Jews Supporting Judea and Samaria in 1862

The report on charity endeavors for Jews in Eretz-Yisrael in the year 1862, including Hebron, from the Occidental - American Jewish Advocate:

^

J Street's Wrong Turn

First, J Street goes after Regavim's tax-exemption status.

While the US has consistently opposed illegal settlement expansion, it has allowed Americans to make tax-deductible contributions to groups actively engaged in dispossessing Palestinians of their land and aiding the spread of settlements. Today, we're calling on the Treasury Department to review whether tax-deductible treatment for donations to such groups meet the relevant requirements -- and, if not, to cut off the flow of tax-deductible US dollars...To: Treasury Secretary Jack Lew -  Internal Revenue Service (IRS) requirements are clear about the criteria organizations must meet to benefit from tax-deductible, charitable donations: Their activities must not be “illegal [or] contrary to a clearly defined and established public policy.”

This follows a campaign (see here) which asserts

Support for settlements...contradicts the clearly established, bipartisan US policy of opposition to settlement expansion. Why should US taxpayers subsidize activities expressly designed to oppose and undermine decades of consistent US policy, which are illegal under international conventions signed and ratified by the United States? This is a question we’re asking of the Treasury in an action we launched last week. 

Then, MK Michal Rozin lends support.

As a Member of Knesset, my job is to speak out on behalf of the best interests of my fellow citizens and my country...the settler movement and its powerful allies in the Netanyahu government have been quietly laying the groundwork for annexation in the West Bank’s Area C...This process is led in part by influential right-wing NGOs (like the group Regavim),...Incredibly, Regavim and their fellow settler groups often benefit from tax-free contributions coming from the USA -- even while they actively oppose the two-state solution, undermining key US and Israeli interests.
That’s why J Street has called on the US Treasury Department to review whether the activities of Regavim should make them ineligible to receive tax-free contributions...I’m so grateful to J Street supporters like you, and to all those Jews around the world who love Israel and know that supporting Israelis means standing up for diplomacy and peace -- and speaking out when our government’s policies put our values and security at risk.
Thank you for all that you do,
MK Michal Rozin

But it's based on a lie.

First of all, that "public policy" claim is wrong. it's an administration policy, not public.

Whereas way back in 1978, a legal opinion was expressed by the State Department's legal advisor that activity related to the promoting and facilitating of Jewish civilian residency in the disputed areas of the former Palestine Mandate territories not currently under Israel sovereignty (and let's not forget that all of Jerusalem is still considered as I write by the State Department not to be Israel territory) is

inconsistent with international law.

the arguments are weak and misrepresent international law.  Even a Peace Now resource reveals, as does this one, that most of the US Presidents' words they use avoid the legal aspect as has President Obama as he refers to the communities as "illegitimate'.  Then Secretary of State Madeleine Albright actually admitted the Jewish communities across the Green Line are legal as have many other American political figures and scholars.

This campaign seems to be based on this Nicholas Mirkay article from 2013 and on this one by Amanda Berman in 2010 Already in 2011, Mirkay went after the JNF to the delight of some. And seems he started at this as early as 2008 based on his 2007 paper. (And the NYTimes has pumped it like here in 2010 and see this letter by William H. Welsch Sep 22, 2006). But already, as noted there, it was pointed out that Mirkay and comrades are mixing apples and pears:

“I do not think racial [discrimination] in America, with our own unique history, is the same as the unique situation of Israel and the Palestinians,” Ellen Aprill, a professor at Loyola Law School

Indeed, as my second point, the challenge to a presumed tax-exemption status must prove a negation of or actions of that organization is does it go againts "fundamental public policy" and "well-defined standards of public policy" as stated clearly here.  It must be shown to be "contrary to well-established and clearly defined public policy." 

