Events in the Middle East, and terminology for them

From Mr Chris Oakes-Monger

Madam, — I was extremely disturbed to read the letter from the Revd Dr Ian K. Duffield (4 October) criticising the use of “prejudicial Palestinian militant terminology”, such as “occupation”, “settlement”, and “illegality”, in the letter from four bishops calling for a more robust response from the UK government to the situation in the Middle East (News, 4 October). These terms are not “Palestinian militant terminology”. They are, in fact, the language of United Nations (UN) resolutions and the International Court of Justice (ICJ). He says that these terms in the Middle East context are political and not legal, citing a UK expert on international law.

He goes on conveniently to dismiss both the UN and the ICJ, which, alongside the Conventions on Human Rights, constitute the post-war attempt to establish international law. The motivation for this was precisely to prevent a repeat of the Holocaust perpetrated by the Nazis. If we listen to his experts who argue that we can ignore the institutions that we have created to establish the rule of law, then international law no longer exists, and we are back to the law of the jungle, and might is right.

The UN, in its resolutions, and the ICJ, in its recent judgments, have both characterised the occupation and the settlements as illegal, and as war crimes under the law. Whether the Israeli actions in Gaza constitute genocide is still to be decided, but looks inevitable. Of course, these decisions have political implications — legal decisions often have — but Dr Duffield’s argument is simply one for denying that the law exists at all. In any case, I wonder what other terminology he would prefer to “occupation”, “settlement”, and “illegality”: “invasion”, “colonisation”, and “injustice” perhaps? Or is he really saying that the Bishops should simply be silent?

Apologists for the current Israeli regime seek to define all resistance to its colonial project as Iran-inspired, Muslim fundamentalist, illegitimate, and anti-Semitic, even when it is organised by Jews, Christians, or atheists. Canon Angela Tilby’s column (Comment, same issue), in effect ludicrously blaming Hamas for all the casualties on both sides, is typical of this narrative. The language about Hamas dehumanises and misrepresents an organisation that, like the Israeli government, in reality contains a variety of shades of opinion and ideology. Of course, war crimes were committed during the incursion on 7 October; but the fact remains that both Hamas and Hezbollah evolved, and exist, only because of the running sore of injustice perpetrated on the people of Palestine. If they and, indeed, Iran were eliminated from the scene altogether, resistance would undoubtedly still continue under some other banner.

Trying to censor the language describing what is happening, calling the flattening and starvation of Gaza self-defence, and demonising as “hate marchers” those who want the killing stopped are all part of the same attempt to deny reality. The violence dealt out in by Israel in Gaza and now in Lebanon, Yemen, and Iran will simply beget more violence and make the position of Israelis even less secure.

Possibly the most disturbing part of Dr Duffield’s letter, though, is the section where he says that the eviction of the Kisiya family from their farm is “a matter of concern”, which should be pursued through the Israeli legal system, as if he didn’t know what the reality of the settlement programme was. To read this paragraph, you would think this was a unique case to which his attention had just been drawn, not part of a context in which the land of hundreds of thousands of families has been stolen: thefts that continue on an ever increasing scale today, and that frequently involve the murder of family members with the connivance of the Israel Defense Forces.

Dr Duffield knows that there is no justice available to Palestinians through the Israeli legal system. This denial of context is from the same stable as the reactions that pretend that the war was started by Hamas, suddenly and unexpectedly, on 7 October, a denial that ignores the thousands of Palestinians already held hostage in Israeli jails and the deaths of thousands of Palestinian civilians over the past fifty years, including more than 400 in the West Bank in the 18 months preceding the incursion.

I remain convinced that a prerequisite for any solution to the conflict in the Middle East is that the British and United States governments should obey the law themselves by ceasing arms supplies to Israel, as the recent ICJ ruling demands, and use their power and influence to insist that Israel obey the law, too. Dying and injured people on all sides in the conflict are reaping the reward for the failure of the West to uphold its own legal framework. I am grateful that the bishops have spoken out.

CHRIS OAKES-MONGER
26 Blackberry Lane
Four Marks, Alton
Hampshire GU34 5BP

Conscience provision in the diocese of Oxford

From the Revd Matthew Duckett

Madam, — “Rejoice with those who rejoice,” says St Paul (Romans 12.15), and I do rejoice at the ordinations and new ministries celebrated by the Revd Professor Andrew Atherstone (Comment, 4 October). These are a good example of how generous provision can work within the breadth of the Church of England. I pray that their ministry will be blessed and fruitful.

Nevertheless, I do want to understand more clearly why the Prayers of Love and Faith have caused such distress and crises of conscience as to require such provision. I do not doubt the sincerity of this position, and it does seem to be clear to those who stand within an Evangelical frame of reference. But it remains baffling to many of the rest of us why the existence of optional prayers, which might be used by other people, is such a problem to those who choose not to use them.

