When ‘The Washington Post’ gets its ‘facts’ from terror-linked NGOs - by NGO Monitor

...This article exemplifies the broad and negative results of the NGO “halo effect,” whereby journalists falsely portray NGOs as accurate, unbiased sources. In reality, like other political actors (hence, the “Fact Checker” column), these organizations deserve scrutiny, and their claims should be treated with skepticism.

NGO Monitor..
JNS.org..
19 March '18..

That journalists rely uncritically on nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), especially in the context of the Arab-Israeli conflict, is well established (read Matti Friedman in The Atlantic). Legal and factual claims by groups that purport to promote human rights are often treated as automatically credible, while their political biases, lack of methodology and even ties to terror organizations are ignored.

Glenn Kessler’s March 14 Washington Post “Fact Checker” column, Does the Palestinian Authority pay $350 million a year to ‘terrorists and their families’?, responding to statements made by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu about prisoner payments, suffers from the same over-dependence.

Throughout the article, Kessler quotes groups with ties to terrorist organizations as if they were credible sources for fact-checking. He quotes Palestinian NGOs Addameer and Defense for Children International-Palestine (DCI-P), both of which are closely associated with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP). The PFLP is designated as a terrorist organization by the US, EU, Canada and Israel. Addameer is relied upon by The Washington Post to suggest that Israel fabricates evidence to convict Palestinians of attempting stabbing attacks. (“‘An usual case is one of a Palestinian found in possession of a knife being charged with attempted murder without any real evidence to indicate that he or she actually used or intended to use the weapon to kill,’ said Sahar Francis, director of Addammer, an organization that assists Palestinian prisoners.”)

(Continue to Full Post)

Updates throughout the day at http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com. If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.Twitter updates at LoveoftheLand as well as our Love of the Land page at Facebook which has additional pieces of interest besides that which is posted on the blog. Also check-out This Ongoing War by Frimet and Arnold Roth. An excellent blog, very important work. 

.

On media, political conflict and NGOs

...When the media itself promotes the unchecked power of political groups such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty, and suppresses criticism of these NGOs, democracy is ill-served.

Gerald Steinberg..
JPost Opinion..
13 December '14..

When I started researching and criticizing powerful groups claiming moral agendas, such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, my primary objective was to open a debate and build a system of accountability where none existed.

Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) exercise a great deal of political power, without being subject to the checks and balances of democracy or media scrutiny. The organization that I founded, NGO Monitor, is an attempt to provide at least some substantive and independent analysis and counter to the growing impact, particularly regarding Israel.

The need for informed and serious criticism became apparent during the 2001 Forum of Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) that took place in Durban, South Africa. This forum, held under the banner of the UN Human Rights Commission, brought in 5,000 delegates from over 1,500 NGOs, ostensibly to celebrate the end of apartheid. In fact, this high-profile event was turned into the opening attack in a dirty political war targeting Israel “as an apartheid state,” and using weapons such as boycotts, demonization and lawfare.

In this ongoing conflict, journalists play a central role in marketing the NGO “reports” and condemnations accusing Israel of war crimes and violations of human rights. In the media, NGO officials that attack Israel are automatically given the role of experts on the complexities of urban warfare and international law, without examination of their credentials, which are usually non-existent. For example, the Jerusalem bureau of The New York Times often quotes politically biased NGO officials with no expertise on urban warfare, thereby furthering the Durban agenda of Israel bashing.

For the most part, journalists, both as individuals and through professional groups that examine ethics and guidelines, try to avoid debating and criticizing their own behavior. But questions over the role of journalists in the conflict are now – for the first time – the focus of a serious debate.

On November 22, Margaret Sullivan, the public editor of the New York Times, published “The Conflict and the Coverage,” after acknowledging the culture of reluctance to look inward: “This is column I never wanted to write.”

Human Rights Watch Continuing Distorted Priorities in 2012

NGO Monitor..
30 January '13..

Human Rights Watch (HRW) epitomizes the ongoing crisis and moral failure of powerful non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that claim to promote the universal principles of human rights. NGO Monitor's review of HRW's 2012 activities, particularly in the Middle East, demonstrates that little has changed compared to previous years, and that the same individuals continue to control the organization's agenda and activities.