As further clarified in IV Scott on Trusts Section 377 (3d ed. 1967):

"A trust cannot be created for a purpose which is illegal. The purpose is illegal ... if the trust tends to induce the commission of crime or if the accomplishment of the purpose is otherwise against public policy.... Where a policy is articulated in a statute making certain conduct a criminal offense, then ..., a trust is illegal if its performance involves such criminal conduct, or if it tends to encourage such conduct." . 
....In determining whether activities of this type are consistent with IRC 501(c)(3), the Service relies on a three-part test. Rev. Rul. 80-278. Such activities will be considered permissible under IRC 501(c)(3) if: (1) The purpose of the organization is charitable; (2) the activities are not illegal, contrary to a clearly defined and established public policy, or in conflict with express statutory restrictions; 

One more opinion on this:

The Treasury Department is empowered to enforce "established public policy" with respect to tax-exempt charities.' Under this public policy power, the Treasury has revoked the tax-exempt charitable status of organizations that discriminated against blacks, organizations whose members engaged in civil disobedience against war, and organizations involved in illegal activity. The Treasury interprets its public policy power as applying to any activity that violates clear public policy...The point at which a public policy is sufficiently established for purposes of applying the Treasury's public policy power is unclear...Presently, neither Congress or the United States Supreme Court has decided conclusively whether race-based affirmative action violates public policy.

Besides the obvious, that Jewish resettlement activity in Judea and Samaria is not to be compared to the rest of the examples - which are mainly race-oriented or proven criminal activity but also internal American issues and to extend the IRS power to actions of non-Americans, even if supported by American citizens - it is clear that no illegality is involved.

But more important, American public policy was quite the opposite.  It supported Jewish resettlement activity through the Anglo-American Convention of 1924 when the territory defined as the Jewish national and historic homeland was all the region between the sea and the river.  If it was legal then, it's legal now and as there is no equal sovereign power to Israel who can prove claims to that territory, all this legalese fumfitting (to mutter, splutter and stutter in Yiddish) is just pro-Palestine propaganda (PPP).

^

Are You Female and A Good Swimmer?

And prefer to swim without males around for a good cause?

Well, read this.

It's about an All Women’s Swim in the Kinneret on Wednesday, June 16, to benefit Sadnat Shiluv in Rosh Tzurim .

Everyone reading this article can make this swim a success by sponsoring: a swimmer, transportation, or anything from sun-tan lotion, liquid high-energy food, or towels to long T-Shirts for the women swimmers. Together, we can make Vivienne’s dream for a better life for at least a dozen special-needs children come true. Contact Swim4sadna@gmail.com.

What's it for?

Sadnat Shiluv encourages maximum integration of special people into the community. It works with children from kindergarten and elementary school until young adulthood. Currently, its only hostel houses six young adults and offers them a place to live, work, study and lead an independent life while being an active part of the Rosh Tzurim community. Vivienne has made it her personal goal to try to build another two hostels.

Start practicing.

^

There Goes (?) A Tax-Exempt Status

I have pointed out the signs that something is underway on the issue of the tax-exempt status of monies donated to charitable enterprises located in Jewish communities beyond the Green Line. Especially the David Ignatius article in the WashPost and another by Ronit Avni

Back in late March, I was quoted in a JTA article on the subject. And see this.

Well, now this:

Israeli NGO battles settlements in US

The left-wing organization Gush Shalom is launching a campaign against organizations soliciting donations in the United States, particularly those receiving US federal tax exemptions for settlements and illegal outposts, The Jerusalem Post has learned.

The timing of the campaign has been stepped up from September to August because the Foreign Ministry recently launched its own campaign to block governments of foreign countries from donating money to human rights organizations in Israel.

...According to Gush Shalom, which refused to comment on this report, "while the public launch of the campaign, through publication of the first reports and legal actions, was originally planned for September of this year, recent events have prompted us to accelerate the timetable.

"The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs under Avigdor Lieberman, in a grossly undemocratic move and in close coordination with a number of purportedly independent organizations such as NGO Monitor, has decided to actively target the operations of Israeli human rights organizations active in the Occupied Territories by pressuring the government of friendly nations to cease critical financial support for them."

According to Gush Shalom, in criticizing the Dutch embassy in Israel for giving a grant of almost €20,000 to Breaking the Silence for its controversial report on alleged IDF human rights and war crime violations during Operation Cast Lead, the government acknowledged that the organization's actions were legal and legitimate but allegedly said they were politically incorrect.

On the other hand, "many of the activities of the organizations targeted by our campaign are illegitimate and/or illegal under international, US and EU law." In the first phase of its campaign, Gush Shalom will pressure the US to halt tax exemptions to Israeli organizations and NGOs which "directly and openly support the development and operation of illegal outposts.

