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).

^

How Much Did Uri Blau Receive?

Uri Blau published a report on US charity donations, totally legal, to Jewish communities across the Green Line.

Nothing really new as anyone who reads this blog knows (here and here)* and I think Blau got his money almost for doing nothing.

Turns out, the report was the result of a grant.  From this group, the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting .

Anyone know how much he received?

Oh, and anyone investigating how much money pro-Pal. groups are receiving?



_____

* And here, from the other side.

UPDATE

Twitter exchange:

1. ymedad ‏@ymedad  36m36 minutes ago

   Anyone know how much @Uri_Blau received? http://myrightword.blogspot.co.il/2015/12/how-much-did-uri-blau-receive.html …

   
   
2. Uri Blau ‏@uri_blau  8m8 minutes agoWashington, DC

   @ymedad Less than any settlement or organization mentioned in my #settlementDollars investigation. None of it, unfortunately, is tax-exempt

   4:37 PM - 8 Dec 2015 · Details
   
   

   Tweet text
   
3. ymedad ‏@ymedad  1m1 minute ago

   @uri_blau that is not a figure. that's an approximation, like in "he approximated the truth in his story".

Well, list of his possible donors is here.


UPDATE


NGO-Monitor notes NIF funding for anti-settlement activities and there are others, like Peace Now, JVP, B'tselem, etc.  Will Blau investigate them?  After all his theme was US money interfering in Israel's happenings or was he only concerned about one side of the story?

^

Frivolous Suit --- Over and Out

Remember my post on an attempt to charge Shiloh with "terror" and therefore to hit charities that fund our projects?

Here:

Palestinians to sue US pro-settler groups    In a reversal of usual roles, a group of Palestinians is filing a civil lawsuit against American organizations that they claim support terrorist acts by Israeli settlers against Palestinians in the West Bank.  Two U.S. citizens are among those suing under the Anti-Terrorism Act, a 1991 statute that allows American victims of international terrorism to sue for damages in the United States.
...“I think it’s important for the American justice system to show that they’re going to apply the statute in a neutral and even-handed way, ” said Eric Lewis, a Washington-based lawyer who has had clients accused by pro-Israel groups of aiding Palestinian terror.

Well, the news is now in: 

Residents of "Occupied Palestine" cannot advance claims that five U.S. organizations have funded terrorist attacks on Palestinians, a federal judge ruled...The lawsuit claimed that more than half a million Israeli citizens, or "settlers," live in communities in the West Bank that violate international law and are responsible for numerous attacks on Palestinians and others living in Occupied Palestine.

...U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman dismissed the claims Monday, finding that the allegations in the complaint were insufficient to tie the funds to terrorist activity. The Americans in the case alone brought allegations under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA), regarding five "purported charities" based in the United States that allegedly provided the settlers with millions of dollars through direct wire transfers.

They said money from Christian Friends of Israeli Communities, the Hebron Fund Inc., the Central Fund of Israel, One Israel, and American Friends of Ateret Cohanim is used to "build and maintain the illegal settlements, illegally take land in Occupied Palestine, to support the attacks by the settlers on Palestinians living in Occupied Palestine, and to support the terrorist acts of the settlers against Palestinians and other persons in Occupied Palestine."
But Judge Furman deemed the allegation "entirely conclusory."...

and this

The plaintiffs failed to submit proof that the settlers admitted to the Price Tag attacks, nor did the plaintiffs prove that the American organizations were aware that their funds were used to support terrorist activity. “In the absence of such details, there are simply no facts alleged that could provide the court with a basis to infer that defendants knew, or were deliberately indifferent to, the fact that the wire transfers would be used to support terrorist activity,” Furman wrote.

And to remind you what I wrote then:

And if they are talking about terror, does the court know who placed an explosives-laden refrigerator in Jerusalem's Zion Square in 1975?  Palestinian militant group PLO claimed responsibility for the attack. Later on it was revealed that the attack was executed by the Arab-American Ahmed Jabara, aka Abu Sukar, whom originated from Turmus Aya. Jabara was assisted by Bassem Tabila of Nablus whom fled to Jordan before he could be arrested.  Israel freed Ahmed Jabara from prison in 2003 as a gesture to Yasser Arafat. Shortly after his release, Jabara called for the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers at a rally in Bethlehem that was widely covered by the Palestinian media.  Fifteen people were killed in this terror act and 77 were injured.  All civilians.

