From Senior Masorti Rabbi Jonathan Wittenberg
Kairos II is a hugely challenging document, expressing deep pain and anger. It has rightly been criticised by the Chief Rabbi of the United Synagogue, Sir Ephriam Mirvis, as a barrier to peace and understanding. It has justly been condemned by the Board of Deputies of British Jews, most especially for calling Israel a colonialist and racist state, for its total failure to acknowledge the historic relationship between the Jewish People and the Land of Israel, or to understand that Israel is an existentially necessary homeland for Jews, especially after the Holocaust. Kairos II also presents a major barrier to Jewish Christian dialogue, by differentiating between ‘acceptable’ Jews, and Jews ‘tainted’ by support for Israel.
Nevertheless, it is important for both Jews and Christians to acknowledge that Kairos II emerges from sustained suffering and ongoing injustices, exacerbated by some of the policies and ministers of the current Israeli government. These are grievous wrongs and should be called out and thoroughly addressed.
However, there is all the difference in the world between sharp and justified criticism of specific policies of its government, with which many Jews, and Israelis, might largely agree, and the condemnation of the very right of the State of Israel to exist.
The Synod’s response is more nuanced and reflects sensitive consideration. Yet that nuance risks been broadly undermined by what it fails to say.
The Synod acknowledges Israeli as well as Palestinian suffering and commits to the search for an enduring peace to end the tragic conflict in a just solution for both peoples. It does not define Israel as a colonialist entity. It acknowledges the Church’s contribution to antisemitism and Jewish suffering. It strongly reaffirms the Church of England’s commitment to Jewish-Christian dialogue and does not differentiate between Jews according to their views about Israel. These declarations are all significant and welcome. Clearly a lot of careful reflection and work has gone into this response, and the deep concern for the Jewish community expressed by speakers, including bishops, during what must have been a difficult debate is greatly appreciated.
However, the commitments outlined by the Synod risk being contradicted by stating that the Church ‘hears’ and recommends ‘engagement with’ Kairos, vague terms which are hostage to interpretation and potentially leave the door open to communities and clergy who choose to adopt Kairos II uncritically. In particular, the Church of England’s response does not explicitly condemn the definition by Kairos II of Israel as a colonialist entity, or Kairo II’s failure to acknowledge the unbroken historical connection between the Jewish People and the Land of Israel. Nor does it condemn Kairos II’s failure to acknowledge the necessity for a Jewish homeland in the wake of millennia of – often Christian – persecution, and in particular the Nazi Holocaust.
As a result, many Jews committed to dialogue and interfaith work will find the Synod’s statement inadequate and insufficiently reassuring. Kairos II and the Synod’s response are likely therefore to make cooperation, understanding and peace building more difficult at a time when they are more needed than ever. This is regrettable, as the suffering in so many Christian communities in Palestine and Israel, and the suffering of so many Israelis, cries out for acknowledgement, redress and healing.
Hopefully continued thoughtful, sensitive and courageous work between Jewish and Christian communities can bring us nearer to working together for such a deeply needed resolution.
