The Archbishop of Canterbury has accused Israel of “denying the Palestinian people dignity, freedom and hope”, adding that ending the occupation is “a legal and moral necessity”. Now, over 20 Christian leaders representing a variety of ministries in the UK with links to the Middle East, have united to condemn the legal opinion promoted by the Archbishop as, “biased, uninformed, naïve, and ultimately unbiblical”
In an unusually forthright and unbalanced statement, the Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby has welcomed the International Court of Justice (ICJ) Advisory Opinion about Israel’s “illegal” presence in the so-called “Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem”.
Though his support for the Jewish people is well-known, he seems blind to the implications of this legal opinion for the Jewish connection with their holiest city Jerusalem and the biblical heartland. We share his compassion for our Palestinian Christian brothers and sisters, and grieve over their many years of suffering. Yet we cannot agree with him, nor with the ICJ and United Nations (UN), that the State of Israel is primarily to blame for their predicament.
The responsibility for Palestinian suffering lies firmly with those, especially their Islamist rulers, whose policy is violent resistance against any Jewish sovereignty in the land.
No appeal to international legal opinions or General Assembly resolutions can reverse the eternal covenant promises of the God of Israel (Deuteronomy 4:37-40; Romans 11:28-29). So the only hope for lasting peace is a change of heart, to honour Israel’s God and live in harmony alongside the Jewish people. Political separation will only worsen the jealous hatred at the root of what is a religious conflict, which the well-meaning Archbishop fails to see.
We will see how the ICJ’s opinion is biased, uninformed, naïve, and ultimately unbiblical. Yet in his statement, Archbishop Justin insists that governments worldwide “reaffirm their unwavering commitment to all decisions by the International Court of Justice, irrespective of the situation”. For a Christian leader to express such unbounded confidence in the opinions of secular powers is shocking, ignoring biblical truth that the world is under the influence of the Father of Lies (1 John 5:19) who stirs up its rulers against the decrees of God (Psalm 2). Proper submission to our national governments with tax and with honour (Romans 13:1-7) does not require us to treat all current international legal opinions as infallible and fair. Even if judges were agreed, and they aren’t, unanimity does not guarantee justice (Acts 4:27).
In fact, the UN made its request for an advisory opinion to its own ICJ via one of its incessant stream of biased anti-Israel resolutions (77/274, Dec 2022). In that year alone, it issued more resolutions against Israel (15) than against the rest of the world combined, including Russia (6), North Korea (1), Iran (1), Afghanistan (1), and China (0). Why is the world’s only Jewish state the focus of such disproportionate attack? Rightly, this Resolution 77/274 was opposed by the UK, USA, Germany, France, Canada, Australia, and 20 other member states, passing with only 87 out of 193 nations in support, notably the Muslim countries (OIC). For its part, the Court also failed to ensure its own impartiality; its President Salam (Lebanon), who has a history of making anti-Israel statements, did not recuse himself.
The ICJ’s Advisory Opinion appears entirely uninformed about the legal recognition of the Jewish people’s indigenous claim throughout the territory between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, approved unanimously in the 1922 British ‘Mandate for Palestine’ by the League of Nations, the forerunner of the UN. These borders of Mandatory Palestine would naturally be adopted by the post-colonial state of Israel at independence in 1948, according to the standard legal principle of uti possidetis juris which Vice-President Sebutinde (Uganda) cites in her Dissenting Opinion. Yet (Trans-)Jordan immediately invaded and annexed land that it called its “West Bank”, a move that was rejected as illegal even by the Arab League. So, when Israel expelled the illegal occupation in 1967 and recaptured the territory, in what sense could this constitute “acquisition of territory by force”? If the territory did not already belong to Israel legally, no other existing state had any greater claim.
The Advisory Opinion studiously avoids admitting that Israel’s wars in 1948, 1967, and 1973 were all defensive, and never once acknowledges the constant terror attacks by Palestinians against Israeli civilians (of all ethnic groups) that forced Israel to build its “wall” and adopt policies of greater restriction on movement. Judge Cleveland rightly noted in her separate opinion (#2), “the Court had a responsibility to take into greater account the ongoing threats to Israel and its people”, and “resolution of the Israel-Palestine situation will not be achieved until the harms committed by all relevant actors are acknowledged and addressed”.
