Archbishop Welby and the Chief Rabbi: conjoined in error

Archbishop Justin Welby and Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis. The Image is from Robert Cohen's landmark article 'Christian-Jewish Dialogue Must Be More Than Taking Tea And Talking Antisemitism' (see https://www.patheos.com/blogs/writingfromtheedge/2018)

I’m a Jewish member of the Lambeth Witness Group (LWG). On the 25th June, the Group congregated outside Westminster Abbey to give voice, through a series of speeches, to our objections to Archbishop Welby’s, and the Church of England’s, stance on Israel’s war against Palestinians in Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

This article is an edited version of my contribution to the vigil.

............................................................................................................................................................. 

So how comes it that a Jew is standing here outside Westminster Abbey protesting about the Church of England and its leadership, in particular that of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby?

It is because Archbishop Welby is head of a specifically Established Church; a church woven into the constitutional structure of the UK as a whole, via the 26 seats the church has in the – unelected – House of Lords. 

Particular responsibility

It seems to me this confers particular responsibilities on the Archbishop and the church leadership as a whole. Those responsibilities are:

• To act as a stable moral reference point for society as a whole. This does not mean the church has authority to insist on or impose its view on anybody. It means, simply put, that in coming to our own positions, the Church’s view is worth thinking about, whether we ultimately agree with it or not; 

• To effectively manage the Church’s relationship with those of other faiths and none. My particular concern here is its relationship to Jews, be they religiously orthodox, or have no religion-based faith at all, but are Jews nonetheless.

These two aspects, the church as moral reference point and its relationship with other faiths and none, come together in a profoundly significant, deeply distressing, way when we consider the church’s position on the Palestinian/Israel issue; and, of course what is happening in Gaza, even as we stand here now.

It is unconscionable that the church took so long to support a ceasefire and still does not, as a whole, call for a ceasefire to be permanent. This is in contrast to the four senior Church of England clerics who have signed the Churches for Middle East Peace coalition’s demands for a permanent ceasefire and ending arms sales to Israel.

This, strangely and sadly, is not yet the position of the Church of England as a whole. This is shameful and stands in direct contradiction to the idea that an Established Church should be a crystal-clear moral reference point for us all.

As alarming, is the archbishop’s refusal to call out Israel as an Apartheid state. This, despite detailed and wide-ranging reports confirming this is the case from B’tselem – an Israeli human rights organisation – along with Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch.

Does the Archbishop not know that Israel’s Nation-State Basic Law makes clear that only Jews in Israel have the right to self-determination despite 20% of the population being Palestinian, people whose families lived in the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea since prior to 1948 and up to now?

Does he not know that the same Basic Law enshrines the development and consolidation of settlements as a national value? Those settlements are on stolen occupied Palestinian land in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

Welby also claims that Israel has the right to self-defence. This is simply wrong. An Occupying Power, as Israel is in Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem, has no right of self-defence against the people it is occupying under international law.

Ethnic cleansing

Equally, as we watch in mute horror at the Israeli onslaught in Gaza, the deliberate withholding of food and medicine, and the destruction of homes, ambulances, hospitals, mosques, churches, universities, sewage and clean water supplies, surely this is ethnic cleansing taking place before our eyes.

Gaza destruction showing the flag of Israel

But this is not all, for while the focus has been on Gaza, murderous settler-thugs, often supported by the army or police undertake a programme of pogrom-like violence against the Palestinians of the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

B’Tselem – the Israeli human rights organisation I mentioned earlier – records that, as of 10 June, settlers have forced at least 18 Palestinian communities to flee their homes since October, affecting over 1,000 people.

Settlers on the West Bank do exactly what their name implies: they permanently expel Palestinians from their land and livelihoods in order to settle – take over – the land themselves. This is ethnic cleansing.

So, what exactly is Archbishop Welby’s difficulty in accepting this, and coming out strongly against it?

Once again, there is silence where a strong Church of England moral voice should be.

Inter-faith relations

I turn now to Archbishop Welby’s relationship with other faiths, in particular, my lot, Jews.

The archbishop has developed a seemingly close – too close – relationship with what I shall call the Jewish Establishment: the Chief Rabbi and the Board of Deputies of British Jews. However, as we know, Establishments are very often not at all representative of all the people they claim to speak for.

The Archbishop needs to be clear that there is a line to be drawn between fostering positive inter-faith relationships, and crossing that line by naively cosying up to the Chief Rabbi and Board of Deputies.

The ever-growing Jewish Block comprising hundreds of Israel-critical Jews demonstrating in favour of a permanent ceasefire and ending arms supplies to Israel is vibrant testament to the fact that neither the Chief Rabbi nor the Board of Deputies represent all Jews. They don’t.

To be clear, I am not criticising, indeed quite the opposite, the nurturing of positive, enduring and deep, relationships between people of different faiths, be that with Islam, Christianity, Judaism, or other faiths.  But this must not stray into lending support to the Israeli/Zionist lobby and confusing this with being supportive of Jews concerned about antisemitism.

The Chief Rabbi’s errors

In 2019, the Chief Rabbi shockingly intervened in the British General Election against one candidate, Jeremy Corbyn. In so doing, he made outrageous accusations that somehow Corbyn was antisemitic, or he was allowing antisemitism to take root in the Labour Party and that British Jews were gripped by a justified anxiety about the prospect of a Corbyn government.

The Chief Rabbi was wrong, not least because he spoke as though he represented all Jews, which was verifiably not the case.  

Archbishop Welby’s errors

To add insult to injury, Archbishop Welby felt moved to support the Chief Rabbi by issuing a statement endorsing the idea that Jews – all Jews – were afeared of a Labour victory. This Jew – me – felt no such thing, nor did any of those I know; or the ones marching with Muslims, Christians, and those of no faith at the demonstrations.

Two aspects here are massively wrong: Welby should not have involved himself – and therefore the church – in the party politics of the election, and most certainly should not have aligned himself with the Chief Rabbi.  In so doing, the Archbishop lent credence, as did the Chief Rabbi, to the antisemitic trope that all Jews think alike. We don’t.

We therefore strongly urge Archbishop Welby:

1. To insist that our government calls on Israel and Hamas to implement an immediate, unconditional and permanent ceasefire;

2. That our government resume funding UNWRA, the relief agency that was most effective in ensuring vital aid was delivered to Gaza;

3. To insist that our government immediately stops arms sales to Israel;

4. That our government take action to condemn Israel’s ethnic cleansing project;

5. That Archbishop Welby sincerely engages with Jewish Israel-critical opinion.

Thank you

Notes:

i) this is from Bernard's blog. He writes mainly about Palestine/Israel and related issues; sometimes other stuff too;

ii) reader: please add your comments below.