Among them:  Rivka (née Soifer) Ben-Yitzhak, 35, an American citizen, and her husband, Michael, who left behind two small children

Maybe someone should be suing the lawyers for assisting possible terrorist supporters?  Who knows if this Ahmad was not involved, or maybe a member of his family?

And furthermore, Shiloh was established in January 1978.  The terror attack in Zion Square was earlier by three years.  So how can the "settlement" be a cause of Turmos-Aya residents, if they wish to argue, being 'forced' into "resistance" against the "settlement enterprise"?

^

Background to A Discriminatory American Policy

One of my major themes here has been what I perceive as the discriminatory practice of America's Jerusalem Consulate General (CG).  Revenant Jews, residing in the area supervised by the CG, that is, Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, except for consular services such as passports, visas, death certificates (and those are also problematic due to the refusal of the United States State Department, despite the Congressional legislation, to recognize Jerusalem as part of sovereign Jerusalem) are for all intents and purposes ignored by the CG.

To bring this up-to-date, I just checked their site:

-  Jews do not participate in Camp Discovery;

-  photography exhibits in Shiloh are not hosted;

-  neither are art exhibits hosted in Ariel.

(previous blogs: here; here; here;)


I went back to my files and I will try to outline the problem.

On January 25, 1988 (yes, 25 years ago), Richard Murphy, Assistant Secretary of State, wrote a letter in response to one he received from December 30, 1987, which was a copy sent to State Department Legal Advisor Abraham Sofaer over the issue of the legality - and opportunity to benefit from a tax-exempt status - of donating charity monies to projects across the Green Line.

As noted:

The JNF swindle of Jewish money [done also] by several top Jewish organizations was exposed in 1987. The JNF, Jewish Federation (United Jewish Appeal) and the United Jewish Appeal of Greater New York - all not-for-profits - refused to give any Jewish money to Jews who lived over the so-called Green Line. That Green Line was the 1949 Armistice Line...These organizations claimed (falsely) that they couldn’t give Jewish money over the Green Line because the IRS would take away their not-for-profit tax status. After this false claim was exposed by Hadassah Marcus...*

In his letter, Murphy writes, 

"private voluntary organizations [PVOs now known as NGOs] operating in the occupied territories may use U.S. Fovernment funds only to assist the indigenous Palestinian population."

Who is an indigenous Palestinian?  Can a Jew not be one?

A Jew born in Hebron prior to 1948?

Can an Arab born in the United States to Arabs from Ramallah be indigenous?

Murphy also explained that monies expended by the US in the "settlements" Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and then also Gaza are viewed as going to what they consider

"an obstacle to a peaceful resolution of the Arab-Israeli dispute through negotiations."

On May 8, 1988, Hadassah Marcus wrote to David Good, at the time Director, Public Affairs at the Consulate, pointing out that it would appear that excluding Jews because they are Jews is a violation of civil rights in that discrimination based on race or religion should be prohibited, not promoted.

His reply was dated June 4 and emphasized that US bipartisan aid program are carried out by the State Department to

"further our foreign policy goals around the world and to provide humanitarian assistance where needed...Israeli settlements and settlement-related activities are an obstacle...therefore they are excluded from U.S. Government assistance programs."

That is the right of the State Dept., perhaps, although a few official visits by senior CG personnel, including the Consul-General, would be appropriate and wouldn't cost anything, as they drive by all the time. But basically, by ignoring the Jews of the Yesha communities, the CG is encouraging the Pals. too think that their apartheid plans have been approved by the US.  By refusing to acknowledge us, the indication is that Jews will have to leave.  


That is getting dangerously close to approving a program of ethnic cleansing.

Not only are we declared non-indigenous but we cannot live here.


In a further letter, dated July 29, 1988, Good, who signed Consul for Information and Public Affairs, added another point:

"the U.S. is providing economic support and security assistance to Israel...It is our policy that these funds are not available for use by Israel in the occupied territories".

That is an economic boycott, of sorts, way before BDS. **

The only practical problem, of course, is that a better idea and policy would have been and should be, to use such funds to foster coexistence programs, joint democracy workshops, civic rights seminars and the such which would sensitize the Arabs, and the Jews, but more the Arabs for after all, in Israel Arabs live as citizens with full rights and protection of the law.

