Misused Words, Misleading Witness: A Response to Archbishop Cottrell’s Accusations Against Israel

A Grave Misuse of Moral Language
The Archbishop of York’s recent accusation that Israel is committing “genocidal acts” in Gaza and practising “apartheid” and “ethnic cleansing” in the West Bank marks a striking escalation in Anglican public rhetoric. These remarks were made in a Church Times interview conducted on 17 November 2025 and published on 18 November 2025, in which Archbishop Cottrell reflected on his recent visit to Israel and the West Bank and claimed he could think of “no other words” to describe what he witnessed¹. He later repeated these accusations the following morning during an address to aid organisations gathered in Jerusalem². To employ such terms is not merely a political statement but a theological one, laden with consequences for the Church’s witness. Each term carries a precise juridical definition in international law and bears the weight of the darkest moments of human history. Their careless deployment obscures the distinction between legal fact and emotive impression. A senior prelate’s words shape public understanding far beyond the Church, which is precisely why the Christian tradition demands precision, restraint, and moral clarity rather than rhetorical intensity.

The Collapse of Legal Precision
Genocide is defined in international law as the intentional destruction of a people in whole or in part³. Archbishop Cottrell concedes that he does not accuse Israel of genocide but insists on describing Israeli operations as “genocidal acts”—a phrase unknown to the Genocide Convention and undefined in international jurisprudence. Such terminology is not neutral. It introduces the gravest category of moral accusation without shouldering the evidentiary burden that accompanies it. Apartheid, likewise, refers not to social inequity or security-based restrictions but to a codified legal system of racial subjugation⁴. However severe or unjust particular Israeli policies may be, no equivalent legislative architecture exists. To invoke apartheid is to import South African imagery into a different and far more complex political conflict. The accusation of ethnic cleansing similarly collapses a term forged in the Balkan wars—denoting the deliberate removal of a population through force⁵—into a catch-all expression of political grievance. These terms exist to distinguish the darkest crimes from the tragic consequences of war. Their inflation does not illuminate the conflict; it distorts moral judgment.

An Incomplete Moral Narrative
Cottrell’s interview comments were offered immediately after a tour of the region that included a visit to the Palestinian village of Umm al-Khair, where he encountered armed settlers and heard testimonies describing Palestinian communities as being “squeezed out.” He also met with Palestinian Christian women at St Andrew’s in Ramallah, who presented him with a letter urging him to “tell the world what is happening” and appealed for him to embrace the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement—an appeal he admitted had influenced his choice of language⁶. At St George’s Cathedral Guesthouse in East Jerusalem, Cottrell held a further meeting with Rabbis for Human Rights, where staff member Anton Goodman described violent settler activity and argued that new moral language was required to confront it. These conversations shaped the Archbishop’s subsequent statements and helped explain his dramatic rhetorical escalation.

Yet equally troubling is the Archbishop’s silence on the initiating horrors of 7 October 2023, when Hamas militants entered Israeli territory, massacred civilians, carried out acts of extreme brutality, and abducted hostages⁷. This omission is not incidental. It reshapes the moral field entirely. Hamas’s openly declared commitment to Israel’s destruction⁸, its embedding of military assets in hospitals and schools⁹, and its diversion of humanitarian aid¹⁰ all form part of the moral analysis required to evaluate the proportionality and intent of Israeli actions. By excluding these realities, the Archbishop presents Palestinian suffering as an isolated moral phenomenon rather than the tragic consequence of a conflict initiated and perpetuated by armed groups sworn to perpetual war. A Christian leader must be able to name the suffering of both peoples. Compassion without context is not compassion; it is sentimentality.

The Drift Toward an Ideological Framework
The Archbishop’s rhetoric bears the marks not of classical Christian moral reasoning but of contemporary liberationist ideology. This rhetorical pattern was reinforced by his encounters during the trip, especially meetings with activist groups who frame the conflict in oppressor–oppressed categories. Phrases such as “parallel life”, “moral clarity”, and “tell the world what is happening” echo the binary categories of liberation discourse. Yet the Church’s tradition teaches that sin attaches to persons, not peoples; that justice requires an account of intention, proportionality, and discrimination; and that truth is not reducible to narrative sympathy. Liberationist rhetoric provides emotional clarity at the cost of intellectual substance, replacing moral discernment with a hermeneutic of grievance. In the process, it risks sanctifying one people’s testimony while rendering another’s invisible.

The Escalation to BDS
Particularly alarming is the Archbishop’s openness to the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement—a stance he linked directly to the appeals made to him by Palestinian Christians during his visit, as reported in the Church Times interview. BDS is not a neutral ethical tool but a political campaign widely criticised for its discriminatory implications, its rejection by European institutions, and its alignment with maximalist anti-Israel activism rather than reconciliation¹¹. For a senior Church of England leader to gesture toward supporting BDS represents a decisive shift from diplomacy to ideological partisanship. When the Church adopts the tools of political warfare, it abandons its vocation as a mediator and bearer of truth. Christian moral witness should never be subsumed into campaigns designed to isolate entire nations rather than address specific injustices.

A Setback for Jewish–Christian Relations and Anglican Engagement with Israel
Cottrell’s intervention also constitutes a significant diplomatic misstep. The UK’s Jewish communities—many already alienated by the Church of England’s handling of past controversies—are likely to interpret the Archbishop’s language as a revival of the Church’s historic tendencies toward one-sided judgments in the Middle East. British Jewish leaders have repeatedly urged Christian denominations to avoid adopting activist terminologies that have been used to delegitimise Israel’s very existence. For the Archbishop of York to use unverified legal accusations such as “genocidal acts” and “ethnic cleansing” will therefore be seen as a breach of good faith, eroding years of delicate interreligious bridge-building.

