The Anglican Church of Southern Africa (ACSA) has adopted a strongly worded resolution accusing Israel of “genocidal conduct”, but the final vote also revealed significant resistance within the Church to proposals for a wider boycott of Israel.

Meeting at its Provincial Synod (in this context, Provincial refers to the Province of Southern Africa within the global Anglican Church) in September, the Church adopted a resolution condemning Israel’s actions in Gaza, the West Bank, and Lebanon and calling for prayer, dialogue, and reconciliation. However, two of the most consequential provisions in the original motion were removed after opposition from delegates.

The deleted paragraphs would have called on sporting bodies across South Africa, Lesotho, Namibia, and Eswatini to consider suspending or excluding Israel from sporting competitions, and urged scientific, academic, and medical associations to consider excluding Israeli institutions from their organisations and collaborative activities.

Those provisions were defeated by 61 votes to 50, with 32 abstentions. The result means that while the Synod endorsed the resolution’s accusations against Israel, it stopped short of endorsing attempts to isolate Israelis from international sport, academia, science, and medicine.

The vote is significant because it demonstrates that the Church's increasingly critical position on Israel is not without internal opposition. More than 40% of representatives who cast a vote on the boycott provisions supported deleting them, while the large number of abstentions suggests further reluctance to endorse the proposed measures.

The final resolution instead asks Archbishop Thabo Makgoba to encourage “intentionally non-violent responses” based on prayer, dialogue, reconciliation, and respect for human dignity. It also asks the Synod of Bishops to consider bringing Israeli and Palestinian church and civic leaders together to explore peaceful coexistence.

The attention devoted to Israel also contrasts with the absence of comparable resolutions dealing with some crises much closer to home.

South Africa has experienced renewed xenophobic tensions and hostility towards African migrants during 2026. The ACSA has not been silent on the subject: the Diocese of Cape Town, rather than the Provincial Synod, adopted a detailed resolution against xenophobia in July. Yet the Provincial Synod does not appear to have adopted a resolution on xenophobia comparable to its resolution on Israel.

There was a similar contrast regarding conflicts elsewhere on the African continent. In his opening charge, Makgoba specifically referred to the suffering in Sudan and the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, before turning to Gaza, Lebanon, and the West Bank. Both African conflicts have produced enormous civilian suffering and have directly affected Christian communities as well as people of other faiths.

There is also the wider question of the persecution of Christians across Africa. Christians have been specifically targeted in attacks by Islamist armed groups in countries including Nigeria, Burkina Faso, Mozambique, and the Democratic Republic of Congo, with churches, clergy, and Christian communities among the victims. In Nigeria in particular, attacks on Christian communities have become the subject of considerable international concern. In eastern Congo and northern Mozambique, Islamic State-linked organisations have also explicitly targeted Christians and churches.

Despite these threats to fellow Christians on the African continent, the Provincial Synod does not appear to have adopted a specific resolution addressing the persecution of Christians in Africa. Nor did it propose sporting, academic, or other international sanctions against states or organisations connected to these crises.

Instead, the Synod’s most far-reaching international intervention was directed at Israel, including proposals – ultimately rejected – to exclude Israelis from sporting, academic, scientific, and medical bodies.

The defeat of those provisions therefore matters. The final resolution demonstrates that a majority at Synod was prepared to endorse severe criticism of Israel, but the 61–50 vote also shows that there are limits to the measures representatives are prepared to support.

Rather than an uncontested move towards comprehensive isolation of Israel, the Synod exposed a substantial internal constituency unwilling to extend the Church’s position into sporting, scientific, academic, and medical boycotts.