[The following, by Will Spotts, is crossposted from The PC(USA) on Israel and Palestine.]

One week this July, a small - though historically significant, United States Protestant denomination will hold its biennial national meeting. Hundreds of this denomination's members and a host of interested parties will descend on the Minneapolis Convention Center. During that time, they will consider around 750 pieces of business; a surprising number of these business items concern Israel and the Palestinian territories. And they are heavily weighted against Israel.

What does it matter? Let's suppose the 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) passes every single resolution critical of Israel. I mean, who really cares? Some (by no means all - probably not even most) members of PC(USA) congregations are interested because it is, after all, their denomination. Some Presbyterians from other smaller denominations will care if the PC(USA) garners negative press coverage because they will be caught in the fallout - having the misfortune of being frequently mistaken for the PC(USA).

But when the PC(USA) is considering actions that are actively harmful to those outside the denomination, people should care. Members should care because their names and any money they have contributed to the denomination are being used to support those actions. People outside the denomination should care because those actions will affect many of us.

So, what is the harm? The proposed business items we've looked at amount to statements, words, endorsements of various documents, possible divestment. Sure, the process was stacked; sure, the statements presented as fact were one-sided at best; sure, they trespassed into the openly offensive; and sure, we would like to believe that Presbyterian commissioners would insist on basic fairness. But even divestment, were it to occur, would involve only a modest amount of money. So ... no harm, no foul, right? Symbolic gestures only, but they have both a purpose and an effect that we would do well to consider.

It must be clearly understood that all of the actions on Israel and Palestine taken by the PC(USA) and many other American denominations - up to and including the divestment initiative of 2004 and the proposed divestment initiative of 2010 - are rhetorical. The purpose of these actions is to alter the conversation on the Middle East both inside and outside the denomination. The second instruction and the rationale in this year's divestment overture from the Presbytery of San Francisco make the process explicit:

And

The Intent:

The intent of finding Israel guilty of the crime of apartheid, of divestment from or denunciation of random corporations for their association with Israel, of calls for universal jurisdiction to support show trials of various Israeli officials, of endorsing documents that reject the Jewish state, of regretting the creation of the State of Israel, of minimizing (dismissing, even rationalizing) the violent acts of Palestinians and neighboring states, of exaggerating the negative actions of Israelis, of maligning American Jewish supporters of Israel - is twofold. First, for some reason this is supposed to show solidarity with and encourage some Palestinian Christians. Second, it is intended create a climate of global isolation in which Israel is pressured to make concessions. It is likely that these concessions are the envisioned result of the exercise.

To make the demanded concessions would, of course, be harmful - actually fatal - to the State of Israel. These concessions include a Jew-free state of Palestine; the rejection of a Jewish state; a multi-ethnic state - maybe even called Israel - with, thanks to right of return, a Jewish minority; the presence of UN peacekeepers in spite of the history of UN animus toward Israel; an international council for Jerusalem ... you get the picture.

All this in spite of Presbyterian assurances that they support a negotiated solution and that they support the right of Israel to exist within secure, internationally recognized borders. Of course, the MESC report includes a footnote:

The Effect:

No matter how damaging those concessions might be, the effect of the rhetoric goes far beyond creating pressure for them.

1. The PC(USA)'s rhetorical stances (along with all of their embedded biases, anti-Judaic elements, factual errors, and unfair processes) will spread. This is true of statements made by employees, committees, networks - but the effect is far more pronounced when the General Assembly acts. When these stances are given the national imprimatur of the denomination's highest governing body, it is presumed (sometimes incorrectly) that Presbyterians generally agree with them.

First, they will spread to other denominations. This happens for a variety of reasons, but it is mostly a product of the existence of an 'advocacy community' in part composed of officials of various denominations. These cooperate in order to speak with a common voice.

The presumed support of GA actions strengthens activists within other denominations. The bottom line here is that what begins with a two million member denomination soon encompasses tens of millions of members of several American churches.

Second, this rhetoric infects civil society beyond the bounds of the churches. Denominations like the PC(USA) give whatever credibility they enjoy to the cause. They add an air of respectability to anti-Israel actions and statements. This encourages other institutions to jump on board. It also reshapes the boundary to what is and is not acceptable conversation. Individuals, even public figures, can feel comfortable making statements they otherwise would not have made - safe in the knowledge that the PC(USA) has said worse.

2. The rhetoric will only increase in severity. It is not a matter of this far and no more. It is developmental, echoing back and forth among advocacy groups, becoming ever more hostile and ever less fair.

It is true that the items coming before the 219th General Assembly of the PC(USA) are the worst I have seen in an American denomination (I am not counting Christian identity groups, though to be fair to the Church of Jesus Christ Christian, their views of Khazaria, of Zionist control of the government, and of the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion have all had some degree of institutional Presbyterian support).

Nonetheless, every time the PC(USA) seems to pull ahead, the UMC, or the UCC or some other mainline denomination steps in to push the envelope a little farther. Things we would not have heard last year, or five years ago, or a decade ago ... things that would not have seemed reasonable, have been made, by repetition, commonplace.

3. In the effort to isolate Israel, this rhetoric transforms the conversation from one in which people actually evaluate the actions of Israelis and Palestinians to one in which Israel is assumed to be uniquely evil. In such a climate, the parties stop seeking productive solutions whereby both peoples can live in peace and security. Instead, Israel's accusers conduct a debate among themselves: exactly how evil is (this caricature of) Israel (they have created)? Is it an evil on the level of apartheid South Africa - as the Presbytery of San Francisco asserts, or is it something worse?

4. If this brand of rhetoric actually succeeds at isolating Israel, it will not have the desired result.

First, if Israel is truly isolated through a successful campaign of demonization, a negotiated solution is less, rather than more likely. The concessions demanded by the PC(USA), taken together, could only be achieved by the dismantling of the current State of Israel. The Presbyterians are not alone in their demands. Israelis will understand that they are incapable of satisfying world opinion, and they will be disinclined to try. Israelis will also feel an (entirely justifiable) increased need for security.

Second, much is made of the fact that some Palestinian Christians are encouraged by symbolic actions of the type being considered by this PC(USA) General Assembly. Unfortunately, that encouragement is based on a tragic misreading of their circumstances - in which Israel is to blame, not only for the difficulties they share with Palestinians generally, but also for any friction or poor treatment they receive from their Muslim neighbors.

But if Israel appears to be isolated, this will also provide encouragement for others. Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad will be encouraged to believe they can succeed in their stated goals of removing the State of Israel, of establishing an Islamic state in greater Palestine, and of murdering Jews. If the Islamist Palestinian groups appear to have a reasonable hope of success, then more Palestinians will be encouraged to embrace them.

5. Whatever their intent, rhetorical campaigns designed to elevate Israel to the status of a uniquely evil state will also have an inevitable effect on world opinions about the Jewish people. Like it or not, because Israel is the only Jewish state, Israel and the Jewish people are linked. The anti-Zionist climate of defamation clearly fosters a considerable increase in antisemitism. The PC(USA) itself seems to have great difficulty avoiding anti-Judaic themes - and some PC(USA) statements about the Jewish people (as opposed to Israel) are sinister. Their intention is not really relevant; the result is readily observable.

At the end of the day, there is great gulf fixed between honest criticism of Israel and genuine advocacy for Palestinians on the one hand, and this evil rhetoric that treats Israel differently than any other nation, that refuses to acknowledge any circumstance that contributes to perceived negative Israeli policies, that blames violence against Israel (and against Jewish people) on Israel, that (uniquely among nations) continually challenges Israel's legitimacy, that portrays Israel as a criminal state whose very existence is an offense.

Will Spotts