NGO Monitor's analysis shows:

- Rights violations and armed conflicts that are out of the media focus continue to receive little to no attention from HRW.

- HRW issued fewer condemnations of Israel in 2012 in comparison to previous years, but HRW's emphasis on Israel continues to reflect the ideology of the leaders of the organization and the Middle East division.

"Lacking Any Foundation in Law"? Meet the European Court of Justice

Douglas Murray..
Gatestone Institute..
04 January '13..

Few people would ever label the hydra-like institutions of the European Union as transparent... or responsive to the desires of we mere voters. The EU has long been in the habit of ignoring the will of the peoples of Europe, if their will is not the same as the will of the EU. Its accounting procedures are so lacking in accountability that the EU's own auditors have refused to sign off on the entity's budgets for the last 18 years running. And of course the European Court has a long and ignoble track-record of ignoring the security concerns of EU citizens in favour of the rights of terrorists to go about their lives and careers unhindered.

So nobody should be terribly surprised at the European Court of Justice's latest demonstration of opposition not merely to transparency but to the peoples it presumes to govern.

Shortly before Christmas the European Court threw out a lawsuit filed almost three years ago, which would have led to the EU being required to release the details of its funding of non-governmental organizations [NGOs]. The suit, filed in 2010 by the superb NGO Monitor, accused the European Commission [EC] -- the "executive branch" of the acronym-rich EU - of failing to fulfill the EU's own transparency obligations. These obligations -- included, for what it's worth, in European Freedom of Information law -- require that details of EC funding should be available upon request. For thirteen months, NGO Monitor has requested such information, and for all that time the EC has claimed"'privacy" and "commercial interests" among other reasons for refusing to have any transparency.

Previously, since June 2005, NGO monitor had identified almost $48 million of funding given by the EC to groups which include those actively involved in extremist anti-Israel activity.such as boycott campaigns and "lawfare" -- frivolous and malicious lawsuits to try, through the harassment and expense of lawsuits, to intimidate people from questioning or criticizing Islam.

Plosker - Medical Misdirection in The Guardian

Al-Biss caught at the Erez Crossing

Simon Plosker..
Honest reporting/Backspin..
29 December '11..

As NGO Monitor has extensively detailed, Physicians For Human Rights (Israel) has a radical political agenda far removed from simple medical matters. It’s therefore no surprise that the organization provides the main body of an article in The Guardian that claims: “Palestinian patients and business people hoping to leave the Gaza Strip are being asked to collaborate with Israel in exchange for an exit permit”.

According to PHR:

172 people, mostly men aged 18 to 40, were called for interrogation by the Shabak, Israel’s internal intelligence agency, last month. Some who attended interviews were granted exit permits.

Putting this figure into perspective, in August 2011 alone, 1522 permits were granted for medical treatment to residents of Gaza (762 patients and 760 for accompanying individuals). In one week in December 2011, 330 patients and accompanying individuals crossed into Israel and the West Bank via the Erez Crossing.

Kushner - From Israel: Keeping Afloat

Arlene Kushner
Arlene from Israel
05 December '11

Last night I attended a multi-part event at the Menachem Begin Heritage Center, with the theme "Defending Israel and International Law":

It was, first, a book launch, as NGO-Monitor introduced its new book, "The Goldstone Report 'Reconsidered' -- A Critical Analysis."

Professor Gerald Steinberg -- NGO-Monitor Director and co-editor, with Anne Herzberg, of the book -- explained the genesis of this work, which has been three years in the making.

As it was also a panel discussion, the experts gathered provided additional information regarding the situation that Israel regularly confronts with regard to international law -- the situation that made the writing of this book so very important.

~~~~~~~~~~

The war in Gaza known as Cast Lead was initiated by Israel at the very end of 2008, and ran into the first weeks of 2009. It was a necessary response to the barrage of rockets -- each a human rights violation if not a war crime in and of itself -- being launched by Hamas against Israeli civilians.

As Major General Avichai Mandelblit, outgoing Military Advocate General of the IDF, explained, in this war Israel confronted asymmetric warfare. This does not mean that one side was more powerful or better equipped than the other. Rather, it means that one side played by the rules of international law and the other did not. This places the law-abiding side, in this instance Israel, in a very difficult if not impossible situation.

Hamas put civilians in the way of military targets. Either the IDF refrains from firing at the targets, or fires and runs the risk of also hitting civilians. Hamas is likely to come out a winner whatever Israel does.