That would be promoting and encouraging peace.  Anything else is instilling in the Arabs the assumption that America backs the most insensitive, inhuman of attitudes amongst Arabs.

All this correspondence was followed up by a letter from Abraham Sofaer on July 28, 1988 restating the above in summary so:

"This policy ['settlements as an obstacle'] is based on important foreign policy objectives, including the peaceful resolution of the status of the territories."

As Marcus points out in her reply of August 18, Sofaer avoided the issue of the category of "indigenous Palestinian population" and implicitly acknowledges that only Arabs are the intended recipients of American largesse.  She referred to the September 21, 1922 resolution passed by Congress and signed into law by President Harding that recognized "Palestine", that is, the territory now known as Israel and Judea, Samaria and Gaza was to be the reconstituted Jewish homeland wherein close settlement was to take place.

She also pointed out that whereas Murphy admitted that PVOs could not use U.S. money for their programs, Good expanded on that to include direct American funding.

Has American programming aided peace, and the negotiations for peace?

Official Palestinian Authority media outlets incite.  Schoolbooks incite and promote anti-Semitic imagery.  Elections in the PA are way overdue by many years.


Here is an opinion relating to that sorrowful situation:

"the Palestinian educational system is an abomination; it, too, is largely funded by the UN, with the substantial support of American taxpayers. In their schools, Palestinian children are taught mendacious versions of their own history as well as of Jewish culture, history, and beliefs. Generations have been fed on propaganda that denies the legitimacy of the state of Israel while simultaneously glorifying intolerance, fanaticism, and “martyrdom.”

Very little that is actually useful—engineering, computer technology, science, finance—is taught in these schools. In the private, religiously funded schools, things are still worse."

That opinion was published by ... Abraham Sofaer in May 2003! in COMMENTARY Magazine.

Amazingly, in a volte face from 1988, he writes this there:

State Department officials have long adhered to the notion that Security Council resolution 242...requires treating those borders [the pre-June 1967 lines] as final...The State Department’s interpretation of resolution 242 is not only mistaken—the literature on this point is formidable—but it could end up presenting at least as great an obstacle to peace as Israel’s policy of building settlements in areas heavily populated by Palestinians. 

In Israel’s history, settlements have a central and necessary place. The road map disregards both this history and the plain legitimacy of building places to live in what Israelis regard as their historic (though not exclusive) homeland. The road map also errs in treating every Israeli settlement as equally troublesome, even though some are obviously defensible on security grounds and minimally disruptive to Palestinian inhabitants of the territories. It thereby once again creates unwarranted expectations among Palestinians.

...In my own view, a pragmatic approach that is not anchored in the pre-June 1967 lines would have a far greater likelihood of success in any set of good-faith negotiations than the unrealistic and indiscriminate proscription contained in the road map. It would require, among other things, considering the settlements in categories.

...By tacitly accepting interpretations of reality that unfairly put the onus on Israel—in this case by demanding a “freeze” on settlements as if all settlement activity were either illegal or evidence of evil intent, or both—the United States helps to perpetuate Arab revanchism and works against the possibility of peace...Jewish settlers in the West Bank number, at most, a tenth of the area’s population—but the guiding assumption of all international efforts to achieve peace is that no Jew should be allowed to reside in any Palestinian area...The notion of a Palestine in which Jews are not allowed to live is anathema. It implicitly affirms the hatred and violence that has made the Arab and Muslim Middle East virtually Judenrein, and it thoroughly undercuts any hope for peace. It should be anathema, above all, to the United States. Palestinians should be required to agree explicitly that Jews may live in their midst. 

The State Dept. policy, I would suggest, is a failure and Judge Sofaer seems to now agree.

And it is discriminatory against the Jews, now in their third generation, many tens of thousands of who I would suggest are now, for sure, "indigenous Palestinian residents" in the broadest sense, who live in Judea and Samaria. 

As Sofaer also wrote there

"Beyond, above, and behind every failed policy that has been devised to nudge forward the prospects of reconciliation in the Middle East there lies a simple if often unacknowledged fact: there can be no peace until the Arabs of the region openly accept the existence of Israel as a permanent, sovereign state"

Isn't it time failure is acknowledged and that we Jewish revenant residents are treated as humans by America's State Department?





