The Board of Deputies of British Jews has condemned the Church of England’s General Synod for promoting ‘an inflammatory and partisan programme at the expense of its interfaith relations’, in a statement of Wednesday.
The indictment of the church’s highest legislative body by British Jewry’s cross-communal body came in response to the protestant body’s endorsement of the Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme in Palestine and Israel (EAPPI), which would transport international church leaders to the West Bank to “experience life under occupation” for three to four months.
Ahead of the vote on Monday night, the Board of Deputies had petitioned church authorities not to vote in favour of the resolution to support the group, which it accused of creating “a cohort of very partisan but very motivated anti-Israel advocates who have almost no grasp of the suffering of normal Israelis”.
Following the final vote, in which 201 bishops, clergy and laity voted in favour of the motion, with only 54 voting against and 93 abstentions, the chair of the Council of Christians and Jews (CCJ, Rt. Revd. Nigel McCulloch, the UK’s oldest Jewish-Christian interfaith group, accused the Jewish community of “overlobbying” on the issue, adding that “a few people said that all the lobbying from the Jewish side led us to vote the other way”.
“The CCJ actually warned against this, as we know how the Synod works and it’s not a good way to get things done,” the church statesman, who is also the Bishop of Manchester, continued.
Other communal figures to have campaigned against the motion included the British Chief Rabbi Lord Sacks, as well as the Anglican Friends of Israel.
The Board of Deputies issued a statement slamming the Bishop’s implication, saying:
“The Jewish community does not need lessons from the Anglican Church in justice and peace, themes which originated in our tradition. Moreover, to hear the debate at Synod littered with references to 'powerful lobbies', the money expended by the Jewish community, 'Jewish sounding names' and the actions of the community ‘bringing shame on the memory of victims of the Holocaust’, is deeply offensive and raises serious questions about the motivation of those behind this motion."
The EAPPI scheme itself has been heavily criticised as participating members spend less than one week inside internationally-recognised Israeli territory as part of the programme, despite claiming to aim to “support Palestinians and Israelis working together for peace”.
In its official literature, it states that returning participants go on to “campaign for a just and peaceful resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through an end to the occupation, respect for international law and implementation of UN resolutions”.
“As has been repeatedly stated, whilst EAPPI's aims may appear admirable, its programme lacks any kind of balance and shows nothing of the context of a hugely complex situation. Unsurprisingly its graduates return with simplistic and radical perspectives, giving talks against Israel which do nothing to promote an understanding of the situation in the Middle East, much less promote a peaceful and viable solution to its problems,” continued the statement by the Jewish organisation.
“The Church of England has a duty to examine the situation in the Middle East in a balanced way. Instead, by passing this motion, it has chosen to promote an inflammatory and partisan programme at the expense of interfaith relations,” it stressed.
The Bishop of Manchester himself had campaigned to remove references to the EAPPI from the motion, which also expressed support for “Israeli and Palestinians in all organisations working for justice and peace in the area”, relaying his “disappointment” with the result. But, he insisted it was not as strong a condemnation as it could have been.
“The size of abstentions and those who voted against is really very significant. So although the motion carried, it had a majority that was much less than otherwise could have been expected. It was not an overwhelming endorsement by the Church of England,” he said.
The Bishop rejected emphatically that the endorsement in any way constituted a delegitimisation of Israel which he asserted the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Wiliams, would not condone, as well as the Board of Deputies’ conclusion on the anti-Semitic nature of the preceding debate’s dialogue:
“I don’t think I interpreted anything said as anti-Semitic,” he said. “I am pretty certain people would not have intended that to be the case and it should not fairly be emphasized.”
“Members of Jewish communities across the country have suffered harassment and abuse at EAPPI meetings and yet Synod has completely dismissed their experiences,” the Board of Deputies claimed.
In apparent contradiction to Bishop McCulloch’s previous assertions the motion’s endorsement did not signify evidence of anti-Israel sentiment in the Synod, a statement posted to the CCJ’s website on Wednesday conceded:
"A number of CCJ members with a concern for peace between Israel and Palestine have been present at EAPPI meetings where the Ecumenical Accompaniers have returned from their brief time in the Palestinian Territories and given their talks and presentations. Comments received by the CCJ have reported that unfortunately the speeches and presentations can appear to be anti-Israel and run the risk of leading to anti-Jewish sentiment.”
The contentious vote is likely to go some way to destabilising the strong interfaith links between the Jewish and Christian communities in Britain, that have received significant focus under the leadership of the current Chief Rabbi, a key figure in inter-communal dialogue.
The Board of Deputies concluded: “Justifying its decision using the views of marginal groups in Israel and the UK, the Synod has ridden rough shod over the very real and legitimate concerns of the UK Jewish community, showing a complete disregard for the importance of Anglican-Jewish relations.”
Bishop McCulloch was keen however to focus on the “brighter side” to developments, insisting:
“The Council of Christians and Jews will now make sure we put pressure on. Because of the link through the Church of England, we will demand to see some of EAPPI’s representatives explain from the Church of England why we are unhappy that [delegates] spend so much time in Palestinian areas and so little time on the Israeli side, meeting mainstream Israeli citizens, and about what appears to be biased feedback people give when they return.”

by: Shari Ryness

EJP