Modern Antisemitism and the Church: What the Statements Reveal

Since the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack on Israel, churches around the world have issued public statements about the war in Gaza and the broader Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I wondered if there was a pattern to these statements. What I discovered was lamentable.

In Canada, the mainline liberal Protestant denominations—United Church of Canada (UCC), Anglican Church of Canada (ACC), Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada (ELCIC), Presbyterian Church in Canada (PCC), and the Christian Reformed Church in North America (CRCNA, Canada branch)—have issued at least 23 official statements, open letters, prayers, and declarations through denominational websites and ecumenical partnerships (e.g., KAIROS, Citizens for Public Justice). These documents cover everything from calls for ceasefire and humanitarian aid to accusations of war crimes and genocide.

In fact, a closer look at the content reveals a striking pattern. While most statements include some perfunctory condemnation of Hamas, not a single one condemns Hamas for starting the war without also blaming Israel—usually in the same breath. This raises important questions about moral equivalency, rhetorical framing, and potentially even antisemitic bias embedded in contemporary liberal Christian discourse.

Let’s be clear: many church leaders did express revulsion at the horrors of October 7.  Hamas was condemned for killing civilians, taking hostages, and violating international law. However, these statements were always structured to immediately pivot toward condemning Israel’s response. Here’s a representative example from the United Church of Canada’s open letter to Prime Minister Trudeau:

“We unequivocally condemn the brutal attacks by Hamas on Israeli civilians… We equally condemn the Israeli bombardment of Gaza and the collective punishment of 2.2 million people.”

This structure—condemnation of Hamas immediately followed by criticism of Israel—is repeated across nearly all the documents analyzed. The rhetorical effect is clear: disproportionate blame on Israel, mutual violence, and equal condemnation.

Even in the most recent statements issued in 2025, the pattern persists. Hamas is sometimes mentioned, but always as one actor among many, its responsibility contextualized by the Israeli “occupation,” “blockade,” “settler violence,” or “colonialism.” In some recent documents, Hamas is not mentioned at all.

What is never present, however, is a statement that isolates Hamas as the instigator of the war—let alone one that focuses on its role without also condemning Israel in the same document. This is not to suggest that Israel should be immune from criticism. But the absence of any moral asymmetry—in a moment when Hamas clearly initiated hostilities with an unprecedented terrorist massacre—betrays an ideological reluctance to hold Palestinian actors accountable, even for war crimes. It is even more alarming that these public statements offer no theological justification for the anti-Israel bias. Apparently, standing in solidarity with Palestinians is equated with a theological case. What would the Jewish Jesus think about that?

This pattern of blaming Israel raises a deeper issue: are these church statements offering legitimate political critique or are they veering into something else—something more dangerous?

To answer that question, it’s worth turning to Natan Sharansky, the former Soviet dissident, Israeli politician, and human rights activist. In the early 2000s, Sharansky developed a simple but powerful framework for distinguishing legitimate criticism of Israel from antisemitism in public discourse. He called it the Three Ds:

1. Demonization

This occurs when Israel is portrayed as uniquely evil, monstrous, or a global menace—disproportionately blamed and dehumanized. Church statements describing Israel as committing genocide, ethnic cleansing, or apartheid—without evidence or acknowledgment of Hamas’s tactics—can veer into this territory.

2. Double Standards

This happens when Israel is held to standards not applied to any other country. For example, when churches demand a Canadian arms embargo on Israel but do not call for similar measures against regimes like Iran, Syria, or Russia, a double standard may be at play.

3. Delegitimization

This refers to denying Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state. While Canadian churches rarely state this outright, repeated references to Zionism as “settler colonialism” and silence on Jewish historical connection to the land suggest a creeping delegitimization of Israel’s foundational identity. Ironically, activists in the churches have no hesitation offering colonial judgement about how Israel should behave.

Sharansky’s framework helps clarify what makes certain statements problematic—not because they criticize Israeli policy, but because they frame Israel as the primary or only guilty party, even in a war it did not initiate.

When churches ignore causality—when they cannot bring themselves to say that Hamas caused this war—they risk replacing a moral theology of justice with a political ideology of grievance.

The rhetorical devices they employ matter. Statements like “we condemn both sides equally” creates false equivalence. “We must understand the occupation” contextualizes terrorism without condemning it outright. “We urge Canada to suspend relations with Israel”, while failing to mention Hamas governance in Gaza, shows bias.

This isn't just poor political judgment; it reflects a theological failure. By turning a blind eye to the very real antisemitism embedded in some modern forms of anti-Zionism, these churches risk complicity in the very prejudice they claim to resist.

The good news is that church leaders have a choice.

They can return to a position of moral clarity, where both Palestinian suffering and Israeli security are honored, where Hamas is rightly condemned for terrorism, and where criticism of Israeli policies is grounded in universal ethical standards, not political dogma. Or, they can continue down a path where Israel is demonized, singled out, and delegitimized—even when it is acting in self-defense against one of the most violent terrorist groups in the world.

In doing so, they risk aligning themselves not with justice, but with a new form of antisemitism cloaked in the language of peace.Words matter—especially in churches. When religious institutions use their moral voice, they must do so with precision and courage. That means being able to condemn Hamas unequivocally, without qualification. That means being able to criticize Israeli policy without denying Israel’s right to exist. And that means avoiding rhetoric that reinforces ancient prejudices in modern forms.

As Natan Sharansky reminds us, the Three Ds are not a trap—they are a test. A test of whether we can still tell the difference between criticism and hate. Between justice and obsession. Between peace and propaganda. So far, many of Canada’s mainline churches are failing that test.