~~~~~~~~~~

If Israel does fire, accusations are then leveled against Israel: Israel is aiming at civilians and is guilty of war crimes! Israel deliberately hit a UN school that had students inside! Says General Mandelblit, a war can be lost this way, whatever victories are achieved in the field. For, today fighting a war has to include the legal and media fronts as well as the military and the political.

Because of experiences in the past with regard to this sort of thing, the situation was anticipated. And so, the general, in consultation with appropriate persons within the government, made the decision that every single incident during Cast Lead in which an accusation against Israel was made had to be checked.

Said General Mandelblit last night, "This was first for ourselves, to be sure we are what we claim to be." Please mark this well, as it's a point of enormous pride and should be understood by all.

And then, of course, it's a matter of defense with regard to the legal and media fronts. The investigations prepared Israel to fight the accusations.

NGO Monitor - The Russel Tribunal on Israel: A Legal Farce and Total Failure

NGO Monitor
10 November '11

It is not a "tribunal." The "evidence" is going to be one-sided and the members of the "jury" are critics whose harsh views of Israel are well known. - Judge Richard Goldstone, "Israel and the Apartheid Slander," New York Times, October 31, 2011

On November 5-6, the Russell Tribunal on Palestine (RToP) held a session in Cape Town, South Africa. The session was convened, under the façade of a legal framework, ostensibly to consider if "Israel's treatment of the Palestinian people fits the international legal definitions of the crime of apartheid."

This PR stunt was a total failure; none of its stated objectives was achieved. The RToP failed to garner positive international media attention other than a single opinion piece placed in the Guardian (not known for favorable pieces on Israel) and coverage in Al-Jazeera. The tone of international coverage was set by Judge Richard Goldstone's scathing op-ed in the New York Times. In addition prominent scheduled witnesses, including South Africans Winnie Mandela and Pumla Gobodo-Madikizela, withdrew from the Tribunal before it opened.

NGO Monitor worked closely with the South African Jewish community, including the South African Jewish Board of Deputies, South African Zionist Federation, and FairPlay South Africa, in advance of and during this event to expose the radical political agenda of the organizers and participants. Concrete results included the development of the www.russelltribunal.org website, used widely by analysts and critics, as well as Facebook pages, Twitter feeds, and blogs. Additionally, Prof. Gerald Steinberg participated in an hour-long radio debate with RToP "witness" and former UN Human Rights Special Rapporteur John Dugard, forcing the latter to respond defensively.

Goldstone Retracts

NGO Monitor
17 April '11

Judge Richard Goldstone has retracted the central premise of his report, but NGOs refuse to follow suit.



Learn more at http://www.ngo-monitor.org

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Judge Goldstone vs. the Goldstone Report?

Gerald M. Steinberg
Washington Jewish Week
23 March '11

http://washingtonjewishweek.com/main.asp?SectionID=31&SubSectionID=49&ArticleID=14609

During last week's Israel Apartheid Week (IAW), the now infamous Goldstone Report on the 2008-2009 Gaza war was the basis for much discussion. Since its release in September 2009, anti-Israel activists have pointed to the report's conclusions as evidence for Israeli "war crimes" and "apartheid," and to bolster their boycott campaigns.

However, in a series of public appearances in California, the author of the report, Judge Richard Goldstone, seems to be slowly distancing himself from his United Nations report, which wrongly condemned Israel for alleged war crimes.

At the same time, Goldstone continues to repeat many of most damaging accusations against the Jewish state, despite evidence that they are based on false claims.

