Financer l'armée Israélienne et obtenir une déduction fiscale ? En France c’est possible !

This analysis explores how France's financial policies, particularly through tax deductions and public subsidies, indirectly fund the Israeli army and various associated entities, raising questions about France's complicity in war and colonization. The speaker argues that these financial mechanisms, often masked as humanitarian aid or public utility, contribute to France's state deficit and ultimately burden French taxpayers. The discussion begins by highlighting the role of the CRIF (Council Representative of Jewish Institutions of France), described as an organization that claims to represent Jewish interests and fight against racism, but effectively serves as a lobby for Israeli interests. The CRIF is accused of influencing the French political class through various means, including intimidation and promises, and leveraging a network to finance campaigns and promote individuals in the media. A significant concern raised is the CRIF's ability, under the Digital Services Act (DSA), to request platforms to censor content deemed "anti-Semitic" or "racist" in France, operating with a lack of transparency. This situation is presented as problematic, where a foreign interest lobby can dictate content moderation on American platforms operating in Europe, undermining freedom of expression. The CRIF's status as a public utility association allows for tax deductions on received funds. Individuals can deduct 66% of their donations from income tax, and companies can deduct from corporate tax. This means that public money, given France's deficit, effectively supports the CRIF. Every tax deduction granted to such organizations increases the state's deficit and subsequent interest charges. The core issue of funding the Israeli army dates back to 2016, when Senator Nathalie Goulet questioned the legality of French citizens receiving tax deductions for donations to the Israeli army (Tzahal). She pointed out that such donations, deductible up to 60% of the income reduction limit of 20% of taxable income, effectively constitute a fiscal payment by French taxpayers to a foreign army. The initial response from the Ministry of Economy and Finance was that tax benefits are reserved for organizations headquartered in France or Europe, or countries with a specific convention with France, concluding that donations to the Israeli army were not eligible. However, this official stance did not resolve the issue. Senator Goulet faced threats for raising these questions. Years later, particularly after the October 7th attacks and Israel's response in Gaza, the issue resurfaced. It was clarified that while direct funds to the Israeli army are not tax-deductible, indirect funds channeled through specific associations are. Examples of such associations include "Libye France for Tsahal" and "Tsahal Connection," which openly solicit donations for the welfare of Israeli soldiers, including French nationals serving in Tzahal. These associations issue tax certificates (Serfa), allowing donors to claim deductions of 66% to 75% of their donations. The funds collected purportedly support soldiers' integration, provide essential equipment, and offer mental and physical preparation for military service. Nathalie Goulet renewed her inquiry in 2023, reiterating the minister's previous response that direct donations to Tzahal are not tax-deductible. However, she emphasized that associations continue to exploit loopholes, providing tax receipts for donations that ultimately benefit the Israeli army. Her question, like many others, remained unanswered due to governmental changes and procedural caducity, highlighting a lack of accountability and transparency. The speaker argues that supporting a foreign army involved in colonization and alleged war crimes does not constitute a humanitarian cause justifying tax deductions in France. This practice is deemed illegal under current law. Beyond tax deductions, public funds also indirectly reach Tzahal. For instance, Valérie Pécresse, a regional president, allocated €125,000 to Latet, an Israeli NGO providing food and hygiene to Tzahal soldiers. While the Île-de-France region also allocated funds to Palestinian victims, the amount given to Israeli victims was double, and concerns were raised that some of these humanitarian funds could also be diverted to Israeli soldiers. A critical distinction is drawn between supporting the Israeli army and supporting groups like Hamas or Hezbollah, which are designated as terrorist organizations by France. Donating to these latter groups can lead to severe legal consequences, including imprisonment for financing terrorism. This dichotomy underscores the political nature of designating a group as "terrorist," as such labels often reflect a political stance in a conflict rather than an objective assessment of actions. The speaker contends that all armies commit acts that could be considered terrorism under international law, and the label is often applied to the "resistance" of the opposing side. The speaker criticizes the French media and political class for their biased coverage and support of Israel, often overlooking alleged war crimes committed by the Israeli army. Examples cited include the targeting of civilians, civilian infrastructure, and ambulances, as well as calls for genocide on French television without consequences. In contrast, individuals like Rima Hassan faced legal action for alleged "apology of terrorism" for quoting a former member of the Japanese Red Army who spoke of giving his life for the Palestinian cause. The speaker concludes that the issue of tax deductions for the Israeli army is a symptom of a broader problem in French foreign policy, which is seen as overly subservient to NATO and Israel. This policy leads to France supporting certain factions in conflicts, often against French national interests, as seen in Syria and Ukraine. The ultimate solution proposed is to strictly enforce existing laws, sanction associations that illegally collect funds for foreign armies, and ensure that public subsidies and tax deductions for humanitarian causes are not diverted to military objectives. The speaker suggests that if funds collected for humanitarian purposes end up supporting soldiers, it should at least be considered an abuse of trust, if not terrorist financing. Finally, the speaker broadens the discussion to include similar patterns of funding foreign armies or proxy groups in other conflicts, such as Ukraine and Syria. In Ukraine, donations to military and humanitarian organizations, some tax-deductible, contribute to financing Ukrainian forces. In Syria, Western-funded NGOs like the White Helmets were accused of serving as a front to support jihadist groups against Bashar al-Assad, with French public money indirectly financing their medical care. This historical context suggests a consistent pattern of French foreign policy aligning with specific geopolitical agendas, often at the expense of national interests and humanitarian principles.