____________________________

*     According to Jewish Chronicle of Pittsburgh of November 3, 1988, a class action suit was brought by four US supporters of Gush Emunim against the Jewish National Fund over JNF's refusal to spend donations across the former "Green Line", the boundary that separated Israel from territory captured in 1967.  Mrs. Marcus' $5,000 donation was returned, money she wanted to designate that her gift be spent specifically at Shiloh.  A JNF official was quoted saying, "We don't work in the administered territories, for a number of reasons other than the possible IRS problem".

**     ...on June 30, the European Union has published a binding directive to all 28 member states forbidding any funding, cooperation, awarding of scholarships, research funds or prizes to anyone residing in the Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria and in East Jerusalem. In addition, the directive requires that any future deal to be signed with Israel must include an item that determines that the settlements are not part of sovereign Israel and therefore are not part of the deal....The most significant part of the directive is the “territorial item” which appears for the first time as a compulsory component in all deals between Israel and the EU. The new item determines which areas inside Israel are eligible to receive cooperation from the EU and which are not. It determines that deals would pertain only to areas within the EU-recognized, pre-1967 Israeli borders.

^
  

Frivolous Law Suit

This appears to me to be such a frivolous legal move:

Palestinians to sue US pro-settler groups    In a reversal of usual roles, a group of Palestinians is filing a civil lawsuit against American organizations that they claim support terrorist acts by Israeli settlers against Palestinians in the West Bank.  Two U.S. citizens are among those suing under the Anti-Terrorism Act, a 1991 statute that allows American victims of international terrorism to sue for damages in the United States.

...“I think it’s important for the American justice system to show that they’re going to apply the statute in a neutral and even-handed way, ” said Eric Lewis, a Washington-based lawyer who has had clients accused by pro-Israel groups of aiding Palestinian terror.

And what is the charge?

The suit was filed against pro-settler organizations on the basis that they help supply arms for Israeli settlers and support those who attack Palestinians. Malito & Adolfsen, a litigation firm based in New York, is filing the case in the southern district court of New York. The firm refused to comment.

The defendants - the Hebrew [sic! Hebron] Fund, the Central Fund of Israel, the One Israel Fund, American Friends of Ateret Cohanim, and Christian Friends of Israeli Communities - did not respond to requests by Al Arabiya for comment.

...Recent research by ADC found that some pro-Israel groups said they use donor money for educational or peaceful purposes, but actually use it for other things. “When you look into their activities and their news releases, you find out that… they’re engaging in warfare...,” Ayoub said. 

That is not only ridiculous and untrue but unprovable within the framework of thus suit, as I understand it.  Some background.


And the chances of success?

Both Ayoub and Lewis see obstacles for the case, but expressed optimism.  “If the plaintiffs can show knowledge that those who donated to these organizations knew that these were settler organizations that were going to use violence to displace Palestinians… then I think you have a reasonably good chance of getting over the procedural hurdles,” said Lewis...Ayoub said he views this lawsuit as a positive, primarily because it puts the issue on the table.

This is what the write in connection  with my home village of Shiloh?

THE PARTIES
The American Plaintiffs
23.
Plaintiff Aydu Husam Ahmad, a U.S. citizen, lives in Sinjel a village located 21 kilometers northeast of Ramallah in Occupied Palestine and surrounded by the village of Turmus Ayya and the Israeli settlement of Shilo. Since 2002, Jewish Settlers have hampered Sinjel villagers' access to their traditional lands. Mr. Aydu Husam Ahmad was attacked several times by the Settlers. The latest was in May 21, 2012 where he was stoned by The Settlers when he tried to protect his olive trees from being uprooted. He filed a report with the Israeli police.

What does this

 surrounded by the village of Turmus Ayya and the Israeli settlement of Shilo.

mean?


How can he be "surrounded"?  Even their English is as illogical as their legal claims.
 
And if they are talking about terror, does the court know who placed an explosives-laden refrigerator in Jerusalem's Zion Square in 1975?

Palestinian militant group PLO claimed responsibility for the attack. Later on it was revealed that the attack was executed by the Arab-American Ahmed Jabara, aka Abu Sukar, whom originated from Turmus Aya. Jabara was assisted by Bassem Tabila of Nablus whom fled to Jordan before he could be arrested.