In a talk at Stanford University in January, Goldstone acknowledged that the U.N. Human Rights Council, which appointed him to head the so-called investigation, was biased against Israel. "They repeatedly rush to pass condemnatory resolutions in the face of alleged violations of human rights law by Israel, but fail to take similar action in the face of even more serious violations by other states," he acknowledged.

This was an important admission -- albeit two years too late.

Logically, the inherent bias at the UNHRC should have led Goldstone to refuse to partake in the investigation of Israel, first launched in January 2009. The disrepute of the UNHRC led Mary Robinson, who had served as the U.N. commissioner of human rights, to decline the position when offered.

Goldstone was subsequently chosen, in part because the UNHRC sought to appoint "prominent Jews known for their anti-Israel views to head their investigations," as was reported by Human Rights Watch founder Robert Bernstein in a November 2010 speech at the University of Nebraska.

From the start, the 2009 UNHRC resolution targeted only Israel; as usual, the war crimes of Hamas and the Palestinians were entirely ignored. As a result, the Israeli government refused to provide Goldstone and the UNRC any assistance. In Goldstone's confused attempts to both acknowledge this bias and continue to act as if it did not exist, he expressed "dismay" that Israeli officials had denounced his farce.

Recently, during an event at the University of California at Berkeley, Goldstone declared, "I pleaded with [Israel] to meet with me. ... I had nurtured the hope that the Israeli government would take this opportunity to have a U.N. platform to put its version into the commission. It didn't."

Attempting to justify his decision to proceed with the report, Goldstone has claimed to have been given a revised mandate by the rotating UNHRC president. This is clearly false. Of the "36 incidents" investigated by Goldstone, not one relates to the thousands of Palestinian rocket attacks from Gaza, each a war crime targeting Israeli citizens.

The second fatal flaw is Goldstone's reliance on unsourced and unverified claims, many of which were made by ideologues closely aligned with both the UNHRC and Hamas. Hundreds of "references" in this report (often contradictory) are copied from unverifiable claims that were made by anti-Israel political groups.

Although Goldstone now recognizes Israel's right to defend itself, he continues to reference unsupported allegations against the Jewish state. For example, Goldstone has continued to repeat erroneous civilian casualty statistics, which were used as evidence to justify the war crimes charge. He's also rejected the public statement by Hamas interior minister Fathi Hammad indicating that false claims were made in the report.

The combination of a totally biased mandate and the reliance on false or unverifiable allegations from equally biased groups should have led to the immediate dismissal of the Goldstone report. But the powerful coalition led by these groups continues to exploit both false claims and Goldstone's own reputation, thereby compounding the damage.

In his Berkeley presentation, Goldstone reportedly stated that "the powerful don't like to be looked at and judged." Goldstone is a powerful individual, and in failing to address the overwhelming and substantive criticism -- and moving far too slowly, if at all, to correct the enormous damage that he has caused -- Judge Goldstone continues to abuse his power.

Professor Gerald M. Steinberg is president of NGO Monitor, a Jerusalem-based research institution that tracks NGOs that claim to protect human rights, particularly in the Middle East.

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

The other war against Israel

Jennifer Rubin
Right Turn
Washington Post
16 February '11

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-turn/2011/02/the_other_war_against_israel.html

NGO Monitor, a Jerusalem-based watchdog group, sent out a statement today that reads, in part:

Signaling the continuing decline of the organization, Human Rights Watch (HRW) has appointed Shawan Jabarin, an alleged senior activist in the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) terrorist organization, to its Middle East Advisory Board. . . . "This appointment ends any façade that Human Rights Watch is a moral 'watchdog' organization," says Prof. Gerald Steinberg, president of NGO Monitor. "Mr. Jabarin has ties to the PFLP terror group, which specialized in aircraft hijackings and carries out suicide bombings and political assassinations. He also heads an organization, Al Haq, which is among the leaders of delegitimization campaigns targeting Israel. This appointment is a slap in the face from HRW Executive Director Ken Roth and Chairman James Hoge to terror victims, Israelis, Jews, and others who seek to uphold universal human rights. "With this appointment, HRW blatantly disregards decisions by the Israeli Supreme Court and other countries that have affirmed Jabarin's terror links. Jordan also has denied him exit visas because of his alleged terrorist ties to the PFLP.

