A few weeks back was the 3rd anniversary of October 7th, a few days previously, the Green Party voted through a motion declaring “Zionism” to be a racist, declaring the Green Party to be an anti-Zionist party, opposing the existence of the state of Israel and proposing a single Palestinian state solution. I’ve been thinking through how we got to that stage for a mainstream UK party only a few years after a significant outpouring of grief, empathy and solidarity. I’ve also been thinking again about how we as Christians can understand and respond to the issues. I’ve held off publishing my thoughts as I didn’t want to let analysis overshadow memorial.
To help us understand what happened in terms of the conference motion it might be helpful to highlight three explanations or excuses that have either explicitly been made or implied.
The Zionism dispute
The three excuses are as follow: first that condemnation of Zionism as racism is neither controversial nor extreme. The argument is based on a UN Resolution that was in place between 1975 and 1991 and made similar arguments to the conference motion. What is overlooked in the argument is that the UN resolution came at the height of the Cold War and reflected the politics of that era with support primarily coming from Arab League and Soviet block countries. It should not be treated as a neutral legal judgement
In fact, when we look at judgements and decisions made today, we need to be aware of both the history that brought us to that position and the legal history connected to it. It may surprise readers to know that International Law only achieved legitimacy as a legal discipline in recent times. Further, it is a complex discipline that pulls together different aspects of law including criminal law, contract law and public/constitutional law. This means that it has only been as domestic law has increasingly been seen as a vehicle for changing society not merely bounding and protecting it that international law has been similarly seen as a project to change and redefine the world in line with specific visions and philosophies.
And that contributes to complexity in terms of Middle East history and current affairs. Take for example discussion about the occupied territories. Increasingly that has become a loaded ethical accusation. Occupation is seen as in confrontation with legitimacy. Now, it can be, sometimes is and may even be, now in this case. The history of Gaza and the West Bank is interesting. In 1947, the UN passed a resolution recommending that the British Mandate in Palestine be divided creating two homelands, a Jewish one and an Arab/Palestinian one. This was accepted by the Jewish leaders and led to the formation of Israel and recognition of its borders. However, the Arab nations around did not accept the decision and this led to the annexation of Gaza and the West Bank by Jordan and Egypt. It’s important to note that the UN resolution had no legally binding force and so borders were established through recognition. Jordan and Egypt’s new borders were not recognised, they were occupying the territories until losing them in the 1967 war.
This has led to an Israeli argument that the territories are better described as “disputed” rather than “occupied.” The problem with that argument is that identifying somewhere as “occupied” was not at that time a statement either way on moral or legal legitimacy. It was a statement of fact that the territories were under occupation and with that did come responsibilities for the occupiers. It is important therefore to recognise that such responsibilities were on Israel and that over the years there has been strong and credible criticism of Israel for failing to live up to those expectations.
The second argument is that the motion specifically defined Zionism in terms of ethno-nationalism and genocide. Therefore it is those things that are being labelled as racist. The problem with this approach is that rather than allowing a movement people group, particularly a people group that have themselves experienced displacement and persecution to define its own identity. Instead a definition is imposed from the outside in a hostile manner.
Zionism started out as a response in the 19th Century to the experience of the Jewish diaspora of thousands of years of their homeland being occupied by empires from the Assyrians to the Ottomans, of displacement and persecution through progroms. The Holocaust was not an isolated, unique event but a continuation of that experience but at a far more horrific scale. At its simplest, Zionism is simply the desire of Jewish people for a homeland, specifically an ancestral homeland of their own. Now, there’s diversity within that. There are Jews who particularly root their Zionism in their Scriptures and religious beliefs whilst others focus more on recent shared history and culture. There’s Christian Zionism, often framed by particular eschatological views that see the reestablishment of Israela and rebuilding of the Temple as key to end time prophecy. Then there are pragmatic Zionists who recognise the desire for a homeland as legitimate, consider the 1948 state as a reasonable response to persecution and furthermore, whatever the original rights and wrongs, see a pluralistic, democratic nation with a right to self-determination.
Alongside that, we do have to recognise that there are Zionists that go beyond the vision and have an expansionist motive. There have also been those who have used Zionism as a means to exploit others and those that seek to achieve goals by any means necessary. It is possible to critique those and allow for debate in relation to Zionism as a movement without seeking to define the movement by its extremes and distortions. In fact, this is important because if we simply create a strawman to label then we have not really engaged with Zionism as a movement at all. We’ve just played a game of saints and monsters.
