Four years after the Church of England apologized for centuries of Jew-hatred, its parliament has approved a Palestinian manifesto that condemns Israel as a Jewish supremacist state and defends Hamas’s October 7, 2023, massacre as the inevitable consequence of Israeli occupation.
On July 13, 2026, the General Synod of the Church of England voted for a motion seeking to endorse the Kairos II manifesto, but, in a linguistic amendment, said it would “hear” rather than “receive” the contentious document titled, A Moment of Truth: Faith in a Time of Genocide.
Published in November 2025 by the Christian Palestinian advocacy group Kairos Palestine, Kairos II condemns Jewish self-determination as “settler colonialism” and the Israeli State as an “apartheid system built on Jewish supremacy” as codified in “Israel’s racist Nation-State Law.”
Kairos II condemns Jewish self-determination as “settler colonialism” and the Israeli State as an “apartheid system built on Jewish supremacy.”
The manifesto labels the Balfour Declaration a “historic injustice.” It vilifies Christian Zionism as a “theology of racism, colonialism, and ethnic supremacy” that “calls on a tribal, racist god of war and ethnic cleansing,” claiming that Christian support for Israel “has produced apartheid, ethnic cleansing, and genocide of indigenous people.”
The 14-page document mentions Hamas only once, in a paragraph justifying the October 7 massacre as “itself born out of decades of injustice, oppression and displacement since the Nakba of 1948, and more than sixteen years of an immoral, suffocating blockade on Gaza.”
Despite strong objections from a few Synod members, the motion won the vote of 25 bishops, 115 clergy, and 113 laity. Twenty clerics and 27 laity voted against. Five bishops, 30 clergy and 35 laity abstained. No bishop voted against the motion.
Jewish leaders protested the motion before the Synod. Chief Rabbi Sir Ephraim Mirvis urged the Synod to reject Kairos II, arguing that it “presents a one-sided account of a complex conflict, downplays the historical experiences and legitimate concerns of Jewish people, and offers little more than political activism dressed up as theology.”
“It is truly shocking that a document which purports to speak in the name of truth contains so much falsehood—using extreme rhetoric to challenge the very concept of a Jewish state, and to oppose existing peace agreements in the region,” Mirvis warned.
“It is truly shocking that a document which purports to speak in the name of truth contains so much falsehood—using extreme rhetoric to challenge the very concept of a Jewish state.”
The Board of Deputies of British Jews excoriated Kairos II’s “toxic narrative about Jews.” The manifesto’s “central libel that Zionism is a settler-colonial movement built on ‘Jewish supremacy’ and with genocidal intent is so false and destructive that the only responsible action is to reject it,” the board stressed, noting that the claim is “a libel against Jews everywhere.”
Anticipating the debate, Anglican biblical scholar Ian Paul cautioned on his blog against accepting Kairos II, noting how Palestinian Christians have been “deeply involved” in “violent terrorism” as part of their rejection of Israel.
During the debate, Paul asked why the Synod had singled out Israel for condemnation, yet never once debated the persecution of Kurds, Yazidis, Uyghurs, Yemenis, Nigerian Christians, or the ethnic cleansing of Jews from Arab nations. “I wonder what we will say when the last Jew leaves Britain because they know that we will not speak up for them,” he said.
Bishop Philip North of Blackburn underlined the hatred by Muslims in his constituency for Israel and the Jews, arguing that the “nice distinctions” between “receive” and “hear” made no difference on the ground.
Lichfield bishop Michael Ipgrave emphasized how Kairos II speaks about “Zionism and Israel in ways which are in marked contradiction to how most Jewish people understand themselves, their history, and their identity.”
Kairos II supporters in the Synod, including Archdeacon Steward Fyfe, who initiated the motion, justified the manifesto as “written after the trauma of the war in Gaza.” “Would we in any other circumstances say to survivors of trauma, ‘You can’t use that language; you are wrong’?” Fyfe asked.
Echoing Fyfe, Gloucester bishop Rachel Treweek defended the manifesto as “cries borne out of the deep trauma of war and years of occupation,” insisting that it would be “arrogant and disrespectful” to reject the Kairos reports “as if they are somehow seditious.”
Since the Church of England is the church established by law, its synodal decisions influence government policymaking.
Archbishop of Canterbury Sarah Mullally defended Kairos II, saying it “reflected the pain and trauma” of the Palestinians. In June, Mullally met with terrorism-linked activists in the Palestinian territories, praising their “faithful resistance.”
Since the Church of England is the church established by law, its synodal decisions influence government policymaking. Twenty-six of its bishops are voting members of the House of Lords and have contributed to parliamentary debates on Israel.
“The Church of England has today opened a new chapter in Christian antisemitism,” Jewish journalist Nicole Lampert wrote. “Hypocritically, they have also agreed to beef up antisemitism training in the church.”
The Israeli special ambassador to the Christian world, George Deek, an Arab Christian, denounced the Synod’s decision to endorse Kairos II shortly after its vote. “Israel strongly condemns the shameful decision of the Church of England @Synod to grant legitimacy to the extremist Kairos Palestine document,” he tweeted. “This hateful document undermines the right of the world’s only Jewish state to exist, and seeks to justify the atrocities of October 7 by blaming Israel for causing it.”