Anglican–Israel relations will similarly suffer. Diplomatic engagement requires statesmanship, clarity, and an ability to distinguish between legitimate criticism and incendiary accusation. Instead, Cottrell’s remarks appear impulsive, shaped by unbalanced briefings, and lacking in the even-handedness expected of a senior churchman on an international visit. No consultation with Israeli officials, legal scholars, or security experts is recorded; the Archbishop’s narrative was shaped almost entirely by activist voices on one side of the conflict. For an Anglican Primate to return from Jerusalem and publicly broadcast legally undefined allegations—without verifying their accuracy or considering their diplomatic consequences—constitutes a serious faux pas. Such statements undermine the credibility of Anglican representation abroad and risk permanently diminishing the Church’s access to Israeli dialogue partners. In international Christian–Jewish relations, language matters. Precision is not optional; it is the currency of trust. When senior church leaders abandon diplomatic discipline, the damage is not theoretical. It is immediate, relational, and lasting.

Deepening Divisions in an Already Fractured Church
The Archbishop’s claim that the Church of England is marked by “profound disagreements but not huge divisions” is difficult to reconcile with reality. The Church remains fractured over doctrine, ecclesial authority, sexual ethics, and liturgy. Into this unstable landscape he has introduced some of the most charged political terminology available, amplifying international conflict within an already fragile ecclesial body. The Church’s calling is to speak with a voice that heals rather than inflames. When bishops adopt the rhetoric of hyper-politicised global movements, they deepen internal fractures and undermine the Church’s ability to act as a credible moral witness.

Truth, Precision, and the Christian Duty to Build Peace
Christian moral teaching insists upon truth, precision, and hope. Truth requires acknowledging suffering on both sides of a conflict rather than constructing a narratively convenient moral field. Precision requires using legal terms faithfully rather than bending them to expressive or symbolic purposes. Hope requires language that seeks peace, reconciliation, and the restoration of justice without collapsing into ideological certainty. The Archbishop’s statements fail in all three respects. By using the gravest terms of international law without establishing the necessary factual foundation, he substitutes activism for analysis, rhetoric for discernment, and indignation for justice. At a time of immense global tension and deepening polarisation, Christian leaders must choose their words with care. The world does not need the Church to echo political slogans; it needs the Church to speak with clarity, sobriety, and a commitment to whole truth. The tragedy of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict requires moral seriousness, not rhetorical escalation.

¹ Francis Martin, “Archbishop of York describes Israeli action…”, Church Times, 18 November 2025.
² Ibid.
³ United Nations, Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948).
⁴ International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (1973).
⁵ United Nations Commission of Experts (Former Yugoslavia), Final Report (1994).
⁶ Francis Martin, Church Times, 18 November 2025.
⁷ Israel MFA, Report on the Events of 7 October 2023 (2023).
⁸ Hamas, Charter of the Islamic Resistance Movement (1988).
⁹ Amnesty International, reports on civilian infrastructure use in Gaza (2014–2023).
¹⁰ United Nations OCHA, Gaza operational updates (2023–2024).
¹¹ European Parliament Research Service, BDS Movement: Positions and Critiques (2022).

A Door Closed in Lent: The SSPX Pilgrimage and the Crisis of Catholic Inclusion

Repentance Without Conversion: Project Spire, Moral Substitution, and the Collapse of Theological Formation in the Church of England

January 20, 2026

Germany at the Precipice: Pope Leo XIV, the German Synodal Conference, and the Limits of Synodality

Latest

Tradition as Concession? Cardinal Roche, Traditionis Custodes, and the Crisis of Liturgical Continuity
In a recent interview, Cardinal Arthur Roche defended the Vatican’s restrictions on the traditional Latin Mass, referencing the 2021 motu proprio Traditionis Custodes. This controversy raises deeper theological questions about the nature of tradition and authority within the Catholic Church, challenging the perception of liturgical heritage and unity as contingent.
The Free Speech Bill and the Crisis of Liberty: Can Britain Still Speak Freely?
The proposed Free Speech Act 2026 Model Bill challenges the current regulatory framework governing free speech in the UK. It aims to restore near-absolute freedom of expression, akin to the American First Amendment, by repealing existing laws that limit speech based on potential harm or offence. The Bill asserts the primacy of objective liberty over subjective sensibilities, urging a fundamental reassessment of the State’s role in regulating expression.
A Door Closed in Lent: The SSPX Pilgrimage and the Crisis of Catholic Inclusion
On 28 March 2026, a pilgrimage by the Society of Saint Pius X to Our Lady of Sorrows in Cuceglio was met with closed doors, reflecting a broader crisis in Catholic inclusion. This incident highlights tensions between the Church’s pastoral language of welcome and its actions, posing questions about the balance of truth and inclusion within ecclesial practice.
Today’s homily: Spy Wednesday
The message reflects on the theme of betrayal, particularly through Judas Iscariot’s actions, contrasting love and treachery. It urges individuals to examine their own divided hearts and choices between fidelity and convenience. Ultimately, it emphasizes the mercy of Christ and the importance of choosing repentance over betrayal as believers approach the altar.
Stational Reflection Spy Wednesday: Statio ad St Mariam Majorem
On Spy Wednesday, the Church takes us to the Basilica of Saint Mary Major, where we reflect on betrayal and fidelity. This day emphasizes the interconnectedness of Christ’s birth and Passion, illustrating Mary’s quiet strength amid sorrow. It invites us to choose between faithfulness like Mary or betrayal like Judas, reminding us that true discipleship involves enduring love and perseverance.