The Church of England's General Synod is set to debate a motion asking it to formally receive the "Kairos Palestine II" document, a contested Palestinian Christian statement on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The document has drawn sharp criticism from Jewish leaders and a prominent Anglican theologian.
It states, “The genocidal war on Gaza is the continuation of the Zionist project to seize all of Palestine, emptied of its Palestinian people.”
The motion calls on Synod to stand in solidarity with Palestinian Christians in what it describes as non-violent resistance to Israeli occupation, while also including language rejecting antisemitism and anti-Muslim hostility, and lamenting the loss of life on both sides.
Britain's Chief Rabbi, Sir Ephraim Mirvis, has strongly criticized the document ahead of the debate, saying it presents a one-sided account of a complex conflict and downplays Jewish historical experience.
He further said that it amounts to political activism dressed up as theology and risks undermining decades of Christian-Jewish relations.
Sir Ephraim said: “The content of Kairos II is deeply concerning and I would hope the Synod will see it for what it is. While it is important to recognise the suffering of Palestinian Christians, this document does so in a way which can only harm the cause of peace.”
He continued: “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.
“At a time when Christian-Jewish relations require nuance, trust and a willingness to engage with complexity, Kairos II risks undermining decades of careful relationship-building.
“Meaningful progress begins when the dignity, aspirations and suffering of all peoples are acknowledged. Kairos II takes us further away from that goal, not closer to it.”
The Board of Deputies of British Jews has issued a briefing outlining its opposition to the document, saying its central claim - that Zionism is a settler-colonial movement built on Jewish supremacy - is false and damaging enough that rejecting it is the only responsible course.
The Board added that dissemination of the document risks deepening conflict rather than advancing peace.
"If this motion is implemented, it will have immediate harmful consequences for British Jews and do potentially lasting harm to Jewish-Christian relations," it says.
"The Kairos documents, especially Kairos II, spread a toxic narrative about Jews. They do so at a time when antisemitic rhetoric, incitement and violence have surged in Britain following the horrors of 7 October, and in the context of the devastating multi-front war that followed with Iran and its proxies."
The Board calls on the Church to listen to other voices in the conflict, including those of Israelis and British Jews.
Continuing on, the briefing says, "The Kairos II document directly undermines the struggle against antisemitism, as well as Christian-Jewish dialogue.
"It attempts to restrict understanding of antisemitism in ways contrary to how it is understood by most Jews around the world. No less damaging is the call 'to boycott dialogue with Zionist voices,' which jeopardises decades of Christian-Jewish relationship building.
"In sum we urge the Church not to 'receive' but rather to reject the Kairos documents, especially Kairos II and its false and dangerous claims, just as the Church should distance itself from any initiative from either side that perpetuates demonising myths about the other."
Theologian Ian Paul, writing on his blog ahead of the debate, questioned the motion's assumption that Palestinians are committed to non-violent resistance, suggesting it ignores the historical involvement of some Palestinian Christian figures in violent groups, including the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and the Palestine Liberation Organization.
"The motion would have been fine if it either included ‘those…who’, recognising that many Palestinian Christians are not engaged in or supporting ‘non-violent resistance, or if it included a call for them to renounce violence, as well as calling for an end to violence on the part of Israelis," he wrote.
"Without this, the motion either lacks any historical awareness, or is functioning as propaganda for one side of this complex and contested issue."
He objected to other "highly contentious" terms used in the motion, including the word ‘Palestine’ to refer to an ethnic group and state "despite there having been no such group or nation in previous history".
"And the word ‘occupation’ is also used as though it were a factual descriptor. The Palestinians have indeed been occupied - by Egypt in Gaza, and in the West Bank when it was annexed by Jordan, which was in fact the very reason the country changed its name from Transjordan!" he said.
His strongly objected to the use of the term 'genocide" to describe what is happening in Gaza.
"To realise how calculating this term is in its offence to Jews, we need to remember that the word itself was coined to describe the unprecedented slaughter of Jews in Europe, when 6 million out of 9 million Jews were gassed and shot," he wrote.
"In a period since then when the global population has multiplied fourfold, the global Jewish population has still not returned to what it was before the Holocaust. That is genocide.
"When up to 1.5 million Armenians were killed in 1915–16, that is genocide.
"What is happening in the war in Gaza is appalling, and might well be judged to be unjustified and disproportionate. But the deaths of 70,000 people out of a population of 2.1 million is not ‘genocide’."
His greatest objection, however, was the lack of comment on Hamas in Kairos II: "What is truly offensive is that, in the context of Gaza, there is only one mention of Hamas, in para 1.6—and that is to justify what happened on 7th October as ‘the right of a people under occupation to resist their occupier and oppressor’."
Summing up his concerns, he wrote, "General Synod is planning to have a debate about the Kairos II Palestine document on Sunday night. In theory, it is claimed to be a listening to the voice of our Palestinian Christian brethren. But in reality, it proposes a selective and distorted account which is potential going to do irreparable harm to Jewish-Christian relations and likely to contribute to worsening antisemitism."
The Churches Ministry Amongst the Jews (CMJ), in their own response, questioned why Synod is not hearing from "other faithful Christian perspectives" and warned that this apparent bias would be a "barrier" to Jewish-Christian relations.
"We were surprised that papers intended to shape the Church’s theological engagement with Israel and Palestine appear to have been prepared without consultation, so far as we are aware, with CMJ, Jewish believers in Jesus, Israeli Christians, Hebrew-speaking congregations, or others whose experience forms an equally important part of the Church’s witness," the CMJ said.
"We therefore believe it is important that the resources commended to the Church reflect the breadth of faithful Christian concern on these questions."
Commentator Nicole Lampert, writing in The Telegraph, called Kairos II "one of the most appalling pieces of contemporary antisemitic propaganda in modern Christian history" and said that endorsing it "after apologising for a millennium of Christian hatred towards Jews would be a great betrayal".
A spokesman for the Church of England said: “A motion relating to Palestinian Christians is being brought to the General Synod following a vote at the Carlisle Diocesan Synod (first in 2021 and revised in 2025).
“We would not comment on the merits of motions due to be debated, however wider context is set out in the secretary general’s paper to synod which, in particular, encourages members to read the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance working definition of antisemitism and the Government’s new guidance on anti-Muslim hostility ahead of the debate.”