The Advisory Opinion naïvely demands that Israel withdraw completely from the strategic hill-country of the “West Bank”, as they did from Gaza in 2005. But this would be suicidal for Israel, especially since the horrific pogrom of 7 October 2023 was celebrated throughout the “West Bank”. As Judges Tomka, Abraham and Aurescu note in their joint opinion (#6), “an occupying Power is under an obligation to end an occupation as soon as it is no longer necessary to ensure its security”. If Israel’s right to self-defence and a secure territory was recognised even by the Palestinians in the negotiated Oslo Accords, why not by the ICJ, or by Archbishop Justin? He alludes to the atrocities of Hamas as “torture, hostage-taking and indiscriminate violence”, but suggests Israel’s immediate withdrawal would prevent a repeat.
On the contrary, even as recently as 23 July, the barbaric Islamist terrorist group Hamas was one of 14 Palestinian factions who signed the “Beijing Declaration” of national unity, which commended Hamas for its sadistic attacks of “valiant resistance”. We should discard the illusion that granting the Palestinians unconditional “self-determination” as demanded by the ICJ’s Advisory Opinion can achieve its “vision of two States living side by side in peace and security”. On the contrary, the Palestinian submission to the ICJ asserted their right to self-determination in the entire territory from the River Jordan to the Mediterranean Sea, denying Israel’s right to exist anywhere. Inevitably, a Palestinian state in the “West Bank” is seen as one step towards their goal of total eradication for the Jewish state in the land.
But the most significant point of this Advisory Opinion, and of the entire conflict, is in the unbiblical inclusion of “East Jerusalem” within the “inalienable right” of the Palestinians to sovereignty. During Jordanian rule from 1949–1967, all Jews were expelled from this territory, which contains the Old City and their most sacred Western Wall of the Temple Mount. Since Israel’s reunification of Jerusalem in 1967, freedom of worship has been guaranteed to all. Yet the Palestinian Authority insists that in their prospective state Jews will again be denied self-rule, especially in the Old City.
We must realise that spiritual forces are determined to derail Jesus’ promised return to a Jerusalem no longer ruled by foreign nations (Luke 21:24), in which his regathered Jewish people will be ready to welcome their Jewish Messiah (Matthew 23:37-39; Acts 1:6-8). His coming will bring judgement upon all nations who “have divided up My land” (Joel 3:2), and while “all the nations will be gathered against Jerusalem”, any who try to move this “heavy stone” will be “severely injured” (Zechariah 12:3; 14:1-5). We pray that our British nation and our church leaders turn away from this path. Let us instead join with many of our Arab and Palestinian brothers and sisters who celebrate God’s faithful replanting of his Jewish people back in the land “with all my heart and with all my soul” (Jeremiah 32:36-41; 12:14-17).
Michael Treharne, Bridges For Peace
Tim & Hayley Gutmann, Christian Action Against Antisemitism
Jane Moxon and Rufus Barnes, Church’s Ministry among Jewish people (CMJ)
Brenda Taylor, Dovetail Shalom
Alison Eastwood and Nick Coates, Ebenezer Operation Exodus
Sister Glory, Evangelical Sisters of Mary
Mark Baker, Focus on Israel
Stephen Briggs and Roy Thurley, Hatikvah Films
David Elms and Len Grates, International Christian Embassy Jerusalem (ICEJ)
Kath Charles and Nicky Butler, Lydia Fellowship
Mike & Lynn McNally, March Of Life
Brian Greenaway, Maoz
Anne Heelis, Nachamu Ami
Capt. Paul Smith, Prayer For Israel
David Tidy and Meriel Forshaw, Prayer Warriors International
Rosie Ross, Repairing the Breach
Simon Barrett, Revelation TV
Steve Maltz, Saltshakers
James David Andrew, Sword Magazine (.net)
Richard Bush, Teach All Nations: Europe
Dom McDermott and James Patrick, Towards Jerusalem Council II
Danny Stupple, Zion Projects
15 Readers' comments