In appealing for clarity towards greater understanding, I hope it is not too much to ask for a similar understanding of the distress that many of us feel, who have yet to see any change after the General Synod has twice voted for change, and who have yet to understand what the promised repentance for homophobia might amount to.

More than a year after we were told that it would be gone, Issues in Human Sexuality is still in place, and clergy in same-sex marriages still will not be given a licence or permission to officiate. Indeed, I have recently learned, such clergy who are in good standing in other Anglican Provinces cannot even be invited as guest preachers in the Church of England. PLF has not really changed anything, as the prayers simply set out options under Canon B5 for what clergy have always been able to do under Canon B5.

Professor Atherstone does well to remind us that a former generation of Evangelicals sought alternative provision for ordination, “over another matter of conscience: not marriage, but priesthood and its ritual implications”. The photograph accompanying the article, of five happy newly ordained clergy alongside Dr Tomlin, who is the author of a rather good book on priesthood, standing in the splendid chasuble in which he has just ordained them, suggests that this might not be such a matter of conscience any more.

I wonder whether the next generation of Evangelicals might look back on the crisis about PLF, and ask themselves what all the fuss was about.

MATTHEW DUCKETT
St Matthias’s Vicarage
48 Rushgrove Avenue
London NW9 6QY

Makin review: request for update from Dr Grenfell

From Mr David Lamming

Madam, — Vasantha Gnanadoss, in her letter proposing a “duty of candour” on all clergy (4 October), refers to the “much delayed Makin inquiry into the abuses by John Smyth”. The terms of reference for Mr Makin, dated October 2019, “anticipated that the Review shall be completed within no more than nine months from commencement”.

The many statements issued over the past five years have given various reasons seeking to justify the continuing delay in completion of the report. On 2 July, Mr Makin confirmed that the representation process (enabling those to be criticised to respond to the criticism) was “progressing”, but that it was “unlikely to be until the end of summer” before, after considering the responses and making any consequential amendments, he handed the report to the Archbishops’ Council. As you reported (News, 5 July), the lead bishop for safeguarding, Dr Grenfell, expressed her “deep disappointment” at the further delay, while saying that “the best option is still to continue and to wait for the revised timeline for completion.” Significantly, she added: “However, we continue to review all options available to us.”

Summer has ended with no indication of when the report may see the light of day.

I suggest that Dr Grenfell should provide an update, including the options that she and the National Safeguarding Team (NST) have reviewed and the action(s) that they have taken, or are taking, to secure publication of the report without further delay.

DAVID LAMMING
20 Holbrook Barn Road
Boxford, Suffolk CO10 5HU

Speedy nomination of the next Bishop of Carlisle

From Dr Chris Angus

Madam, — I read with interest the letter (4 October) from Canon Canning on the situation in Coventry and his suggestion that, given the existence of an excellent candidate, an executive appointment should be speedily made. He goes on to say, “Something similar could be done in Ely and Carlisle.” Indeed, it could.

As lay chair of the House of Laity of the Carlisle diocesan synod, and as a member of the Bishop’s Council, I have had ample opportunity to observe how well the Bishop of Penrith, the Rt Revd Rober Saner-Haigh, has risen to the challenge of acting as our diocesan during the vacancy. He has shown admirable qualities of leadership, not simply “keeping the show on the road”, but breathing new life into our God for All strategy and our mission communities, bringing encouragement to us all. Many of us feel that Bishop Saner-Haigh is the ideal candidate for Carlisle, with the qualities that we feel are needed at this time, strengthening us on our journey and avoiding the risk of derailment.

I am not sure that I agree with the Revd Ben Phillips’s suggestion that we should select our bishops through some form of open election, but I would suggest that, if we were to have an election in the diocese of Carlisle, there would be a very substantial vote in favour of Bishop Saner-Haigh.

CHRIS ANGUS
Burtholme East, Lanercost
Brampton CA8 2HH

‘The word of the Lord’

From Dr Brendan Devitt

Madam, — The Revd Stephen Southgate suggests (Letter, 4 October) that in place of ending a reading of scripture by saying, “This is the word of the Lord,” we should rather intone, “Hear the word of the Lord” (italics his).

If pupils sitting a SATS exam were asked to explain why saying the latter somehow exculpated God from the responsibility of having issued “horrifying” commandments in the Bible, I imagine that most would assume it was either a trick question, a theological error, or a joke.

BRENDAN DEVITT
206 Lowestoft Road
Gorleston-on-Sea
Norfolk NR31 6JQ

From the Revd Professor Ian Bradley

Madam, — There is an alternative bidding for scripture readings about which one may feel somewhat uneasy to that suggested by the Revd Stephen Southgate. John Fenton, the distinguished New Testament scholar and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford, was apparently in the habit of introducing or concluding Bible readings with the words “This may be the word of the Lord.” I have never quite had the courage to emulate him, but maybe one day I will.

IAN BRADLEY
4 Donaldson Gardens
St Andrews
Fife KY16 9DN