As reported by NGO Monitor, the Israeli Supreme Court in June 2007 referred to Jabarin as a "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde," a human rights worker by day and a terrorist by night. In 2008, the Supreme Court upheld a visa denial because of his terror connections.... 

This appointment is the latest of numerous moral failings, scandals and biases that have exposed HRW as a political advocacy organization. In May 2009, as NGO Monitor exposed, Middle East and North Africa (MENA) division director Sarah Leah Whitson went to Saudi Arabia to raise funds, selling the message that HRW counters "pro-Israel pressure groups." Last year, the revelation of HRW "senior military analyst" Marc Garlasco's Nazi memorabilia obsession further damaged the organization's credibility. (Garlasco was fired, but an investigation never occurred.). . . As donations decreased amid the scandals, George Soros rescued HRW with a 10-year, $100 million donation. Mr. Soros also funds Al Haq."

Soros, of course, also founded and continues to fund the faux pro-Israel group, J Street, which, like HRW, devotes a disproportionate amount of its time and effort aiding in the delegitimization efforts of Israel's enemies (e.g. escorting Richard Goldstone around Capitol Hill, urging Obama not to veto a condemnation in the U.N. of Israel).

In a sign of increased willingness to combat those NGO's that are nothing more than combatants in the war to delegitimize Israel, an Israeli official authorized to speak only on background had this reaction in response to my request for comment:

"This unfortunately comes as no surprise. HRW has a consistent track record of institutional bias against Israel and as an organization lacks any credibility when it comes to the Jewish state. HRW is known to hire people to do their Middle East work who do not have a human rights background but rather a background of activism in radical Arab advocacy groups."

The official also pointed to its past fundraising in Saudi Arabia, remarking, "Isn't that a bit like feminists fundraising with the Taliban?"

This incident raises several key issues. First, it is further justification for Israeli efforts to require that NGO's disclose their foreign funding. Second, it should be incumbent on media outlets not to use HRW as a source for unbiased material or comment. The group has proven over and over again that it is an antagonist of the Jewish state and not a neutral observer. And finally, why should the Israeli government, especially the Israeli Defense Forces, continue to cooperate with HRW? Allowing HRW access to the battlefield or other data certainly isn't going to impact the group's ideological commitment. Rather, it enhances its image as a real "human rights" group.

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Breaking What Silence? A Critical Reading of Allegations from "Breaking the Silence"

NGO Monitor
02 February '11

On December 12, 2010, the NGO known as Breaking the Silence (BtS) published a 431-page compilation entitled Occupation of the Territories - Israeli Soldier testimonies 2000-2010. BtS claims to counter the "official Israeli position" that IDF actions are defensive in nature: "The soldiers' testimonies describe an offensive policy that includes annexation of territory, terrorizing and tightening the control over the civilian population."

These highly tendentious and unsubstantiated allegations were copied uncritically by media sources such as the New York Review of Books, Ha'aretz, The Independent (UK), leading Danish newspaper Berlingske Tidende.

NGO Monitor's analysis of the Breaking the Silence publication shows:

- BtS makes sweeping accusations based on anecdotal, anonymous, and unverifiable accounts of low-level soldiers.

- Only 30 of 183 testimonies could potentially be independently verified based on the details provided. (According to BtS, 101 individuals testified. It is unclear how many of them are responsible for multiple entries.)

- Responses to terror and legitimate security concerns are dismissed as pretenses to "punish, deter, or tighten control over the Palestinian population" and the "intimidation, instilling of fear, and indiscriminate punishment of the Palestinian population."

- The incidents do not relate to decision-making in the army's higher echelons, but rather refer entirely to allegations of low-level infractions. Many explicitly note that misconduct was opposed and punished by officers: "I have to point out that the officers were opposed to it, and they tried anyone who was involved in these things. There was a strong opposition."

- Some of the testimonies suggest radical anti-Israel political motivations. One former soldier explained that he participates in "anti-Wall" demonstrations, and another referred to settlers as "the biggest Judeo-Nazis that I have met in my life."