Israel freed Ahmed Jabara from prison in 2003 as a gesture to Yasser Arafat. Shortly after his release, Jabara called for the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers at a rally in Bethlehem that was widely covered by the Palestinian media.

Fifteen people were killed in this terror act and 77 were injured.  All civilians.

Among them:  Rivka (née Soifer) Ben-Yitzhak, 35, an American citizen, and her husband, Michael, who left behind two small children

Maybe someone should be suing the lawyers for assisting possible terrorist supporters?  Who knows if this Ahmad was not involved, or maybe a member of his family?


And furthermore, Shiloh was established in January 1978.  The terror attack in Zion Square was earlier by three years.  So how can the "settlement" be a cause of Turmos-Aya residents, if they wish to argue, being 'forced' into "resistance" against the "settlement enterprise"?

There was this earlier:

The Palestinians have threatened to pursue Israel at the International Criminal Court (ICC) if it builds new Jewish settlements east of Jerusalem.

In 2008, it seems to have begin. But 'beaten back'.


Let's have this suit throw out  ---  fast.

^

Political Financial Interference

If you are an American, there is nothing illegal about contributing money, as a donation to a charitable cause, to a project abroad.

But in the eyes of an American administration, funding educational, social welfare, recreational sports or other such projects in Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria is a pain, a political pain and not an illegal pain.

So what do they do?

Here:

Why the special scrutiny for pro-Israel groups? A New York Times article in July 2010 provided a clue: Tax-exempt groups were donating to West Bank settlers, and State Department officials wanted the settlers out. "As the American government seeks to end the four-decade Jewish settlement enterprise and foster a Palestinian state in the West Bank," the Times wrote, "the American Treasury helps sustain the settlements through tax breaks on donations to support them."

Did the T-men take their political cues from such stories, or did Administration officials give them orders? Either explanation would be a violation of public trust.

This would also suggest a pattern: Washington officials sent a message for tougher scrutiny of certain 501(c) groups, and the IRS coincidentally adjusted its enforcement regime...There's still much we don't know about the scandal of politicized tax enforcement.

Will someone sue the government?

^

Walt Way Out

Steve Walt, (yes, that Walt), really wants to know:

why they [State Department and White House spokespeople, and anyone who aspires to be president, including the current incumbent] believe U.S. taxpayers should continue to subsidize settlement construction. And make no mistake: Because money is fungible, that is exactly what our aid package does. The 2SS [Two State Solution] has been the stated goal of U.S. policy under the past three presidents, yet U.S. policy actively subverts that objective, to the mutual detriment of Israelis, Palestinians, and Americans alike.

Well, I could reply that "policy" is not necessarily legal or even moral and so therefore, it could be (and it is) quite legal and quite moral to support Jewish residency rights in the territory international law wished become the Jewish national home with the express right of facilitating close Jewish settlement:

The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency. referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews, on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes

That was from Article 6 of the League of Nations Mandate.  And take note: Arabe per say are not distinguished but a rather general formulation of non-definition is used.  That means while all rights for all are to be protected, the country is Jewish for the Jews primarily.

Whether or not legal, read me here.  And there are many others (and here).

I left a comment there, which reads in part:

...take note: Arabs per say are not distinguished but a rather general formulation of non-definition is used. That means while all rights for all are to be protected, the country is Jewish for the Jews primarily.

I could add that since the Arabs of that territory accepted and were repeatedly offered plans of territorial compromise and partition (Transjordan 1922; Peel 1937; Woodhead 1938; St. James Conference 1939; UN 1947; Oslo 1993) as well as autonomy (Begin 1978) and rejected all and since 1920 have been engaged in terror against civilians as well as ethnic cleansing of Jews from their homes centuries old (Hebron, Gaza, etc.) and since all ther plans have failed (Disengagement 2005), from a practical perspective, 2SS is plain out-of-it.

And the fact that "Palestine"would be practicing apartheid, for even Tom Friedman admits only Muslims or Christians could live there, why support that idea? If Arabs can live in Jordan and a future "Palestine" but Jews not, but Arabs not only live in Israel but get to be judges, parliamentarians, diplomats, soldiers, etc. and even spies and subversives there, why not support the idea of Jews in Shiloh (where I live) or Hebron, Bet El or Ofra (where my daughter & grandchildren live)?

