The Archbishop Of Canterbury Gets Israel Wrong

Two weeks after the United Nations' top court, the International Court of Justice, issued a nonbinding advisory opinion on July 19 declaring that "the State of Israel's continued presence" in Judea, Samaria and eastern Jerusalem is "unlawful," the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Most Rvd Justin Welby, gave his unequivocal support to the opinion.

In a statement issued on Friday, the archbishop claimed that Israel is "depriving Palestinians access to their natural resources and imposing a system of military rule that denies them safety and justice." Further, he said that "the State of Israel has been denying the Palestinian people dignity, freedom and hope."

In endorsing the ICJ's opinion, the archbishop gets Israel wrong.

First, the assertion that Israel's presence in these territories is unequivocally unlawful ignores the multifaceted history and legal nuances of the situation. Israel's actions are not simply a matter of occupation but a response to a complex matrix of security concerns, historical claims and repeated failures of peace negotiations. In endorsing the ICJ opinion, the archbishop insists on a simplistic narrative of Israeli history that vilifies the Jewish state, full stop.

Moreover, the archbishop's statement noted that he wishes "to resist a world where actions such as torture, hostage-taking and indiscriminate violence become the norm."

I wish that as well, as should any peace-loving Christian. But what makes this comment from the archbishop so reprehensible is that he doesn't condemn Hamas--the very group responsible for torture, hostage-taking and indiscriminate violence.

The reason our world still contains these acts of despicable violence is not because we fail to apply the law "without fear or favor in all circumstances" but instead because terrorist groups like Hamas remain bloodthirsty in their endeavors to kill innocent Jews and Christians. Ignoring the brutal actions of Hamas while selectively condemning Israel emboldens those who perpetuate terror and violence.

Frankly, while important, the archbishop's focus on international law seems selective. One sees a pattern in the archbishop's statements. Why has the archbishop failed to acknowledge that Israel's war effort has seen the implementation of more measures to prevent civilian casualties than any other nation in history? 

Where is the outcry against the numerous human rights violations perpetrated by Palestinian authorities against their own people, including Christians? Why, when Israel is the greatest friend to Christians in the Middle East, does the archbishop always and instinctively criticize Israel? Does the archbishop of Canterbury have a Jewish problem?

Lastly, what does a future Israel look like, according to the archbishop? Many consider Jerusalem "occupied" territory and insist that the holy city, home to an abundance of Christian and Jewish holy sites, be completely under Palestinian control. Does the archbishop want to go back to the time before 1967 when no Jews were allowed into the Old City of Jerusalem? When the Jewish Quarter was an utter trash heap? When tombstones were ripped up and used to pave roads in Judea and Samaria? Is that the type of Jerusalem the archbishop longs for?

Undoubtedly, there is much, much work to be done in Israel. In the aftermath of the Oct. 7 massacre, a new vision of peace for Israel is in order. We all hope and pray for a future that sees Jews and Arabs living side-by-side in freedom, prosperity and security. True peace will only be realized when the world holds all parties accountable, supports Israel's right to defend itself, joins together to defeat terrorism and fosters an environment in which coexistence is genuinely possible.

But we do not make any progress towards that noble end by listening to the utter condemnations of Israel made by the likes of the archbishop of Canterbury. Christians deserve better from their leadership.

Originally published at JNS.org