An early January announcement that Israeli authorities had approved a new Jewish settlement on the campus of an American-funded yeshiva in East Jerusalem came just weeks after President Obama issued a statement condemning new Israeli construction in the area.
The yeshiva, called Beit Orot, received nearly half a million tax-free dollars in donations from an American affiliate in 2007. And according to one expert, the group constructing the new housing is a subsidiary of Elad, a settlement organization that received $2.7 million in 2007 from its tax-exempt American affiliate.
This has raised the question: Can tax-exempt American donations be used to fund activities that are explicitly opposed to American foreign policy?
Not according to some critics, including one Arab-American advocacy organization that has undertaken a legal effort to strip the not-for-profit status of American groups that fund settlements. But legal experts question the validity of such claims, and even some American Jewish opponents of the settlement movement worry that the effort will be counterproductive.
“I don’t think this is a winning argument,” said Pamela Mann, a former chief of the New York State Attorney General’s Charities Bureau, of the claim by the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (also known as the ADC) that organizations opposing the public policy of the United States should not be eligible for tax exemptions.
The notion that tax-exempt groups cannot oppose American policy is based on a 1983 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in a case involving Bob Jones University, an evangelical Christian school in Greenville, S.C. The university’s not-for-profit status had been revoked by the Internal Revenue Service over a school ban of interracial relationships, and the university had sued. In its decision, the Supreme Court upheld the IRS’s finding, stating that “an institution seeking tax-exempt status must… not be contrary to established public policy.”
Critics of the settlements, including the ADC, point out that the State Department and the Obama administration are opposed to settlement construction, a position that has been shared by previous administrations. “The United States is opposed to settlements, period,” said Darby Holladay, a spokesman for the State Department.
Although most settlement expansion is temporarily on hold in the West Bank, religious nationalist organizations and the Israeli government continue to build in East Jerusalem, which Palestinians hope to make the capital of a future Palestinian state. The major East Jerusalem settlement organizations, including Elad and Ateret Cohanim, each have American auxiliaries that accept tax-deductible donations. While American Friends of Ateret Cohanim, which sent $1.6 million to the Israeli group in 2007, claims in American tax documents to fund education, a Haaretz report last August quoted an Israeli Ateret Cohanim official saying that all money raised through the American group is used for “land redemption.”
In an October press release, the ADC described administrative complaints it was filing with the Treasury Department and the IRS against American groups that support the settlements. The complaints are not public, but according to the ADC release, they focus on misrepresentation of charitable purposes, such as was alleged in the Haaretz report, and on the groups’ opposition to public policy.
The first argument has remained relatively uncontroversial. Legal experts agree that organizations cannot misrepresent the charitable goal of their organization, or how donations are being used. But the claim that groups that support settlement construction should not be tax exempt has proven controversial.
ADC lawyers could not be reached for comment.
Legal experts are divided on whether, in working in opposition to State Department positions on the settlements, these groups are opposing public policy as described in the Bob Jones decision.
“I could see the IRS saying, ‘That’s contrary to American foreign policy and therefore contrary to American public policy,’ said Bruce Hopkins a not-for-profit law expert. “It’s never happened, but I don’t know of any reason why it couldn’t.”
Johnny Buckles, a professor at the University of Houston Law Center, disagreed. He argued that when the Bob Jones decision found racial discrimination to be against American public policy, it based that finding on statements by all three branches of the federal government, not just the executive branch. “One can argue that Bob Jones requires a very broad — across the various branches — violation of policy. I’m not sure you would have that here,” Buckles said.
“We don’t have a really well-defined concept of what established public policy is,” added Nicholas A. Mirkay, a law professor at Widener University. Mirkay and other legal experts said that the Bob Jones ruling didn’t go far in defining what it meant by “public policy,” and that neither the courts nor Congress had elaborated significantly since the 1983 decision.
Even if the argument could be made that the Bob Jones decision allows for the revocation of the tax exemption of groups that fund settlement construction, some argue that the IRS would never make such a claim. “Revocation of exemption is an enormous and extreme sanction, one that the IRS is loath to impose,” wrote Loyola Law School Los Angeles professor Ellen Aprill in an e-mail. “Put yourself in the place of the commissioner of the IRS. Whatever settled or firm national public policy may mean, the IRS is not going to interpret it to mean the current position of a particular administration.”