^
 

Your American Tax Dollars At Work ... On Apartheid

Israelis cannot and probably will never drive along the roads being supervised by the engineers in the video clip below, paid for with American dollars (tax-exempted?):-



Yes, the "apartheid" that exists in the "West Bank" is Arab apartheid.


Oh, and Israel might go that way, too:

Northern Islamic Movement preacher Sheikh Ra'ed Salah, recently released from jail for inciting riots earlier this year, is back on the speakers' circuit, riling up Arab masses against Israel. Salah on Friday spoke at an illegally built mosque in Rahat, preaching that all of Israel belongs to the Muslims, and that there was no room for believers of another religion to have any authority here.

^

And Where Does The Issue of Tax-Exemption Appear?

Reported:

US 'should link aid' to Israeli settlements: HRW

The United States should penalise Israel by withholding from its massive annual aid a sum equal to the amount Israel gives in subsidies to West Bank settlements, Human Rights Watch (HRW) said on Sunday.

In a 166-page report, the group called on the international community to penalise Israel for "discrimination" in the West Bank, comparing the services enjoyed by Jewish settlers with those of neighbouring Palestinian villages.  "Palestinians face systematic discrimination merely because of their race, ethnicity, and national origin, depriving them of electricity, water, schools, and access to roads, while nearby Jewish settlers enjoy all of these state-provided benefits," HRW representative Carroll Bogert said.

..."The United States, which provides 2.75 billion dollars in aid to Israel annually, should suspend financing to Israel in an amount equivalent to the costs of Israel's spending in support of settlements, which a 2003 study estimated at 1.4 billion dollars," the report said.

"Similarly, based on numerous reports that US tax-exempt organisations provide substantial contributions to support settlements, the report urges the US to verify that such tax-exemptions are consistent with US obligations to ensure respect for international law," it added.

Er, what "international law"?

This move, dear readers, is the BSD Movement in thinly veiled disguise: Boycott, Sanctions and Disinvestment.

NGO-Monitor responded:

...NGO Monitor [said] that the report "strips away the context of Arab terror and substitutes inflammatory rhetoric and baseless accusations, falsely turning a political conflict into one of racial hostility by using the "separate but unequal" language from the American civil rights movement."

"Of even greater concern," NGO Monitor continued in a statement, "HRW in this report endorses boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS)..."We also note that the timing of this report coincides with the Arab League campaign to undermine the peace process by exploiting UN framework," the statement added.

^

If You Donate To Israel, You May Be A Supporter of Terrorsim - Says the IRS

In a follow-up to the legal troubles of Z Street, here is the affadavit of an IRS employee which is straight forward: if you contribute charitable funds to Israel, you may be supporting terrorism and therefore, the organization which is the recipient of your contributions can have its tax exmpt status held up. Z St. comments included:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Z STREET, INC.,
Plaintiff, No.2:IO-cv-04307-CMR
v.
DOUGLAS H. SHULMAN, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY 

AS COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
Defendant.

DECLARATION OF JON WADDELL

I, Jon Waddell, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, do hereby declare as follows:

