Established in the U.S. in 1957, but with roots going back to colonial New England, the United Church of Christ (UCC) is one of the major denominations that make up what is known as mainline Protestantism—long the socially dominant form of American Christianity. These churches have gone into a precipitous decline in recent decades, as Samuel Goldman explains, and the UCC is no exception. While, unlike so many Christian denominations, this particular church does not have a long and sordid history of anti-Semitism, that too appears to be changing, as seen from the latest meeting of its General Synod. Luke Moon writes:

[A] General Synod seemingly cannot conclude without passage of a resolution uniquely condemning Israel. This year’s resolution, “A Declaration of Just Peace between Palestine and Israel,” claims to be for peace and opposed to anti-Semitism—and yet singles out Israel for special rebuke and calls on local churches to partner with some of the most radical anti-Israel organizations in the U.S. It also claims to be against supersessionism, [the belief that the church has replaced the Jews as God’s chosen people], and yet urges churches to critically examine the “use and interpretations of Scripture as well as liturgies and hymns that equate ancient biblical Israel with the modern state.”

This type of antagonism against Israel is unsurprising. . . . Although the UCC boasts of its broadminded liberality, its statements and policies show an ongoing animus against the world’s only majority-Jewish country.

The UCC likes to “repent” for various historical misdeeds committed by other people often long ago. But perhaps it should repent for its own ongoing unfairness and double standards towards Jewish Israel. And perhaps it should reflect more on Christianity’s centuries of misdeeds against Jewish people and on why Israel was created as a special refuge for Jews after so much persecution, culminating with the Holocaust in majority-Christian Europe.

Since the war began, there has been a tension between Israel’s two primary goals: the destruction of Hamas and the liberation of the hostages. Many see in Israel’s renewed campaign in Gaza a sacrifice of the latter goal in pursuit of the former. But Meir Ben-Shabbat suggests that Israel’s attacks aim to bring Hamas back to the negotiating table:

The timing of the attack, its intensity, and the extent of casualties surprised Hamas. Its senior leaders are likely still wondering whether this is a limited action meant to shock and send a message or the beginning of a sustained operation. The statement by its senior officials linking the renewal of fighting to the fate of the hostages hints at the way it may act to stop Israel. This threat requires the Israeli political leadership to formulate a series of draconian measures and declare that they will be carried out if Hamas harms the hostages.

Ostensibly, Israel’s interest in receiving the hostages and continuing the fighting stands in complete contradiction to that of Hamas, but in practice Hamas has flexibility that has not yet been exhausted. This stems from the large number of hostages in its possession, which allows it to realize additional deals for some of them, and this is what Israel has been aiming its efforts toward.

We must concede that the challenge Israel faces is not simple, but the alternative Hamas presents—surrendering to its dictates and leaving it as the central power factor in Gaza—limits its options. . . . Tightening and significantly hardening the blockade along with increasing pressure through airstrikes, evacuating areas and capturing them, may force Hamas to make its stance more flexible.

But Ben-Shabbat also acknowledges the danger in this approach. The war’s renewal puts the hostages in greater danger. And as Israel makes threats, it will be obliged to carry them out.