Archbishop: Synod Call Was Expression Of 'Concern'

Friday 10th February 2006

Dr Williams expressed his 'deep regret' at the effect on 'Jewish friends and neighbours' of how the Synod's decision had been perceived. He stressed, however, that the Synod vote did not intend or effect a disinvestment policy nor initiate a boycott, but was rather an expression of disquiet at the prospect of the church making financial profit from a controversial security policy. Although the Anglican Church in the region had called for disinvestment, the Synod had not chosen that path.

"Our response was ... to continue to examine our policy, to engage with companies about whom we had concerns and, specifically, to encourage a fact-finding visit to the Holy Land."

Dr Williams rejected out of hand any suggestion that the vote in any way undermined the Church's stance on anti-Semitism.

"No-one in the Synod would have an instant's sympathy with any such hostility to the Jewish people or the State of Israel ... or tolerate anything that could appear to endorse terrorist activities or anti-Semitic words or actions."

He stressed his own commitment to the process of learning and personal engagement:

"I want you to know that I am committed to a continued personal engagement with the Jewish communities in Israel and in the United Kingdom. I know from our long-standing friendship just how much there is still to be learned in this country about the positive and constructive things that are being done by so many to bring hope and peace in the face of violence and hatred."

The full text of letter to the Chief Rabbi follows:

Dear Jonathan,

There has been much adverse comment on the resolution passed last Monday by the Church of England Synod to review its investment in certain companies involved in the Palestinian territories, and much distress has been caused, especially to our Jewish friends and neighbours here and elsewhere. This distress is a cause of deep regret; as one who was present, it may be helpful for me to clarify what this resolution did and did not say and, even more importantly, what it did and did not imply.

The Synod has not, by this action, resolved to disinvest; although the resolution was a response to a call from our sister church in the region to disinvest, our response took the form of deciding (in accordance with the resolution of the international Anglican Consultative Council last June) to continue to examine our policy, to engage with companies about whom we had concerns and, specifically, to encourage a fact-finding visit to the Holy Land. This, of course, is in line with the existing advice from the Church's Ethical Investment Advisory Group.

The majority in the Synod was clearly particularly unhappy with the idea of the church profiting from one specific and controversial security policy. The demolition of Palestinian homes in recent years has been a regular source of controversy, and raises moral issues of some seriousness. To register our concern over this and to review whether we should or could continue with an investment policy which appeared to accept something with which we were deeply uneasy is emphatically not to commend a boycott, or to question the legitimacy of the State of Israel and its rights to self-defence; least of all is it to endorse any kind of violence or terror against Israel and its people, or to compromise our commitment to oppose any form of anti-Semitism at home or abroad. No-one in the Synod would have an instant's sympathy with any such hostility to the Jewish people or the State of Israel as such, and I believe that this was made clear in the actual debate in Synod, where concerns were raised and fully accepted about the sufferings of Jewish communities as well as others in the Holy Land.

We would ask that those who have been most critical of the resolution would accept that the focus of what was resolved was a genuine and conscientious question about a specific policy and the specific level of involvement of certain companies. A process has now been initiated in which I hope that all interested parties will have full opportunity to state their case. It is specially unfortunate that this has arisen at a time when, as we are well aware, anti-Semitism is a growing menace and when the State of Israel faces some very particular challenges not only in respect of the new administration in the territories administered by the Palestinian Authority but also elsewhere in the region.

I must repeat that no-one in the Synod would endorse anything that could even appear to endorse terrorist activities or anti-Semitic words or actions. But there is a real concern which we hope our Jewish and Israeli colleagues will help us address honestly and constructively.

Proper knowledge and clear communications are essential. I want you to know that I am committed to a continued personal engagement with the Jewish communities in Israel and in the United Kingdom. I know from our long-standing friendship just how much there is still to be learned in this country about the positive and constructive things that are being done by so many to bring hope and peace in the face of violence and hatred.

With every good wish,

Rowan CANTUAR

Back · Back to top