As a member of the UMC, I can say as many would that the GBCS quiter often does not represent the views of our members. Actually, just reading GBCS makes my eyes roll instinctively. The GBCS acts of its own accord knowing full well that the members are insulated from reality by tenure and meek-willed bureaucrats.

Since the entire goal of divestment is rhetorical, this is something of a non-event. CAT agreeing to play nice with the UMC's representatives serves those representatives' rhetorical purposes: it gives a kind of half-hearted endorsement to the narrative that faction in the UMC offers about Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip. Severl portions of that narrative have been blatantly antisemitic; most of the rest of it has been patently unfair at best.

I suspect the board in question removed the divestment item because of the attention it has drawn - this way they can avoid having any responsible oversight entirely. It is a way in which bureaucratic elements function - to preserve their own agendas when they fear a direct fight on the issue.

The problem, as I see it, is that Methodists are responsible for this. Just as Presbyterians (as I was) are responsible for the anti-Israel activism of the PC(USA). By permitting it - by giving money to an organization, by belonging to it - one gives a passive endorsement and enables the actions to continue. (I'm not attempting to insult ordinary Methodist members (or Presbyterians) - but to say that if these don't take responsibility, they end up effectively approving the actions of their denominations.)