- The publishing of the compilation in English indicates that the intended audience for BtS' distorted view is outside Israel. In the words of BtS' Michael Manekin, "Really, the political significance is the only reason for doing it."

Contrary to Breaking the Silence's image as a beleaguered and oppressed group of Israeli dissidents, the NGO is free to publish its allegations without consequence or punishment. Journalists in Ha'aretz and from international papers frequently provide BtS with a platform. The Italian newspaper Il Foglio wrote that members of Breaking the Silence "risk at the most coming late to their Tel Aviv café."

This NGO also receives extensive funding from European governments, enabling officials to artificially amplify their impact within Israel and speak and promote their ideology to international audiences.

(Click here for the full analysis)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

5 years of bias

Frayda Leibtag
Israel Opinion/Ynet
Published: 01.25.11

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4018406,00.html

Op-ed: Human Rights Watch continues to target Israel, go easy on Arab regimes

In October 2009, in the New York Times, Human Rights Watch (HRW) founder Robert Bernstein denounced the organization for abandoning its “original mission to pry open closed societies, advocate basic freedoms and support dissenters.” More than a year later, HRW has confirmed the accuracy of Bernstein’s assessment.

NGO Monitor’s annual quantitative analysis demonstrates that, in each of the past five years, HRW’s Middle East and North Africa (MENA) division disproportionately focuses on Israel. HRW takes advantage of open access in Israel to unrelentingly denounce the only democratic country in the Middle East, at the expense of reporting on endemic human rights violations taking place throughout the region.

Continuing the trend from the past four years, HRW publications on “Israel and the Occupied Territories” once again outnumbered those on all other countries in the Middle East. In 2010, documents on Israel comprised 14% of HRW’s output in the region, trailed by Iran (12%), Saudi Arabia (9%) and Egypt (9%).

This disparity reflects HRW’s ideological and immoral decision to soft-peddle the chronic abuses of closed societies, and simultaneously target Israel. This approach belies the universality of human rights and contributes to the global anti-Israel de-legitimization agenda.

B´Tselem Accepts BDS Money: Behind the "Bubbes and Zaydes" Façade

NGO Monitor
04 November '10

On October 25, 2010, B’Tselem announced a donation from a group known as “Bubbes and Zaydes for Peace” (BZP); Executive Director Jessica Montell wrote on Twitter, “I don't know the group but it brought a big smile to my face.”

Due diligence would have revealed that BZP endorses the antisemitic BDS (boycotts, divestment, sanctions) movement and employs the demonizing rhetoric of the Durban strategy – in violation of B’Tselem’s stated principles and growing adoption of ethical guidelines, such as by the New Israel Fund.

NGO Monitor wrote to B’Tselem informing the NGO of BZP’s BDS advocacy and asking whether the donation would be refused. B’Tselem responded that it was “honored to receive [the] contribution[].”

BZP, based in Philadelphia, claims to work towards “justice in the Middle East.” Using its disarming name to mask its agenda, “Bubbes and Zeydes” participated in Israeli Apartheid Week by hanging “BOYCOTT ISRAELI APARTHEID!” signs on major Philadelphia highways. The group demonstrated outside local cellphone stores that sell Motorola phones, in order to “call on the corporation to cease producing and selling equipment to the Israeli army to prevent its involvement in future abuses.”

(Read full post)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

BADIL´s Antisemitic Cartoon: Questions for DanChurchAid, Trocaire and Funders

NGO Monitor
11 October '10

-On May 5, 2010, the Palestinian NGO BADIL awarded a prize to a blatantly antisemitic cartoon, featuring a grotesque caricature of a Jewish man standing over a dead Arab child and holding a pitchfork dripping with blood.

-The image was featured on its website until NGO Monitor contacted DanChurchAid, a BADIL partner, and its officials intervened.

-BADIL’s funding is entirely non-transparent. NGO Monitor research reveals that BADIL’s funders include a number of European governments and church groups, including Trócaire and DanChurchAid.