Thirdly, there is a particularly challenging question, “What about Zac Polenski”. Here is a Jewish man, leading a political party, seemingly happy with the motion. This goes beyond the Greens and Polanski’s. There have been plenty of Jews across the political spectrum who are not only critical of Israel and reject Zionism but also would use the same strong language against it. There are Jews who reject the assertion that their people are being subject to antisemitism.
What do we do with that? Well, I think there are a couple of dangers to avoid. The first is to suggest that because some Jews don’t have a problem with something that it cannot be antisemitic. This is similar to the risk of dismissing the existence of racism against black people because of reports from ethnic minority authors insisting that there isn’t a major problem with racism in the UK. The other extreme is to treat such people as “race traitors” in a similar way to the use of “coconut” as a slur.
Once again, it’s helpful to observe that real life and history is messy unlike our tidy rhetoric. I’m still thinking through some thoughts on this so please forgive me if they are still rough and ready. I think the first thing to observe is that we cannot and should not treat Jewish people as a homogenous entity. There’s much diversity across the Jewish world. We can particularly identify three groups, though that is still a bit of an over simplification. There are Israeli Jews who have settled there and identify with the specific national culture and modern heritage. Then there are those from the Jewish diaspora who see the homeland as a significant part of their identity whether they long to return or not. This may indeed include non-Zionist orthodox Jews who disagree with the project but still have a shared cultural heritage. Finally there are those who in many ways are shaped by the culture in which their families have lived for generations and in which they have grown up. They may see Israeli culture and Zionist philosophy in conflict with that especially if they are shaped by western, progressive thinking. This may lead to some people feeling conflicted.
And what that means is that there can be tensions where “racism” may not be the right word because they are within an ethnic identity. However, there does seem to be either a fear, paternalism or hostility towards those perceived as other. Again, we can see this in other contexts where early settlers into a new country may be suspicious of more recent arrivals and where third and fourth generation onwards you might see negative attitudes to those living on or rooted in the culture of the homeland.
Finally, I think we also need to consider that if we have given attention to systemic and structural racism and the risks of hidden bias when it comes to other forms of racism that we may not have given that sufficient attention with regards to antisemitism. Consider how it is possible to consider institutions as institutionally racist even though they have people from ethnic minorities in senior roles or how those concerned with gender might argue that having women in leadership in politics and business does not automatically remove the problem of sexism. We might want to analyse institutions through the same lens when it comes to antisemitism. An institution may have its blind spots on antisemitism just as it can on other examples of discrimination.
Thinking Christianly
How do we respond to these issues as Christians. Well obviously, I’m going to insist that we think Biblically. However, that is not without its challenges. Some people will go straight to some passages and some to others. In particular we might consider the way that Christian Zionism is rooted in a particular eschatological interpretation.
I’m not going to become all relativist here and argue that nothing really can be said for certain. Regular readers will recognise that I personally do not agree with that particular eschatology and believe there is strong evidence against it. But in any case, I think the risk is that any of us can actually confuse being Biblical with using Scripture to impose our own agendas and miss both the needs of people, whether Jews or Palestinians. More importantly we can ignore God’s purposes.
So when thinking through the issue, I want instead of prescribing a take, to encourage you to ask the following questions:
- Do I land in a place that honours truth?
- Do I land in a place that shows love?
- Do I land in a place that bears witness to the Gospel?
- Do I land in a place that glorifies God?
From: Dave Williams <dave-williams74@hotmail.co.uk>
Sent: 07 October 2026 15:28
To: Chris Yeo <chris@churchcentral.org.uk>
Subject: zionism article
Zionism started out as a response in the 19th Century to the experience of the Jewish diaspora of thousands of years of their homeland being occupied by empires from the Assyrians to the Ottomans, of displacement and persecution through progroms. The Holocaust was not an isolated, unique event but a continuation of that experience but at a far more horrific scale. At its simplest, Zionism is simply the desire of Jewish people for a homeland, specifically an ancestral homeland of their own. Now, there’s diversity within that. There are Jews who particularly root their Zionism in their Scriptures and religious beliefs whilst others focus more on recent shared history and culture. There’s Christian Zionism, often framed by particular eschatological views that see the reestablishment of Israela and rebuilding of the Temple as key to end time prophecy. Then there are pragmatic Zionists who recognise the desire for a homeland as legitimate, consider the 1948 state as a reasonable response to persecution and furthermore, whatever the original rights and wrongs, see a pluralistic, democratic nation with a right to self-determination.