1. I am the Manager of Exempt Organizations Determinations Group 7830 (the Touch-and-Go or "TAG" Group). I have held this position since November, 2009. I have been employed by the IRS since August, 1998.
2. On July 23, 2010, Bill Angner, a Manager in the Exempt Organizations Determinations Group contacted me regarding Z Street's application for recognition of exempt status and whether or not a referral to the TAG group was appropriate.
3. On that date, I spoke with Bill and reviewed Z Street's application, including website printouts of Z Street's website, www.zstreet.org. I determined that a referral to the TAG group was appropriate because, among other things:
a. The application indicated that Z Sreet could be providing resources to organizations within Israel or facilitating the provision of resources to organizations within the state of Israel; [THERE IS NOT NOW, NOR HAS THERE EVER BEEN, BECAUSE IT IS NOT TRUE, ANY INDICATION AT ALL THAT Z STREET PROVIDES ANYONE OR ANYTHING IN ISRAEL WITH ANY RESOURCES. ADDED BY Z ST]
b. Israel is one of many Middle Eastern countries that have a "higher risk of terrorism." (LR.M. 7.20.6.7.5.2(1). See also http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2008/122433.htm); and
c. A referral to TAG is appropriate whenever an application mentions providing resources to organizations in a country with a higher risk of terrorism. [IN OTHER WORDS, ISRAEL SUPPORTERS ARE TREATED AS IF THEY ARE AS LIKELY TO BE SUPPORTERS OF TERRORISM AS ARE ACTUAL SUPPORTERS OF TERRORISTS BECAUSE TERRORISM HAPPENS IN ISRAEL. ADDED BY Z ST.]
A referral to the TAG group does not indicate that the organization supports terrorism, only that further development is necessary to ensure that the organization will put procedures in place to prevent resources from being used to support terrorism. [FURTHER, THE Z STREET CHARTER SPECIFICALLY OPPOSES TERRORISM AND OPPOSES DEALING WITH TERRORISTS IN ANY WAY./Z ST]
5. For instance, the TAG group ensures that organizations that may provide resources to countries with a heightened risk of terrorism:
a. Are aware of the Office of Foreign Assets Control ("OFAC") requirements regarding providing funds to foreign countries; [HAD Z STREET BEEN ASSIGNED TO THE TAG GROUP AS WADDELL STATES, HOW IS IT THAT 5 MONTHS LATER THE IRS TAG GROUP HAS STILL NOT TAKEN ANY EFFORTS TO ENSURE IT IS AWARE OF ANY OF THESE ISSUES? ADDED BY Z ST]
b. Have procedures in place to ensure that resources are not diverted to individuals and organizations on the OFAC list; and [SEE ABOVE. " "]
c. Have procedures in place to ensure that any grants they give are used for appropriate, charitable purposes. [SEE ABOVE/ " "]
6. Z Street's application was not referred to the TAG group because of an "Israel Special Policy" as alleged in Z Street's complaint.
7. Z Street's application was not referred to the TAG group because its viewpoints on Israel contradict the viewpoints espoused by the Obama administration.

CERTIFICATION
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on: [Dec. 8, 2010] Jon WADDELL [Original signed]
Manager,
Exempt Organizations Detenninations Group 7830,
Internal Revenue Service.

Full brief is here.

I am waiting for comments by lawyers and attorneys but on the face of it, it could be argued that the IRS has created a detour system for harrassing groups they don't especially like, or that oppose Administration policies, in disguise. It is highly suspect that the potential threat of terrorism would play a role in this administrative procedure.

First, the IRS's duty, I think, is limited to whether or not the monies a group distribute go to the organizations listed and not another group or that the goals of the receiving group are legitimate and worthy. It is another orgnaization's duty to decide whether the group is practicing crime.

For example, a resident of a prison in the States cannot vote. Does an Election Board official have to check whether a Mr. X is committing a crime which may make him a potential prison resident and therefore his right to vote is cancelled?

Second, as pointed out, if there is a terrorist threat, it is one that Z Street would seem to alleive by promiting policies that seek to strengthen Israel's security through a proper US appraoch to diplomacy.

In addition, I would think that if only in July the doubts arose, after several months of review of Z Street's application, then definitely there is foot-dragging here.

Come back for more.

^

Follow-up to the IRS Scrutiny Division on Z Street

Sent this on the Z Street vs. IRS:

I told the CPA who handled the 501 exemption for _____ a couple of years ago about Lori’s lawsuit. Today he sent me an email telling me that his office is working on a tax exemption for a major Jewish religious organization that holds prayer services and Torah classes where each center files for its own exemption. There is no mention of Israel in its application.

They rec’d a letter from the IRS with the following questions:

Does your organization support the existence of the land of Israel?
Describe your organization’s belief system toward the land of Israel.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

This is illegal and repressive.


- - -

From Tax-Exemption We Go To Illegal Government Domination

For years I have been on to the efforts of anti-YESHA groups to hack away on the issue of tax-exemption.

It started when I joined Dassie Marcus and her fight against the major Jewish charities that refused to transfer funds ear-marked for YESHA in the mid-1980s and even twenty-years later. Even the JNF refused. They claimed the State Department prohibited that and we responded that that was illegal. We eventually won and even Federation funds came across the Green Line

More recently, Gush Shalom, Peace Now, Arab (here too) and even far-out right-wing groups have been complaining and combating in various ways. See here and here and also here. Here, too.