-BADIL is a leader in anti-Israeli demonization, including the global BDS (boycotts, divestment, and sanctions) campaign, lawfare attempts targeting Israeli officials in international and European courts, and tendentious written and oral statements to the UN Human Rights Council. These activities are inconsistent with peace efforts.

-In correspondence with NGO Monitor a representative from DanChurchAid agreed that the cartoon was antisemitic, attributing “this unfortunate incident” to “a misjudgment or error on behalf of Badil management.”

-In response to NGO Monitor's analysis, BADIL Director Ingrid Jaradat Gassner reiterated the emphasis on demonization. She called on Europeans to support the BDS campaign, and repeated anti-peace propaganda, alleging “Israel has stolen and colonized Palestinian land, displaced millions of our people and imprisoned, tortured, wounded, maimed and killed hundreds of thousands of Palestinians.”

(Read full report)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.>

NIF's Old-New-No Funding Guidelines: Substance or Spin?

NGO Monitor
22 September '10

NGO funding provided by the New Israel Fund (NIF) has a major impact on Israeli politics and society. As documented by NGO Monitor, approximately one-third of its annual budget of $31 million goes to highly politicized groups involved in campaigns regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict, such as Adalah, Mossawa, Mada al-Carmel, the Coalition of Women for Peace, Physicians for Human Rights-Israel, Yesh Din, and others. These organizations also receive substantial funding from European governments, whose officials often cite NIF’s “approval” as justification for promoting the NGO agendas and campaigns.

The central role of NIF-funded groups in the Goldstone report, and other indictments based on false allegations of “war crimes,” highlighted the core contradictions in the funding policies of an organization that proclaims its commitment to Zionism and love for Israel. NIF leaders initially denied responsibility, but donor protests and media criticism increased. In February 2010, NGO Monitor called on the New Israel Fund (NIF) to implement clear “red lines” regarding the funding of NGO activities and rhetoric, in particular to prevent support for the “Durban strategy” of isolating Israel internationally. In this vein, NGO Monitor formulated proposed “Ethical Guidelines for the New Israel Fund,” which were sent to NIF board members in advance of the June 28 NIF board meeting in Israel.

(Read full article)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Shining Light on the Israel-Haters

Jennifer Rubin
Contentions/Commentary
15 September '10

The Jew-haters among the European elite (yes, there’s quite a bit of overlap there) are pitching a fit. Why? Israel is moving ahead with a measure to force NGOs to be more transparent. Nervous that anti-Zionist groups will be unmasked as pawns of anti-Israel figures in European governments, the European Parliament “devoted [a session] to attacking a Knesset bill that seeks greater transparency regarding foreign governmental funding of NGOs operating in Israel.” There is reason for the members of Parliament to freak out:

Gerald Steinberg, the head of Jerusalem based NGO Monitor, told the Jerusalem Post on Tuesday that the session “was led by a small group of MEPs who work closely with the NGOs involved in the demonization of Israel.”

(Read full post)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Culture of Bias Dominates HRW

Contribution by Soros Should be Used to Revamp Organization


NGO Monitor
08 September '10

Jerusalem – A $100 million “challenge grant” from George Soros to Human Rights Watch (HRW) will not contribute to universal human rights, but will instead allow expansion of the biases and ideologies that have severely damaged this organization’s reputation, notes NGO Monitor, a Jerusalem-based research institution.

“Human Rights Watch was founded to promote a noble moral mission, but unfortunately acts in a very immoral manner,” says Professor Gerald Steinberg, president of NGO Monitor. “HRW claims to be ‘even-handed’ and to publish ‘credible reports,’ but this is contradicted by highly biased activities in the Middle East, particularly on the Arab-Israeli conflict. Time and again, HRW reports on Israel are based on false or unverifiable claims, and the analysis strips away the context of the conflict, denying Israelis the right to self-defense. George Soros has supported this travesty.”

NGO Monitor’s monograph, Experts or Ideologues: Systematic Analysis of Human Rights Watch, demonstrated a consistent anti-Israel agenda within the organization, as shown in detailed analysis of the publications in the Middle East and North Africa from 2002 to 2009. This report showed that MENA division director Sarah Leah Whitston and her deputy, Joe Stork, as well as other officials, come from backgrounds in anti-Israel advocacy, rather than human rights and international law.