That’s a position shared by some American Jewish groups otherwise critical of American support of the settlements.
“You’re going down a very slippery slope, and it’s something we prefer not to do,” said Ori Nir, spokesman for Americans for Peace Now. Nir said that his group supports drawing attention to American not-for-profits that fund settlements, but that the notion that organizations opposing the policy of a given administration could lose their tax exemption is troubling.
“Take the issue of abortion, for instance,” Nir said. “Is it right when there is a conservative administration that opposes abortion to apply that kind of litmus test to organizations that deal with issues of reproductive rights? It’s messy.”
Contact Josh Nathan-Kazis at nathankazis@forward.com
The Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, the Forward requires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, the Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.
When Hank Greenberg Met Jackie Robinson
Reconsider Decision on Rabbis and Intermarriage
Ultra-Orthodox Men Ditch All-Black Attire as Fashion Trumps Tradition
Israel's Shas, Right-Wing Kingmaker Party, Takes Sharp Turn to Left
Is Steven Hawking’s Decision To Boycott an Israeli Conference Boon to BDS?
Copyright © 2013, Forward Association, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
You've successfully signed up!
From the Forward (Gal Beckerman, 12/16/09): "Group Paying IDF Soldiers To Refuse Duty May Be in Violation of U.S. Tax Law" - http://www.forward.com/articles/121181/ Also see Tikun Olam (Richard Silverstein, 12/2/09): "Your U.S. Tax Dollars Support IDF Insurrection" [Excerpt] "The Task Force to Save the Nation and the Land [aka SOS Israel]…offered every soldier refusing to evacuate a settlement, and the Kfir Brigade soldiers who publicly demonstrated their opposition to evacuation, NIS 1,000 for every day they spend in military prison…" Haaretz] . . . . "As Machanaim is a 501c3 group that means that you and I are subsidizing insurrection in the IDF." [TikunOlam] http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2009/12/02/your-u-s-tax-dollars-support-idf-insurrection/ Also see - Mondoweiss [Adam Horowitz, 12/16/09): "New York-based foundation supports settler rabbi who justified the killing of non-Jews" http://mondoweiss.net/2009/12/new-york-based-foundation-supports-settler-rabbi-who-justified-the-killing-of-non-jews.html
Some organizations engaged in the same kind of activities as some of the settlers have been designated terrorists.
US tax dollars fund rabbi who sanctioned killing gentile babies and incited torching of Yasuf mosque -- http://bit.ly/5xPFyq |
US tax dollars at work in the West Bank: Bounty money -- http://bit.ly/8HhjI9 |
US tax dollars at work: TV interview with Rabbi Dov Wolpe -- http://bit.ly/7BUANP
Enough already with story after story meant to incite anger against a specific portion of Israel's citizenry. While liberalim may be admitable at times, American Jewish liberalism is hurting Am Yisrael very badly today. It is nauseating that so many Jews are willing to give up Jerusalem - the center of all Jewish yearning for centuries, and officially the center of all Jewish "avodah" (just think of the major Festivals). Jerusalem is Jewish,founded by King David, and lived in by Jews ever since, even when conquerors came that put this fact into question and attempted to make Jerusalme "judenrein." Learn your history, folks! Jerusalem fell into Arab hands during the 1948 war and was reunited during the 1967 war. Why does 1948 count more than 1967? Why is all the archaeological proof of Jewish life in Jerusalem ignored by Jews who wish to see "East" Jerusalem empty of Jews? It is wrong to target Jews who wish to live in what is historically Jewish Israel because of current politics; the politics of the last 20-30 years does not outweigh all of history.
Finally, in reply to "Norman's" comment: The "settlers" are tax-paying, army-serving, hard-working citizens of Israel. They are a continuation of the chalutzim/pioneers who built Israel by their sweat and blood. They are decent folks like you and me - just go meet them. Please stop "other=izing them by using the moniker you use.
In short: Enough, guys - we are all in this together as Jews. Let's concentrate on the threats to us as a People by outside forces and let's not splinter ourselves from within.
a) using a ruler of "public policy" is fairly weak. Public policy before the 1950s was segregation, no. But that was illegal by law. Is a Jew living in his national homeland against the Constitution or just some politicians from Chicago?
b) the US formally adopted via the 1924 Anglo-American Convention the right of Jews to live in Judea and Samaria (you want to argue that a Jewish state can't be there, well, try, but residency is guaranteed.
