Dan Fleshler, a board member of Americans for Peace Now, heeding the siren-call of truth, writes:
U.S. tax-exempt charities are in league with the devil in the occupied territories…. The idea that tax exemptions are available to people who are helping the settlers resist the settlement freeze or who prop up the Jewish zealots in Hebron is outrageous.
The basis of questioning an organization’s 501(c)3 status is not really able to be politicized. If the work conforms to the federal definition of charitable purpose, then there is no legal basis to question the organization’s efforts.
Dan does note that organizations that are tax exempt have urged Israeli soldiers to disobey orders, which does not conform to charitable definition.
It is though a justifiable charitable purpose to fund development in foreign countries.
Again, Witty, factual incorrect: “It is though a justifiable charitable purpose to fund development in foreign countries.”
The domestic charity must follow certain guidelines to maintain its tax-exempt status if it accepts designated contributions for foreign charitable activities>
However, the settlements are considered illegal under US law, and in violation of American foreign policy.
Funding houses for settlers is not a charitable activity. Israeli Jews may perceive it as such, bu the American taxpayers who are paying for this to the tune of 33% minimum would see it as subsidized housing that they dont get in America.
And your post differed from mine, how again?
A paper presentation of conformity to IRS and Treasury is subject to “mere conduit” cancellation of tax-exempt status. Whether or not the ostensible charity organization has exercised due diligence in following the rules to assure more than superficial conformity to the basis of the tax exemption is in reality a political
decision by IRS-Treasury when it comes to indirectly funding illegal Israeli settlements. In short, how far to look into the question; an administrative lawsuit
has been filled against both the IRS and Treasury for not pursuing obvious signs
of indirect use of charitable funds to fund illegal Israeli settlements.
link to realclearpolitics.com
There are aspects of some the accusations that seem to be a violation of charitable status law.
The tone though is to “shut them down” first, investigate later which does not strike me as democratic.
Also, the VAST majority of determinations by the IRS on similar matters allows for clarification and reform, before the status is revoked.
It is a danger for law when the basis of the complaint is political more than legal. In cases where there are legal violations, they should be corrected. In cases where the objections are political, that is something different than what is intended.
Bear in mind what Witty considers to be Jewish AND democratic when he uses the word democratic.
…and you don’t support the settlement construction, huh? Riiiight.
Richard: You ignored the question I put to you on a neighboring thread about this very subject. link to mondoweiss.net You can run, but you can’t hide.
Hamas engages in lots of charitable purposes, but supporters of their charities have been jailed for “materially contributing to terrorism.”
Contributing to Jewish terrorism is just the same, regardless of the charitable smokescreen.
Here is Witty’s position, it is the same as Dershowitz who said he did not support settlement activity on Democracy Now, and than did this afterwords –
DOUBLY BLOODY DIAMONDS
Than goes to Leviev to shop, who as most know, sends money directly to Israel to support illegal settlements. Hypocritical horse shit.
The most important message that I derive from the contrast between charitable giving, is TO GIVE charitably.
“Turn the other cheek” means it.
To refer to the accusation of Phil’s anti-semitism, functional anti-semitism rather than just literal.
One valid criticism of this blog is that it divides, it attempts to politicize all decisions including charitable giving. That combined with the Palestinian urged boycott of Jewish sourced funds or influence, as complicit in their oppression, CREATES an environment in which spontaneous and uninhibited charity is hindered.
Rather than functionally encouraging goodness and reconciliation, the site politicizes and encourages acrimony.
As this conflict entails a full generation, a full life in duration, that is a long time to ask for angry selection in charitable attitude.
You don’t support the settlement activities, but you’ll defend to the death the ability of you and your Zionists friends to fund their constructions and gain a tax incentive for it, to boot.
And on top of all of that, you are completely silent on threads like these.
Wittypocrisy. Always protect Zionist Jews at all costs, attack anti-Zionist Jews and f*ck the Palestinians.
Witty, you paint with a really broad brush. Whether or not as a defacto matter the American taxpayer is indirectly (and directly) funding Israeli activity that is against
US policy and international law IS a political question by any definition.
Many ostensibly charitable organizations have been found to be illegal when the
ultimate beneficiary was found to be a Palestinian one in violation of our laws and policies. Would you “turn the other cheek” to allow them to continue to operate, and to do so
with tax-exempt status? You don’t want hinder spontaneous giving do you?
Did “International Jewry’s” proclamation to the world urging a boycott against
Nazi Germany back in the day create an environment in which spontaneous and uninhibited was hindered? How about the boycott against apartheid S Africa?
Didn’t those historical activities encourage acrimony, rather than functionally
encourage goodness and reconciliation?
You are the one making the angry selection in charitable attitude.
Sorry, Witty, we simply don’t agree with your notion that Israeli’s de facto and sometimes dejure policies, and it’s implementation of same, is a taboo subject.
We won’t turn our other cheek. Too much blood, sweat, and tears is involved.
At this point Witty, any cheek turned by the Zionist enclave of Israel deserves a kick in the ass. We are not talking about matters of charity when the Palestinians enter the equation, but theft and murder, and you are an accessory after the fact. Broadly written –
“ACCESSORY AFTER THE FACT – Whoever, knowing that an offense has been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact; one who knowing a felony to have been committed by another, receives, relieves, comforts, or assists the felon in order to hinder the felon’s apprehension, trial, or punishment. U.S.C. 18 “