Will Spotts points out that the Presbyterian Church (USA) has disclosed the first companies it will be targeting for what it calls "constructive engagement." Will calls it a hit list which is about right. The surprise member of the fellowship is Citigroup, which may have been a part of the money funnel to terror groups -- clearly a sop to those who claim the effort is all one-sided.

The rest of the list includes -- cue fanfare -- Caterpillar! ITT Industries, Motorola and United Techologies. Reading the list it becomes even more clear how little real effect divestment will have. Untangling the specific practices that the PC(USA) objects to in most of these companies (particularly Citigroup) would be pretty difficult, even if the companies in question really cared to do so. That once more indicates the real danger of divestment is not in the economics, it's in the delegitimization of Israel's efforts to defend itself, and even the existence of the state itself. Any real action by the PC(USA) is quite a distance down the road given what they describe as the process here. It's just a puppet show -- a chance for some functionaries to justify their expense accounts. The only real effect is to give ammunition to the West's deadly enemies. Israel would certainly be suicidal to remove their security fence. It's just not going to happen.

Also consistent with PC(USA)'s efforts to back its misguided policy with some good old-fashioned propaganda, they accompany the article on divestment with an article on a group of Presbyterians meeting to show support for the effort before the committee responsible for making the decisions. All those appearing in the article support divestment and lament the poor deluded souls who just don't understand how True and Good they are -- by all reports a majority of Presbyterians left unmentioned in the article.

One particular bit is nicely revealing of the real, larger goals of the divestment backers that go beyond just a simple peace:

Which begs the question unasked, of course: What would Ms. Nemr consider "Just?" I think we can imagine some of the answers.

Which begs my answer, a quote I came across recently:

The word "Justice" as it is often used by members of the far-Left and those speaking of Israel is a word we ought to be very suspicious of -- certainly enough to ask for some definitions so we can understand each other. Is the Presbyterian News Service afraid of us knowing the answer?

Update: Via Meryl, this New York Times article: Threat to Divest Is Church Tool in Israeli Fight which concludes lamely thus:

In fact, Jewish groups are growing increasingly bitter and disillusioned at the lack of any give at all in their many head-to-head meetings. The PC(USA) (and others) have shown dialogue to be completely fruitless.

And what gives with the head of the AJC trying to make chicken salad out of chicken shit:

In fact, the proposed UCC resolution was more even-handed, but the UCC brass abused their parliamentary prerogatives to discard it and substitute their far more objectionable version. They also passed a resolution condemning the fence no matter where or how it was built. Is there something in the water at AJC? First Larry Lowenthal in the local office, now this. Perhaps Elcott was selectively quoted or misunderstood.