On the 22 May this year, the House of Bishops issued a statement about the war in Gaza between Israel and Hamas. I do not normally comment on political matters on this blog, and I wish I did not have to do so on this occasion since I am fully aware that I will be accused of not caring about the suffering of the people of Gaza or supporting the present Israeli government (neither of which are true).

However, given that I am unaware of anyone else having done so, I feel I have duty as a theologian  to respond to the unequivocal statement by the bishops that the actions being undertaken by the Israel Defence Force (IDF) in Gaza are ‘a grave sin that violently assaults God-given human dignity and the very integrity of God’s creation.’ The accusation is not just that what the IDF is doing is regrettable or tragic, but that it is a ‘grave sin’. That is a very serious theological accusation and in the remainder of this blog I want to ask a series of questions about whether what the bishops say in their statement gives grounds for believing that this accusation is fair.

It is, I think, particularly important for Christian theologians to ask such questions because the kind of accusations levelled against the IDF, and by extension the state of Israel as a whole, by the bishops has been an important factor in the current rise of antisemitism across the world and therefore, if this accusation is untrue, it needs to be publicly challenged. Silence is not a moral option.

The bishops’ statement runs as follows. I have  numbered the paragraphs for ease of reference.

“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children of God.” (Matthew 5:9)

1. Recalling our Easter statement (April 14, 2025) following the Government of Israel’s bombing of the Anglican Al Ahli Hospital, we cry out in protest at the death, destruction and suffering that men, women and children have endured in Gaza, Israel and the region these last 20 months. We abhor war in all its forms and see it as a sign of human brokenness.
2. Nothing justifies the heinous terror attacks committed by Hamas on October 7 2023. In such circumstances nations have a right to self-defence in line with international law, and to hold perpetrators to account.
3. Yet, the Government of Israel has shown through its statements and actions that this is no longer a defensive war, but a war of aggression. We strongly affirm that the Palestinian inhabitants of Gaza and the West Bank have a right to live in peace and security in their homeland. Any forced displacement of people would constitute an egregious breach of international humanitarian law.
4. We have watched with horror and outrage as siege and starvation are used as a weapon of war in Gaza, and as hospitals and health facilities have been systemically targeted. Over the last three months, the Israeli government’s deliberate denial of food and medical aid to an entire civilian population is an atrocity that defies our common humanity. It is the very definition of collective punishment and has no moral justification.
5. We note that the Israeli Government has been challenged before the International Court of Justice. Starving children cannot wait for legal rulings given that every country has an obligation to prevent crimes against humanity. As Bishops we are compelled to state clearly and unequivocally that the death, suffering and destruction being inflicted on Gaza is a grave sin that violently assaults God-given human dignity and the very integrity of God’s creation.
6. We call on all sides to end the war. We call on relevant UN bodies to be allowed to administer all necessary aid in line with long standing humanitarian principles. We call for the immediate release of all hostages without condition. The continued expansion of settlements in the West Bank, the appalling levels of settler violence, and the forced displacements and house demolitions must cease.
7. We support and applaud all those Jewish voices, both inside and outside of Israel, that are courageously pressing the Israeli Government to end the war. We add our voices to those urging the Government of Israel to turn away from its current trajectory and to affirm life and human dignity for all.
8. We welcome the British Government’s decision (May 20 2025) to suspend negotiations with the Israeli government on a new free trade agreement. This is a necessary first step. Fuelling this war by the selling of arms to Israel does not serve the ends of peace consistent with international humanitarian law. The use of dehumanising language by members of the current Israeli government is dangerous and must be challenged. To maintain the hope of a long-lasting peaceful solution, governments should now formally recognise Palestine as a sovereign and independent state. To delay further invites despair.
9. For our own part, we commit to pray and to work for an end to this war, the release of all hostages and to support efforts to secure a long-term settlement that delivers security, justice and peace for Israelis and Palestinians.
10. We are deeply conscious of the real sense of fear that many within the Jewish community here feel at this moment. We treasure our relations with our Jewish brothers and sisters and will continue to condemn antisemitic rhetoric or action in all its forms. We condemn the shocking and senseless murder of two Israeli embassy staff in Washington DC.
11. We encourage dioceses and parishes to continue supporting the ongoing appeal for the Diocese of Jerusalem, including the restoring of medical facilities and the buildings of the Al Ahli Anglican Hospital in Gaza. Such efforts reassure our Palestinian Christian brothers and sisters and all other Christian communities that they are not forgotten. We give thanks for their steadfastness and faithful witness, and invite churches across the country to join us in praying for their ministry in sharing the light of Christ in such dark times. 

In paragraph 1 the bishops have failed to provide any evidence that the Al Ahi hospital did not, as the IDF claimed, contain a Hamas command and control centre, thus making it a legitimate military target. What evidence do they have to suggest that that the IDF was wrong?

