ADVERTISEMENT

Why is the U.S. subsidizing Israeli settlements?

cigaretteman

HB King
May 29, 2001
79,437
62,545
113
By Uri Blau December 21 at 7:25 PM
Uri Blau is an Israeli investigative journalist based in Washington. Reporting for this commentary was supported by a grant from the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting.

An office chair is positioned on the top of Dagan Hill, on the outskirts of Efrat, a thriving West Bank settlement. Someone must like to sit here and take in the changing landscape. Once-bare mountains are losing their shape, carved up by new roads and villas for a growing population of Jewish settlers.

Nadia Matar, one pillar of this community, should be happy. Twenty years ago, as she struggled to make a life on this hill, the success of her mission seemed improbable, if not impossible. Now, from the top of the windy peak, the fruits of her victory are apparent. Yet Matar, founder and leader of the pro-settlement nonprofit Women in Green, doesn’t sound cheerful when I call to ask about the funding of her organization. “Choose which side are you on,” she tells me in Hebrew, “ours, or the enemies who try to destroy us.”

Many from Israel’s far right and the settlers’ community condemn the Obama administration as that “other” side. They should know better: While one American hand opposes development of settlements, the other keeps feeding it.

A few miles away from Efrat sits the pleasant campground of Oz Vegaon, a West Bank outpost built without the required land allocation and planning permits from the Israeli Civil Administration. Campers, tourists and right-wing groups gather here to enjoy the newly constructed facilities. Women in Green helped to build Oz Vegaon last year, naming it after three Jewish teens murdered by Palestinians not too far from there. Some of the money it used on the site traveled some 5,700 miles from the center of Manhattan. Matar’s group is one of many settler organizations fueled with tax-exempt American dollars, of which increasing amounts arrive each year.

This year I conducted a thorough investigation into the complex network of tax-exempt donations helping to finance West Bank settlements. The investigation, published this month in Haaretz, looked at almost 50 nonprofit organizations that raise money in the United States for the settlements.

The findings are striking: Within five years, from 2009 to 2013, more than $220 million was sent across the ocean and into schools, synagogues and playgrounds dotting the hills of Judea and Samaria. Millions of tax-subsidized dollars have gone to Jewish settlements in Hebron, helping to sustain a grim reality in the segregated part of the city, where Palestinian movement is sharply restricted and their economic life has been suffocated.

Donations from the United States also were used to support families of Jews convicted in ideologically motivated violence against Palestinians. The spouse of Ami Popper, convicted of murdering seven Palestinians in 1990, received financial help from Honenu, an Israeli nonprofit that drew 20 percent of its income last year from U.S. donations.

The American donors to these groups are entitled to tax breaks on the money they give, and so this flow of funds means U.S. taxpayers are indirectly supporting a policy of settlement expansion opposed by the current administration and every other administration — Democratic and Republican — since Richard Nixon. In 2013, the organizations raised $73 million and doled out $54 million in grants. Initial data from 2014 suggest totals even higher.

In his 2009 speech to the United Nations, President Obama stated a clear view on Israeli presence in the West Bank. “America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements,” he said.

When I recently asked a senior White House official about this apparent contradiction, he told me: “This administration never defended or supported any activity associated with the settlements. It doesn’t support or advance any activity that will legitimize them.”

Plaques honoring American donors on buildings or promenades they helped to erect in the settlements suggest otherwise. If Obama means it when he warns Israel about the consequences of its settlement policy, he should explain why his country keeps subsidizing it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-c:homepage/story
 
We've been playing both sides of this thing for decades.

How is it going to keep going if one side runs out of money?
 
The American donors to these groups are entitled to tax breaks on the money they give, and so this flow of funds means U.S. taxpayers are indirectly supporting

The title made it sound like it was U.S. policy to support these, if you take this charitable deduction approach we are then indirectly supporting a ton of different things from different religions to who knows what else.

I think the better argument is that our military/defense support allows them to allocate their public funds to other things that we otherwise wouldn't support.
 
Speaking of subsidies

religion-subsidy.png


http://winningdemocrats.com/71-billion-thats-how-much-america-is-paying-to-subsidize-religion/

The article sayys that if we treated religious organizations as non-profits, they'd still get a lot of those tax breaks, but the total would be at least $16B lower.
 
This is the beauty of private charity versus public/government charity. You get to select the cause you wish to support.

I know Liberals always want to make these decisions for us, but for now this is a last bastion of control over your own assets.
 
This is the beauty of private charity versus public/government charity. You get to select the cause you wish to support.

I know Liberals always want to make these decisions for us, but for now this is a last bastion of control over your own assets.
Sorry, that's the standard con line, but it doesn't hold water.

People can ALWAYS donate to the causes of their choice. Just write the check. You have nearly total freedom, unaffected by my liberal priorities.

When we vote as a nation to use taxes to pay for, say, education, you or I may not agree with that priority. But at least there's been a vote on it (in theory). The American people have said that they want public education (or the candidates who supported public education). Our taxes got to pay for that.

But when I donate directly to Planned Parenthood and PETA and write that off, then your taxes go up to cover the share of taxes that I'm not paying (again, in theory). Yet you not only may not agree to support those priorities, you didn't even have a chance to vote on them.

The richer I am and the more I donate to causes I like but you hate, the more you have to pay for the causes I like. Let me say that again. The more I donate, the more you are forced to donate.

In other words, to correct your comment, with subsidized private charity, "you get to pay for the cause I wish to support."

Why should ANY of us have to pay ANYTHING toward any causes we had no chance to vote on at least in general terms?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hawk and Awe
But when I donate directly to Planned Parenthood and PETA and write that off, then your taxes go up to cover the share of taxes that I'm not paying (again, in theory). Yet you not only may not agree to support those priorities, you didn't even have a chance to vote on them.

The richer I am and the more I donate to causes I like but you hate, the more you have to pay for the causes I like. Let me say that again. The more I donate, the more you are forced to donate.

That's not true at all. Income taxes are only part of the government's revenue stream, and taxes don't rise based on shortfalls caused by charity deductions. If we actually had a balanced budget amendment, taxes might have to be ratcheted that way, but our government doesn't do that. They just go into debt if they don't have the revenues to cover all the spending they want.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ThorneStockton
That's not true at all. Income taxes are only part of the government's revenue stream, and taxes don't rise based on shortfalls caused by charity deductions. If we actually had a balanced budget amendment, taxes might have to be ratcheted that way, but our government doesn't do that. They just go into debt if they don't have the revenues to cover all the spending they want.

Kind of simple minded don't you think? Less revenue in one place doesn't have to be replaced so it doesn't matter?
 
That's not true at all. Income taxes are only part of the government's revenue stream, and taxes don't rise based on shortfalls caused by charity deductions. If we actually had a balanced budget amendment, taxes might have to be ratcheted that way, but our government doesn't do that. They just go into debt if they don't have the revenues to cover all the spending they want.
The shortfall is made up by borrowing this year, but ever after, your taxes go to paying the interest on the debt borrowed to pay for MY donations to Planned Parenthood, PETA, Greenpeace, Amnesty International, American Atheists, and Socialist Jihad.

Moreover, since the US has zero intention of paying off its national debt - EVER - you will be paying the interest on my charitable choices for the rest of your life.

By the way, thanks for helping me support those fine groups.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT