Because they are funding young people to visit Israel and this gives it context.
All that matters is very little money is going to the stated goal of helping poor kids.
Religious angles of what they’re doing instead doesn’t seem to have mattered in the ruling.
Please just state directly why you find the inclusion objectionable.
All that matters is very little money is going to the stated goal of helping poor kids.
Religious angles of what they’re doing instead doesn’t seem to have mattered in the ruling.