NGO Monitor begs the question…
NGO Monitor wants to know why this New York Times story, about tax exempt groups funding settlement building -- in some cases, violating Israeli law -- didn't also cover groups it says "demonize" Israel:
The New York Times motto in this instance is ‘half the news that's fit to print.’ There are as least as many organizations that use US tax-exempt status to demonize and wage political war against Israel. In addition, European governments provide tens of millions of dollars annually, and without transparency, to opposition groups in Israel, many of which are behind the Goldstone Report. All these factors should have been part of the Times investigation, and this report should not have been restricted to reflect a narrow and tendentious political position.
A couple of things:
--The statement ignores the explanation embedded in the story:
The use of charities to promote a foreign policy goal is neither new nor unique — Americans also take tax breaks in giving to pro-Palestinian groups. But the donations to the settler movement stand out because of the centrality of the settlement issue in the current talks and the fact that Washington has consistently refused to allow Israel to spend American government aid in the settlements.
The Times says the settlement issue is central to the current talks. NGO Monitor needs to make the case that the pro-Palestinian NGOs are actively contravening a specific U.S. foreign policy that is as central to the talks to allege bias. That case may be made, but it isn't in the NGO Monitor statement. And what do the European governments have to do with an American newspaper reporting on a seeming contradiction in US policy?
--Now that NGO Monitor has raised the question... why doesn't its ample website cover the NGOs the NYTimes story addresses? If it's tendentious for the New York Times to only address settler groups, shouldn't a group called NGO Monitor address any and all NGO anomalies in Israel?
Share
7 Comments
Comments RSS Feed Reader Comments
Two more points:
a) since millions of Euros fund many of these NGOs, should they not register as foreign agents of Sweden, Norway, UK, et al.?
b) Ron’s point, that these Jewish NGOs, in transferring charitable funds for humanitarian aid to Jewish communities, are “are actively contravening a specific U.S. foreign policy” has nothing to do with the issue or the law. After all, if this was a factor, the IRS decades ago would have done something - Carter first called us “illegal” - but that’s a red herring (see my comment above about actual criminal activity in the US which isn’t deal with on the tax-exempt angle). Ron’s is obfuscating
Well gee, Ron. Here’s a difference between the two: many of the pro-Palestinian NGOs are funding groups that are not only illegal, but are murderous terrorists who believe it is a positive thing to kill children, women and men. If I had to focus on outing one thing full time, I would choose to investigate and write about the terrorism-enablers rather than Jews who want to live, breathe and build in any area of the Middle East. And the reason you prefer the NYT choice is.....?
JStreet has partnered with MPAC (Muslim Public Affairs Council) on this – Lots of mixed views on what MPAC really supports. MPAC was very concerned for the “free speech rights” of the students who denied Michael Oren the right to speak. See MPAC’s own article at: http://www.mpac.org/article.php?id=1027#axzz0fIpoJUdx. More distressing is MPACs propagation of the allegation that Israel harvests Paelstinian body part. Again MPAC’s own account: http://www.mpac.org/article.php?id=987. If this is the bed that JStreet wants to share, so be it.
If JStreet is all hot and bothered “over the intention and impact of American organizations and individuals that fundraise” for activities threatening Israeli-Arab peace efforts, here’s a thought: According to the New York Times’ report, the tax-exempt funds aiding settlements go “mostly to schools, synagogues, recreation centers and the like, legitimate expenditures under the tax law.” And “[m]ost contributions go to large, established settlements close to the boundary with Israel that would very likely be annexed in any peace deal, in exchange for land elsewhere. “
If JStreet really wants to help broker genuine peace- based on a modicum of truth and reality- it can do the following:
1) Call Abbas to account when he honors the architect of the Munich massacre, as he did this week.
2) Demand, in parallel, an investigation of whether organizations funding illegal Arab housing on the West Bank have broken the law –
And while JStreet is busy dithering over abuses of American tax law, by those who threaten Middle East, it might press for an investigation of those Islamic schools in the United States, where, in 2007, The Washington Post discovered that Muslim children were taught that “the day of Judgment can’t come until Jesus Christ returns to Earth, breaks the cross, and converts everyone to Islam, and until Muslims start attacking Jews’’. Finally, JStreet might also ask for an investigation of those demanding the ethnic cleansing of Jews from Yehuda and Shomron as a prerequisite to “a just peace”. Of course an investigation of the latter just might necessitate JStreet calling for an investigation of itself.
Thank you, thank you to the NY Times for finally reporting on this story. Scrutiny of this settler funding issue by the mainstream media is long overdue. And smart questions from Ron for NGO Monitor, a right-wing organization, the correct name for which is Liberal NGOs Only Monitor, since it pays no attention to right-wing NGOs.
Leave a Comment
To leave a comment, you must first be logged in to JTA. If you are not registered, please click here.
Already a JTA member?
Need to know? Get JTA's free e-newsletters!
Yisrael Medad
07/06/10 07:05 PM
Let’s look at this issue from another angle:
would the NYTimes dare to do a story on churches that provide sanctuary to illegal immigrants, - and these illegals are quite criminal unlike whether or not a Jewish community is “illegal” - in order to get them into trouble and remove their tax exempt status or does the paper simply “pick on the Jews”?
here:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,271009,00.html
|"Beginning Wednesday afternoon, a Catholic church in downtown Los Angeles and a Lutheran church in North Hollywood each intend to shelter one person as part of the “New Sanctuary Movement.” A handful of churches in other U.S. cities plan similar efforts in the months ahead to spotlight the plight of illegal immigrants. “We want to put a human face to very complex immigration laws and awaken the consciousness of the human spirit,” said Father Richard Estrada of Our Lady Queen of Angels Catholic Church in Los Angeles, where one illegal immigrant will live.
Organizers don’t believe immigration agents will make arrests inside the churches. ICE spokeswoman Virginia Kice declined to say if agents would attempt to arrest others who take sanctuary in churches, although she did say agents have “the authority to arrest those who are in violation of our immigration laws anywhere in the United States.”
Participating churches in San Diego, Seattle, Chicago and New York won’t initially house illegal immigrants. Instead, leaders will provide legal council, accompany people to court hearings and prepare plans to house them in churches if authorities try to deport them.
In New York, religious leaders gathered at the Roman Catholic Church of St. Paul the Apostle and said their promise of sanctuary could include financial assistance, legal help and physical protection, if necessary."|
“Financial assistance” you noticed for illegals. Now that we have Christians involved, what do we Jews presume are the motives of the NYTimes and Peace Now that has been in the forefront of the campaign over the past few years as documented here at the JTA.