board of Deputies of British Jews advanced similar concerns, arguing that implementation of the motion could damage Jewish-Christian relations by encouraging engagement with a document that portrays mainstream Zionism as inherently illegitimate and calls upon churches to boycott dialogue with Zionist voices.
How far does the Rabbi’s critique stand up?
Many of the Chief Rabbi’s criticisms are supported by the language of Kairos Palestine II itself.
The document:
- describes Gaza as a “time of genocide”;
- characterises the Zionist project as seeking control of all Palestine;
- describes Israel as a settler-colonial and exclusionary state built on Jewish supremacy;
- condemns the Abraham Accords as normalising occupation; and
- explicitly urges churches to distinguish between dialogue with Jews and dialogue with Zionists, including calls to boycott dialogue with Zionist voices.
These passages explain why many British Jews understand the document not merely as criticism of Israeli government policy but as questioning core elements of Jewish national identity and self-determination. The central question before the Synod,however, was whether the Church should listen seriously to Palestinian Christians living through war and occupation—not whether every sentence of Kairos II, even if rooted in international law, should become Anglican teaching.
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Sarah Mullally, made this distinction explicit during the debate, stating that hearing the documents “does not mean we agree with everything in these documents.”#
The significance of the amendment: Palestinian view gets legitimacy but not endorsement
The change from “receive” to “hear” was therefore more than semantic.
It reflected an attempt to hold together two commitments:
- taking seriously the testimony of Palestinian Christians; and
- maintaining dialogue and relationships with Jewish communities.
Synod deliberately avoided making Kairos II an authoritative statement of Church teaching while recognising it as an important expression of lived experience. Church-wide encouragement to engage with Kairos II rightly still gives the document institutional visibility and legitimacy, even if it is not formally endorsed.
Synod made no determinate ruling on the genocide question
Precision is particularly important regarding the use of the term genocide.
Synod itself did not determine that genocide is occurring. Nor has the International Court of Justice reached a final judgment in South Africa v. Israel. Proceedings remain ongoing but it has determined that provisional measures are necessary to prevent genocide and there is widespread consensus amongst genocide scholars that the Israel Defence Force’s campaign in Gaza meets the criterion of the genocide convention. The United Nations Independent International Commission of Inquiry also found that Israel committed genocide in Gaza.
The General Synod reached a carefully balanced institutional position.
The General Synod’s decision should be welcomed as an important act of moral listening. By choosing to hear rather than dismiss the testimony of Palestinian Christians, the Church of England has acknowledged that a community facing profound suffering has a legitimate voice that deserves to be heard within the life of the Church. Listening does not require uncritical acceptance of every argument contained in the Kairos documents, but neither should concerns about particular formulations become grounds for silencing the lived experience of Palestinian Christians.
The debate also demonstrates the importance of distinguishing criticism of the policies and actions of the State of Israel from hostility towards Jewish people. As incoming PM Andy Burnham has argued, “being anti-Israel is not being antisemitic.” That distinction is fundamental to democratic debate and to the protection of both freedom of expression and the fight against antisemitism. Robust criticism of states and governments must never become prejudice against peoples or faith communities, but neither should allegations of antisemitism be used to foreclose legitimate discussion of international law, occupation or human rights.
Similarly, much of the language criticised by opponents of the motion—including the description of Israel as a settler-colonial project—should be understood within its intellectual context. The concept of settler colonialism is routinely employed in Palestinian political discourse and is also widely used across substantial bodies of historical, political and post-colonial scholarship to analyse the history of Zionism, the establishment of Israel and the displacement of Palestinians.
Although the application of the framework remains contested and strongly rejected by some Israelis and Jewish organisations, it represents a significant and well-established strand of contemporary academic analysis rather than rhetorical innovation.
A welcome vote: the Church comes into line with public opinion
Taken as a whole, the Synod’s decision places the Church of England in line with public opinion in the United Kingdom and much of the wider international community. It also reflects the growing body of international legal opinion accepting that serious violations of international humanitarian law have occurred in Gaza and the ICJ’s advisory that the occupation of the State of Palestine by the State of Israel is illegal under international law.
Genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity are the subject of proceedings before international courts and investigations by United Nations bodies. While legal proceedings remain ongoing there is broad agreement among international legal experts that grave breaches of international law have been committed and that accountability mechanisms must be allowed to operate.
The vote also reflects the dominant approaches within contemporary historical scholarship on Palestine and Israel. Modern historical research has increasingly relied upon documentary, archaeological and comparative historical methods in reconstructing the history of Palestine, distinguishing these approaches from normative accounts grounded primarily in biblical narratives and theological traditions. The Church’s willingness to engage seriously with Palestinian historical experience places it within the mainstream of contemporary historical inquiry rather than confining discussion to exclusively confessional understandings of the past.
The significance of the Carlisle motion therefore lies not simply in its endorsement of listening to Palestinian Christians but in its recognition that justice, historical understanding and international law require the voices of those who have experienced dispossession, occupation and war to be heard alongside others.
In doing so, the Church of England has taken a significant step towards aligning its witness with the concerns expressed by many churches worldwide, by a substantial body of international legal opinion, by much contemporary historical scholarship and by growing sections of British and global public opinion, while retaining its continuing responsibility to foster respectful dialogue between Palestinians, Israelis, Christians, Jews and Muslims alike.