‘We hear your voices’: inside the Church of England’s debate over Palestine

What Happened

The General Synod of the Church of England voted overwhelmingly on 10 February 2025 to ‘hear’ the Kairos Palestine II report, a document co‑written by Father Fadi Diab that describes Israel as a ‘colonial enterprise’ and accuses it of waging a ‘genocidal war on Gaza’. The original motion had asked synod to formally ‘receive’ the report; during the debate an amendment changed the wording to ‘hear’, a distinction stressed by Archbishop of Canterbury Sarah Mullally, who said listening with compassion does not mean endorsing every aspect of the document. Mullally visited Palestinian Christian communities in the occupied West Bank weeks earlier and told synod she had witnessed settlement expansion ‘at unprecedented rates’. The vote passed in all three houses (bishops, clergy, laity) despite vigorous opposition from British Jewish leaders, including the Board of Deputies of British Jews, Chief Rabbi Sir Ephraim Mirvis, and the co‑chairs of Progressive Judaism, who argued the report’s language undermined the fight against antisemitism and risked harming decades of Christian‑Jewish dialogue.

Key Actors

Why It Matters

The decision marks a significant shift in the Church of England’s engagement with the Israeli‑Palestinian conflict, amplifying Palestinian Christian narratives within a major Western denomination while testing the boundaries of interfaith dialogue. It comes as Jewish organizations have warned that terms such as ‘genocide’, ‘apartheid’ and ‘settler colonialism’ cross a line into antisemitic tropes, creating a delicate balancing act for the church between solidarity with Palestinian Christians and preserving relations with the UK Jewish community. The vote also reflects wider tensions within global Christianity over how to respond to the war in Gaza.

Watch For

Watch for formal responses from the Israeli government, the Palestinian Authority, and global Jewish and Christian bodies. Within the Church of England, monitor whether calls for a more holistic examination of the conflict lead to further synod motions or commissions, and how Archbishop Mullally’s leadership navigates the fallout. Any concrete impact on Christian‑Jewish dialogue groups such as the Council of Christians and Jews, or shifts in church policy on divestment or advocacy, would signal deepening institutional change.