Try this:
The "Mandate for Palestine" was not a naïve vision briefly embraced by the international community. Fifty-one member countries - the entire League of Nations - unanimously declared on July 24, 1922:
"Whereas recognition has been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country."
American Support for a Jewish National Home:
On June 30, 1922, a joint resolution (the Lodge Fish Resolution) of both Houses of Congress of the United States unanimously endorsed the "establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people," confirming the irrevocable right of Jews to settle in the area of Palestine – anywhere between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea:
"Favoring the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.
"Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled. That the United States of America favors the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which should prejudice the civil and religious rights of Christian and all other non-Jewish communities in Palestine, and that the holy places and religious buildings and sites in Palestine shall be adequately protected." [italics in the original]
On September 21, 1922, President Warren G. Harding signed the Lodge-Fish Resolution, endorsing the Balfour Declaration and the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine.
The U.S. Government (not a member of the League of Nations) maintained that her participation in WWI and her contribution to the defeat of Germany and the defeat of her Allies, entitled the United States to be consulted as to the terms of the "Mandate for Palestine."
The outcome of this request was a "Convention [Treaty] between the United States of America and the United Kingdom with respect to the rights of the two governments and their nationals in Palestine," a relationship governed by international law. The Convention contains the entire text of the "Mandate for Palestine" including the preamble and was concluded and signed by their respective plenipotentiaries in London on December 3, 1924; Ratification advised by the Senate, February 20, 1925; Ratified by President Calvin Coolidge, March 2, 1925; Ratified by Great Britain, March 18, 1925; Ratifications exchanged at London, December 3, 1925; Proclaimed, December 5, 1925.
In ratifying the Convention, the United States of America formally recognized the terms of the "Mandate for Palestine" and the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country.
Any attempt to negate the Jewish people's right to Palestine - Eretz-Israel - and to deny them access and control in the area designated for the Jewish people by the League of Nations is an actionable infringement of both international law and the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution), which dictates that Treaties "shall be the supreme Law of the Land".
c) As has been pointed out, illegal immigration to the US is against the law but certain churches provide sanctuary, food, clothing, etc.. You think that their tax-exemption would be taken away? Of course not, they don't have looney Christians trying to get that done unlike us Jews with Peace Now, etc.
d) if there are any specific criminal activities, go on and complain. or try to take on Haddassah Hospital and Hebrew University. They are across the Green Line, no? You think they'll appreciate this subversive activity?
Let's correct my too fast typing:
a) using a ruler of "public policy" is fairly weak. Public policy before the 1950s was segregation, no? But that was illegal by law. Is a Jew living in his national homeland against the Constitution or just some politicians from Chicago?
b) the US formally adopted - via the 1924 Anglo-American Convention - the right of Jews to live in Judea and Samaria (if you want to argue that a Jewish state can't be there, well, try, but for sure residency there is guaranteed).
And did Josh Nathan-Kazis try to obtain reactions from the various group involved? He managed to talk to ADC or PN. If they refused, professional journalism should mean that too would have been in the story. If he didn't, well, that's not good either.
Who said "be careful what you wish for"? Maybe some judge will say "all activity" across the Green Line is problematic including Peace Now's over-flights, Yesh Din's recon trips, B'tselem's visits? Who knows what criteria will be set?
If the activities of private Israeli citizens in areas that are in political dispute are against U.S. public policy than why has the U.S. government not moved against the text exempt status of organizations who provide private assistance to individuals engaged in such activities? Res Ipsa Loquitor.
Also see -- "Rescind Tax-Exempt Status of American Jewish Groups Funding Settlements," Richard Silverstein, Tikun Olam, 1/7/10. [Excerpt] "Josh Nathan-Kazis has a story in The Forward which I find disappointing in one major point. He has been writing an otherwise exemplary series about American Jewish pro-settler non-profits which raise tens of millions to support what amounts to a Holy Land War against Palestinians in the Territories and East Jerusalem. [Omitted here - S's explication of critique] . . . . Further, we need to broaden the argument regarding settlements. They should lose their tax exempt status not just because settlements in and of themselves violate U.S. policy, but because the heinous racist acts of murder, mayhem and hate perpetrated by settlers who receive this money violate every value Americans hold dear. The settlements and the very essence of the settler enterprise are contrary to American policy and values. That’s the argument we need to make. Loud and clear." http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2010/01/07/american-jewish-non-profits-fund-settlements-violate-irs-rules/
To TheAZCowboichick of Tombstone,AZ:Most of your concerns are addressed by Yisrael Medad,above.However, your obvious anti-Zionist bias is directly answered by Dr.Martin Luther King,Jr.:"...You declare,my friend that you do not hate Jews,you are merely anti-Zionist.And I say,let the truth ring forth from the high mountain tops,let it echo through the valleys of G-d's green earth:When people criticize Zionism,they mean Jews--this is G-d's own truth." "Antisemitism,the hatred of the Jewish people has been and remains a blot on the soul of mankind.In this we are in full agreement.So know also this:antiZionism is inherently antisemitic.and ever will be so."
