Presbyterian Church USA: complaint to IRS, Office of Antiboycott Compliance

Omdurman.org
Defending Western Civilization

Background information

Complaint filed against Presbyterian Church USA for alleged anti-Israel boycott (or "selective divestment") activities.

I am not a lawyer and this is not a legal opinion as to whether PCUSA is in violation of its 501(c)(3) tax exemption or the United States' antiboycott laws. This Web page shows only the information that has been provided to the Internal Revenue Service and Office of Antiboycott Compliance, which have the authority to make these determinations.

To: Internal Revenue Service
TE/GE Division, Customer Service
P.O. Box 2508
Cincinnati, OH 45201

U.S. Department of Commerce
BIS/Office of Antiboycott Compliance, Room 6098
Washington, D.C. 20230

4 October 2004

Subject: 501(c)(3) Presbyterian Church USA in anti-Israel boycott activities
(1)   Is this a violation of United States antiboycott laws?
(2)   Is this an activity "contrary to public policy" (or contrary to the church's proclaimed tax-exempt charter) that would violate its 501(c)(3) tax exemption?
(3)   Is this church usurping the authority of the United States Government by conducting foreign policy on its own, including attempts to pressure Israel to dismantle its security fence and accept the immigration of Palestinian refugees into Israel?

Enclosures:
(1)   http://www.pcusa.org/oga/newsstories/israel.htm Presbyterian Church USA's side of the story:
·         "The assembly authorized exploration of a selective divestment of church funds from those companies whose business in Israel is found to be directly or indirectly causing harm or suffering to innocent people, Palestinian or Israeli. It did not approve a blanket divestment from companies that do business in Israel, as is being reported in some places."
·         But enclosure #2 shows an open letter to the Stated Clerk of PCUSA from the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel, and whose Web site is apparently BoycottIsrael.ps (ps = country code for Palestine?)
(2)   http://www.palestine-pmc.com/details.asp?cat=7&id=47 "An Open Letter in Support of the Presbyterian Church’s Decision to Divest from Israel."

Per http://www.pcusa.org/oga/newsstories/israel.htm; I have highlighted the portions that might be construed as an attempt by this church to make its own foreign policy, an activity that is reserved for the Congress and President of the United States.

The assembly called for an end to Israel’s construction of the “separation barrier.”

While fully aware of our interest in Israel’s security, the major reason for this action was the assembly’s concern of the impact of the structure on the economic, social, and religious life of Palestinians.
The assembly action used the word “wall” because it has become a general reference for the physical structure being put in place.
It raised legitimate questions, corroborated by Israel’s Supreme Court and the International Court of Justice, regarding the route of the wall.
In previous assemblies, the church has called for an end to the occupation, as the principal cause of the conflict.

Presbyterians are calling for an end to this barrier in the belief “that the best hope for security for both Israelis and Palestinians may be found in laying down all forms of aggression on both sides, ending the Israeli occupation, and finding ways to build bridges of peace rather than walls of separation. Good neighborly relations, rather than mutual isolation and suspicion, are urgently needed between Israel and its neighbors in Palestine and the Middle East.”
4. The assembly authorized exploration of a selective divestment of church funds from those companies whose business in Israel is found to be directly or indirectly causing harm or suffering to innocent people, Palestinian or Israeli. It did not approve a blanket divestment from companies that do business in Israel, as is being reported in some places.

The assembly asked the Mission Responsibility Through Investment Committee, the denomination’s permanent committee that develops socially responsible investment guidelines, to initiate a process to look into companies investing in Israel and to bring recommendations re: phasing in selective divestments to the General Assembly Council for action in March 2005.
Although the decision to “initiate a process of phased, selective divestment in multinational corporations operating in Israel” may be presumed by some to invite comparison of Israeli policies with those of apartheid South Africa, the assembly has not asserted any moral equivalency between the two. The two situations are distinct. The focus of this action is to explore use of a proven tool of economic pressure to motivate real change in Israeli policies and movement toward peace.
Again, the assembly’s action calls for a selective divestment, and not a blanket economic boycott, keeping before us our interest in Israel’s economic and social well-being where these do not inflict suffering on Palestinian or Israeli people.

5. These actions are rooted in a longstanding commitment to the secure existence of Israel and the Israeli people, in a similar commitment to the security and existence of Palestinians in their own state, and in a passionate vision of negotiated peace as the only viable way forward. The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has consistently supported the existence of Israel within legitimate and secure borders, and prayed for its security and well-being. It is, however, the conviction of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) that “the security of Israel and the Israeli people is inexorably dependent on making peace with their Palestinian neighbors, by negotiating and reaching a just and equitable solution to the conflict that respects international law, human rights, the sanctity of life, and dignity of persons, land, property, safety of home, freedom of movement, the rights of refugees to return to their homeland, the right of a people to determine their political future, and to live in peace and prosperity.”

This "right of return" seems to refer to the Palestinian agenda of forcing Israel to accept hordes of displaced Palestinians, an action that Israel considers national suicide. http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Right_of_return says, "The right of return is, next to the question of the status of Jerusalem, one of the major impediments to a peace settlement between Israel and the Palestinians. If all the Palestinian refugees and their descendants (estimates range between 4 and 8 million people) were to settle within Israel this would lead to a demographic shift which would end Israel's status as a Jewish state. Some also argue that if a large proportion of the exiled Palestinians were to return, catastrophic overpopulation would result."

Regards,

William Levinson

Webmaster E-mail:

visitors since 4 October 2004