And now, there's a new development, bad (Obama administration thinks it is Nixonian) and good: Jews, Z Street in particular, are fighting back) even though it is not specifically a YESHA issue:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: August 25, 2010
CONTACT: contact@zstreet.org

IRS SUED FOR DISCRIMINATION AGAINST ORGANIZATIONS
THAT DON’T SHARE ADMINISTRATION’S POSITIONS ON ISRAEL

Z STREET, a pro-Israel non-profit corporation, filed a lawsuit in federal court today charging that the IRS violated the organization’s First Amendment rights. The suit was filed after Z STREET was told by an IRS official that its application for tax-exempt status has been delayed because an IRS policy requires consideration of whether a group’s views on Israel differ from those of the current Administration.

“Not only is it patently un-American but it is also a clear violation of the First Amendment for a government agency to penalize an organization because of its political position on Israel or anything else,” said Z STREET president Lori Lowenthal Marcus, a former First Amendment lawyer. “This situation is the same as if the government denied a driver’s license to people because they were Republicans or Democrats. It goes against everything for which our country stands.”

Z STREET filed for tax-exempt status in January of this year and, despite having met all of the requirements for grant of this status, the application has been stalled. An IRS agent told Z STREET’s lawyers that the application was delayed because of a Special Israel Policy that requires greater scrutiny of organizations which have to do with Israel, in part to determine whether they espouse positions on Israel contrary to those of the current Administration.

Z STREET is a Zionist organization that proudly supports Israel’s right to refuse to negotiate with, make concessions to, or appease terrorists. Z STREET’s positions on Israel and, in particular, on the Middle East “peace process” differ significantly from those espoused by the Obama administration.

If Z STREET had tax-exempt status, its donors would be able to deduct contributions from their taxable income. The IRS's refusal to grant tax-exempt status to Z STREET has inhibited the organization‘s fundraising efforts, and therefore impeded its ability to speak and to educate the public regarding the issues that are the focus and purpose of Z STREET.

The lawsuit, Z STREET v. Shulman, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, was filed today in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Well, let's see if the court system is still independent in the US.

And I want to emphasize that actually this he case is NOT about Yesha, per se. The special scrutiny exists for any and all organizations, Jewish or non-Jewish that has anything to do with Israel, even if they don't make charitable donations across the Green Line. This development is a blanket government act of oppression against people and groups whose policies do not agree with President Obama (and probably J Street, as well).

As a friend informed me:

“US tax laws empower citizens to disagree with their administration. If people liked the way their president was allocating funds, they would just pay their taxes and not take a tax exemption. The result is that the tax exemption clause exists for the specific purpose of encouraging you to funnel your money to other causes not supported by the administration!”

Democracy?

Progressive liberalism?

Not the Obama administration it would seem.


UPDATE

Here.

And this:

Bob Jones and Z Street

Blogger Paul Caron, a professor of tax law, highlights an interesting lawsuit brought by an organization called Z Street, a pro-Israel group seeking tax-exempt status. (The name is a play on the anti-Israel group J Street, which in turn is a play on K Street, a metaphor for the lobbying business.)

Z Street's complaint alleges that the group was informed its application for tax-exempt status "has been at least delayed, and may be denied" because it opposes the Obama administration's Israel policies. The complaint calls this "the crudest form of viewpoint discrimination" and argues it is "flatly unconstitutional under the First Amendment."

Caron links to an article in the Forward, which describes the defense of the IRS's alleged position:

As the Forward reported in January, some argue that the 1983 U.S. Supreme Court decision in the case of Bob Jones University v. United States could be interpreted to deny nonprofit status to organizations that oppose established American foreign policy. The Bob Jones decision, which found that "an institution seeking tax-exempt status must . . . not be contrary to established public policy," was written to bar tax exempt groups from participating in racial discrimination.

Legal experts were split on the question of longstanding foreign policy, such as America's opposition to Jewish settlements in the West Bank, could fall within the realm of "public policy" as described in Bob Jones. All agreed, however, that the IRS had never used Bob Jones to deny tax-exempt status to nonprofits that oppose American foreign policy.

A crucial distinction is missing here, however. The January Forward article concerned organizations that raise money to support Jewish neighborhoods in the disputed territories, which critics call "settlements." Even if there is a colorable argument that Bob Jones permits the IRS to deny such groups tax-exempt status on the ground that their activities contrary to U.S. public policy, that would not apply to Z Street, which is strictly an educational and advocacy organization.

If Z Street's factual allegations are accurate, then, its constitutional case is solid, and the IRS's activities are scandalous.

- - -