Leave it to the leftist "Jews," to spit on Torah, and turn on Israel.
No need for the muslims to kill us...the secular leftists will do it for them.
Silverstein is quoted: "Holy Land War against Palestinians" and "the heinous racist acts of murder, mayhem and hate perpetrated by settlers who receive this money violate every value Americans hold dear."
Actually, I think we in Israel are doing a lot better than Americans did to Native American Indians, and Japanese and Afro-Americans. Remind me, Silverstein & Cohorts, what "values" are you referring to?
I think Silverstein & Co. remind of this week's Torah portion, Exodus 5:20 - "20 And they met Moses and Aaron, who stood in the way, as they came forth from Pharaoh; 21 and they said unto them: 'The LORD look upon you, and judge; because ye have made our savour to be abhorred in the eyes of Pharaoh, and in the eyes of his servants, to put a sword in their hand to slay us.' 22 And Moses returned unto the LORD, and said: 'Lord, wherefore hast Thou dealt ill with this people? why is it that Thou hast sent me?" except today, it is the nationalist camp which is being treated ill.
Re: "Most of the West Bank settlers are low lives living on Israeli government welfare payments, subsidized housing, food donations and (indirectly) US tax-payer dollars as they harrass Palestinians, cut down and destroy their olice/fruit trees and vineyards, misappropriates their water resources (Israel currently steals 92% of the West Bank and Gaza aquifer resources) and walk around places like Hebron, accompanied by a gaggle of IDF hoodlums, looking for Palestinians to attack, insult, kick out of their homes (where they have lived for decades if not centuries), as the IDF takes care that they don't 'bite off more than they can chew' with their weapons."
I am a settler. I am not a low life. I do not live on government welfare payments, or in subsidized housing and get no food donations. I own my house. I have a mortgage. My husband and I both have good jobs. We work hard to support our growing family. I have never harrassed a Palestinian, destroyed a fruit or olive tree or a vineyard. I know no gaggles of IDF hoodlums and have never looked for a Palestinian to attach, insult of kick out of their home. Before my home was built there was nothing there. Neither my husband nor I own a weapon. And all of the above applies to every other person that lives in my neighborhood. Have you ever met a "settler"??? We are normal people. I don't live in a settlement. I live in a suburb of Jerusalem. Get a little more educated. Geez.
Re. invocation of Martin Luther King -- see "Fraud Fit For A King: Israel, Zionism, And The Misuse Of Mlk," by Tim Wise. [Excerpt] "Rarely am I considered insufficiently cynical. As someone who does anti-racism work for a living, and thus hears all manner of excuse-making by those who wish desperately to avoid being considered racist, not much surprises me. I expect people to lie about race; to tell me how many black friends they have; to swear they haven't a racist bone in their bodies. And every January, with the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday just around the corner, I have come to expect someone to misuse the good doctor's words so as to push an agenda he would not likely have supported. . . . the one thing I never expected anyone to do would be to just make up a quote from King; a quote that he simply never said, and claim that it came from a letter that he never wrote, and was published in a collection of his essays that never existed. Frankly, this level of deception is something special. The hoax of which I speak is one currently making the rounds on the Internet, which claims to prove King's steadfast support for Zionism." http://www.zmag.org/zspace/commentaries/1483
Allegations of misuse,lies,hoaxes and deception are the usual refuge of those fearful of Dr.MLK's words,including their questionable support from those of like mind.Anti-Zionists are peculiar animals:They include those who support extreme Islamist elements efforts to destroy the Jewish State and deny Biblical (and Koranic) sources which upholds its creation, and those who deny the international legal basis for the creation of Israel.