These biases, which are particular to the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) division, have intensified at HRW. In May 2009, Whitson went to Saudi Arabia to raise funds, selling the message that HRW’s role is central in countering “pro-Israel pressure groups.” Whitson also emphasized HRW’s anti-Israel reporting on the Gaza war, which provided the foundation for the one-sided Goldstone report, as the basis for donations from Saudi funders.

This and other scandals under the leadership of Ken Roth (since 1993), including the Garlasco affair that led to the firing of HRW’s “senior military analyst,” alienated many core HRW donors, and created the crisis and the need for a bailout from Soros.

(Read full report)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

The real danger to Israel's civic society

Gerald Steinberg/Asher Fredman
NGO Monitor
(First published in Haaretz)
06 August '10

In Russia, Venezuela, Egypt and other repressive societies, the activities of foreign-funded, non-governmental organizations promoting democracy are subject to police harassment and legal restraints. The Israeli environment for NGOs is the polar opposite, with thousands of these organizations, from across the political spectrum, operating freely. Taking advantage of this situation, a number of political-advocacy NGOs are leading campaigns that use the rhetoric of human rights, international law and humanitarian aid to delegitimize Israel and label its leaders as "war criminals." This has led to growing criticism of these organizations and of their main funders - primarily European governments and the New Israel Fund.

In response, these groups have launched a campaign, claiming that the criticism constitutes an assault on democracy. A flood of opinion articles have portrayed criticism of NGOs as a right-wing, McCarthyite assault. Their aim is to delegitimize debate on these organizations.

The NIF released a statement darkly warning that "right-wing members of the Knesset have pushed legislation that would limit the rights of many progressive NGOs in Israel, categorizing them as 'political' in the manner of Russia, China and Iran."

A recent opinion piece by Ishai Menuchin in Haaretz English Edition ("An assault on democracy," July 16 ) is a prime example of this campaign. He claims "the Knesset now has a disturbingly small minority of representatives (about 10 percent ) commonly identified with human rights and social justice." He provided no details, but was presumably referring to the 4 percent from the ex-communist Hadash party, for which he has been a candidate, and a few sympathizers. To Menuchin's way of thinking, 90 percent of Israel's elected representatives are opponents of human rights. Menuchin, who heads the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel, thus attempts to place anyone who disagrees with his extreme positions beyond the pale. Ironically, his purported "defense of Israeli democracy" delegitimizes the very system it claims to defend.

(Read full article)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

The New Israel Fund Claims to love Israel, but ...

(Click on ad to enlarge)



If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Lawfare Attack vs. NGO Monitor Thrown Out of Court

NGO Monitor
07 March '10

(Thumbs up! Another one for the good guys.)

On March 1, 2010, the Nazareth District Court dismissed a lawsuit filed by NIF- and European- funded NGO Mossawa against NGO Monitor for alleged defamation.

NGO “Lawfare” is a central part of the Durban strategy of demonization, and consists of filing frivolous lawsuits around the world to harass Israeli officials and those doing business with Israel. Lawfare, as stated on the BDS (boycotts, divestment and sanctions) movement website, also includes efforts to “remove the charity status and tax exemptions from, the Zionist organizations worldwide,...and dealing with them legally as racist, colonial institutions,” as well as filing libel allegations to silence those who seek to expose this strategy. As NGO Monitor has shown, most of the lawfare cases are initiated by Israeli and Palestinian NGOs, many of which receive funding from European governments, the European Union, and in some cases the New Israel Fund and the Ford Foundation.

NGO Monitor has been the target of a number of these “lawfare” attacks, designed to prevent public debate by silencing our systematic research on the role and funding for non-governmental organizations leading the political warfare against Israel.

In 2008, Mossawa filed a 13-page complaint in a Nazareth court claiming it was “libeled” by NGO Monitor’s research detailing Mossawa’s activities and funding sources. The March 1, 2010 ruling by Judge Irit Hod threw out Mossawa’s case, rebuked the organization for failing to comply with court orders, and fined it NIS 2,500.
.