...Gush Shalom said that in the second stage of the campaign, it will focus on the financing mechanisms of mainstream organizations such as Nefesh B'Nefesh, Christian Zionist philanthropies, the Jewish National Fund and the World Zionist Organization, which are also active in the West Bank.

P.S.

This:

Division 54 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 provides an income tax exemption for annuities and deferred lump sums made under structured settlements

relates to a situation in Australia.

Ignatius Misleading

Following up on that David Ignatius op-ed on charitable funds to projects beyond the Green Line, I reread it after someone commented to me on this statement:

A 2005 report by the Congressional Research Service stated: "The United States stipulates that U.S. aid funds cannot be used in the occupied territories."

Now, in the first place, in the context of Ignatius' assertion that money donated to Jewish communities should not be tax-exempt, that is poorly worded as what it actually means is that US aid funds to the government of Israel cannot be used in the "occupied territories". That is clear from the next sentence:

Because U.S. economic aid is given to Israel as direct government-to-government budgetary support without any specific project accounting, and money is fungible, there is no way to tell how Israel uses U.S. aid.

I found the original document here.

In the second place, a lot of American taxpayers' money surely does go to the so-called "occupied territories", actually, "disputed", as well as private charitable contributions, without complaint by Ignatius.

It's just that the money officially goes to, well, Arabs.

In Gaza, they are getting (and that "they" could probably be Hamas) almost a billion US dollars a la Clinton. In other words, there seems to be a geographical discrimination criteria in place or advanced by Ignatius. What Ignatius seems to be promoting is that you can get tax-exemption for your donation if the money doesn't go to Jews? Or are there other areas around the globe where a similar thesis could be argued, that you can separate between peoples in the same territory? I once had Senator Jesse Helms get involved in this matter but the Israel Foreign Ministry shot down my project as they were scared.

So, what was Ignatius implying?




Money surely can be given - without doubt - to Jewish charitable enterprises in Judea and Samaria and there should be no implied criminal stain or hint of illegality Government policyt can change overnight. The way he phrased it was unethical journalism, the old sleight-of-the pen/keyboard trick.

Now, his father may be the president of the Washington Post but that shouldn't be a license to scare people, intimidate people and mislead them.

Takes All Kinds

On March 22, 2006, Oded Haklai presented a paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association in San Diego, California. It was entitled: "Why Diaspora Jewish NGOs Donate to Palestinian Social Movements in Israel".

The Abstract:

In recent years, Diaspora Jewish organizations have been increasingly providing financial support to Palestinian social movements and NGOs in Israel. This phenomenon is particularly puzzling because it occurs during a period of heightened Palestinian-Israeli tensions and it involves large organizations from the mainstream of the Diaspora Jewish establishment, such as the New Israel Fund (NIF), the American Jewish Welfare Society (JDC), the Lurie Foundation, and the Abraham Fund initiatives.

Furthermore, several of the recipients are strong critics of the Jewish character of the state and its Zionist ideology. Both studies of the international dimension of ethnic conflict and Diaspora studies typically focus on the ways in which Diaspora communities assist their co-nationals. Conventional theories are silent on the reasons why a Diaspora would assist the "other".

The study explores a number of possible explanations. The first explanation is normative. The argument here is that the donors believe the Jewish state should adopt or enhance a more liberal character, rather than an ethnonational one. Another possible explanation is rational, interest-based. The argument here is that by providing financial support to Palestinian NGOs, the Jewish donors create a relationship of patronage whereby the recipients become dependent on the donors and, subsequently, their criticism of the Jewish-Zionist character of the state is softened.

A third explanation pertains to the image the donor community has of itself and questions regarding its own political identity. Traditionally, the Diaspora Jewish community, particularly in the United States, has had liberal leanings. Its financial support of Palestinian NGOs, according to the third explanation, is in response to growing criticism levelled at the Jewish establishment from the left-of-centre for its perceived blanket support of Israel. The Jewish community is thus caught between what are perceived as tension-laden tendencies: its concomitant commitment to both liberal and ethnonational ideologies.

Relying on dozens of interviews conducted with members of various donor organizations and Palestinian NGOs activists in Israel, the paper evaluates each of these explanations.