Also, why does the bishop’s statement contain no condemnation of the fact that Hamas forces do not wear identifiable uniforms and have consistently made use of civilian facilities such as homes, hospitals, schools and religious buildings as bases for military activity and have in general used the civilian population in Gaza as human shields, all of which are against the rules of war? 

As Josh Warhit has noted, the number of civilian casualties in Gaza is not an accident. It is the result of a deliberate policy by Hamas to put civilians in harm’s way. In his words:

‘Hamas constructed Gaza to ensure that any meaningful attempt to dismantle its terror infrastructure will require maximum civilian suffering. The suffering isn’t a side effect – it’s the central feature of Hamas’s strategy: to embed among civilians, to ensure civilian casualties, and to weaponize those casualties as part of a global propaganda campaign aimed at weakening Israel’s international standing and forcing a halt to the fighting before Israel can achieve its goals.’

The Israeli novelist and peace activist Amos Oz brilliantly summarised the dilemma facing Israel in an interview he gave to the German newspaper Deutsche Welle in the context of Israel’s previous war with Hamas in 2014. Having been challenged about IDF airstrikes leading to the deaths of Palestinian children, Oz posed two questions to his German audience:

‘Question 1: What would you do if your neighbour across the street sits down on the balcony, puts his little boy on his lap, and starts shooting machine gun fire into your nursery?

Question 2: What would you do if your neighbour across the street digs a tunnel from his nursery to your nursery in order to blow up your home, or in order to kidnap your family?

…. I am afraid there is no way in the world to avoid civilian casualties among the Palestinians as long as the neighbour puts his child on the lap while shooting into your nursery.’ 

Why have the bishops chosen to ignore this truth?

In paragraph 3 the claim is made that ‘the Government of Israel has shown through its statements and actions that this is no longer a defensive war, but a war of aggression.’ Whatever individual Israeli politicians may have said, the Israeli government has officially said that the activities of the IDF in Gaza has two purposes, the return of the living hostages and the repatriation of the bodies of the hostages who have been killed, and the defeat of Hamas so that it will not be in a position to threaten Israel in future, given that Hamas has officially declared  ‘We will repeat the October 7 massacre again and again until Israel is destroyed.’

Two questions flow from this.

The first question is ‘Do the bishops think these war aims are wrong?’ Would the bishops say that a British government which sought to bring home British citizens and the bodies of British dead in similar circumstances be acting wrongly? Would the bishops say that a British government that sought to prevent a foreign power from attempting to destroy this county was acting wrongly?   If the answer to both these queries is ‘No,’ then why is it different for Israel?

The second question is ‘What evidence is there that the IDF’s actions are not in line with Israel’s stated war aims?’ The bishops produce no evidence to support this idea.

In paragraph 4 the bishops declare that ‘the Israeli government’s deliberate denial of food and medical aid to an entire civilian population is an atrocity that defies our common humanity. It is the very definition of collective punishment and has no moral justification.’

The question they do not answer is why it is morally unjustified to withhold supplies to Gaza when such supplies are part of what enables Hamas to continue the war? 

The relevant international legal conventions do not prohibit denial of supplies through siege or blockade in time of law (both of which were practiced by the Allies in World War II) although they also insist that civilians should be given the opportunity to leave the war zone and/or that necessary supplies be let in to provide for their needs.

Given that Hamas has deliberately turned the whole of Gaza into a war zone by embedding itself in the general population and within the civilian infrastructure, the first option is very difficult to achieve, although the IDF has arguably done its best by warning Gazans to leave areas that it intends to attack. That leaves the second option

However, carrying out the second option raises a grave practical difficulty which the bishops have failed to consider. If they were the Israeli government or military, how would they seek to prevent supplies from reaching Hamas fighters embedded in the Gazan civilian population (thus enabling them to continue the war) while at the same time providing access to supplies to non-combatants? 

As the bishops must be aware, the Israeli authorities have sought address this issue by allowing supplies into Gaza while at the same time trying to prevent Hamas from using these supplies to enable it to go on fighting. The bishops clearly don’t think that what the Israeli authorities have done has been sufficient, so the question they must answer is what they see as a better alternative.

If their answer is to let the UN and other agencies come in and do their work as they suggest in paragraph 6, then this would demand a ceasefire, which is problematic for reasons I shall mention next.

In paragraph 6 the bishops write ‘We call on all sides to end the war.’ The question here is under what circumstances the war should be ended. If the war is ended before Hamas surrenders and disarms under conditions which will prevent it from re-building, re-arming and resuming war at a later date (as it has consistently done after all previous ceasefires with Israel and as it has stated that it intends to do) then this would arguably have very serious consequences, and not only for Israel.

The American urban warfare specialist John Spencer has written:

Read it all at Reflections of an Anglican Theologian