Alongside that, we do have to recognise that there are Zionists that go beyond the vision and have an expansionist motive. There have also been those who have used Zionism as a means to exploit others and those that seek to achieve goals by any means necessary. It is possible to critique those and allow for debate in relation to Zionism as a movement without seeking to define the movement by its extremes and distortions. In fact, this is important because if we simply create a strawman to label then we have not really engaged with Zionism as a movement at all. We’ve just played a game of saints and monsters.
Thirdly, there is a particularly challenging question, “What about Zac Polenski”. Here is a Jewish man, leading a political party, seemingly happy with the motion. This goes beyond the Greens and Polanski’s. There have been plenty of Jews across the political spectrum who are not only critical of Israel and reject Zionism but also would use the same strong language against it. There are Jews who reject the assertion that their people are being subject to antisemitism.
What do we do with that? Well, I think there are a couple of dangers to avoid. The first is to suggest that because some Jews don’t have a problem with something that it cannot be antisemitic. This is similar to the risk of dismissing the existence of racism against black people because of reports from ethnic minority authors insisting that there isn’t a major problem with racism in the UK. The other extreme is to treat such people as “race traitors” in a similar way to the use of “coconut” as a slur.
Once again, it’s helpful to observe that real life and history is messy unlike our tidy rhetoric. I’m still thinking through some thoughts on this so please forgive me if they are still rough and ready. I think the first thing to observe is that we cannot and should not treat Jewish people as a homogenous entity. There’s much diversity across the Jewish world. We can particularly identify three groups, though that is still a bit of an over simplification. There are Israeli Jews who have settled there and identify with the specific national culture and modern heritage. Then there are those from the Jewish diaspora who see the homeland as a significant part of their identity whether they long to return or not. This may indeed include non-Zionist orthodox Jews who disagree with the project but still have a shared cultural heritage. Finally there are those who in many ways are shaped by the culture in which their families have lived for generations and in which they have grown up. They may see Israeli culture and Zionist philosophy in conflict with that especially if they are shaped by western, progressive thinking. This may lead to some people feeling conflicted.
And what that means is that there can be tensions where “racism” may not be the right word because they are within an ethnic identity. However, there does seem to be either a fear, paternalism or hostility towards those perceived as other. Again, we can see this in other contexts where early settlers into a new country may be suspicious of more recent arrivals and where third and fourth generation onwards you might see negative attitudes to those living on or rooted in the culture of the homeland.
Finally, I think we also need to consider that if we have given attention to systemic and structural racism and the risks of hidden bias when it comes to other forms of racism that we may not have given that sufficient attention with regards to antisemitism. Consider how it is possible to consider institutions as institutionally racist even though they have people from ethnic minorities in senior roles or how those concerned with gender might argue that having women in leadership in politics and business does not automatically remove the problem of sexism. We might want to analyse institutions through the same lens when it comes to antisemitism. An institution may have its blind spots on antisemitism just as it can on other examples of discrimination.
Thinking Christianly
How do we respond to these issues as Christians. Well obviously, I’m going to insist that we think Biblically. However, that is not without its challenges. Some people will go straight to some passages and some to others. In particular we might consider the way that Christian Zionism is rooted in a particular eschatological interpretation.
I’m not going to become all relativist here and argue that nothing really can be said for certain. Regular readers will recognise that I personally do not agree with that particular eschatology and believe there is strong evidence against it. But in any case, I think the risk is that any of us can actually confuse being Biblical with using Scripture to impose our own agendas and miss both the needs of people, whether Jews or Palestinians. More importantly we can ignore God’s purposes.
So when thinking through the issue, I want instead of prescribing a take, to encourage you to ask the following questions:
- Do I land in a place that honours truth?
- Do I land in a place that shows love?
- Do I land in a place that bears witness to the Gospel?
- Do I land in a place that glorifies God?
