NGO Monitor said “legislative proposals that go beyond democratic transparency and accountability for these NGOs are ill advised, not enforceable, and damage Israel’s vital national interests.” I beg to differ. at least I hope they’re not right. Israel doesn’t exist to defend democracy but to defend itself. I don’t want Israel to be as “democratic” as European countries. I want Israel to defend itself from subversion, government financed or otherwise. I know that Weinstein also says unenforceable. But is it? A democracy can impose martial law or restrict freedoms to a lesser extent based on its threat appraisal. It is commonly acknowledged that the movement to deligitimate Israel and Zionism is an existential threat to the State of Israel. Surely this is enough justification for the legislation. If anyone can find a legal opinion on the matter, cough it up. Ted Belman
Gerald Steinberg in Haaretz:
Holding Europe Accountable for NGO Funding
Israelis are debating the role of foreign government funding for
political advocacy NGOs, including proposed legislation that would
impose major penalties on groups that support BDS and “lawfare.”Holding Europe Accountable for NGO Funding
As NGO Monitor has repeatedly stated, legislative proposals that go beyond democratic transparency and accountability for these NGOs are ill advised, not enforceable, and damage Israel’s vital national interests. At the same time, the concerns about European government-funded political warfare must be taken seriously.
In an opinion article published today (December 18) in Haaretz, Prof. Gerald Steinberg maintains that instead of problematic draft legislation, the government needs a coherent and long-term strategy. To effectively fight a 21st century political war that pivots on the use of NGO ‘soft power’, an appropriate strategy is necessary, led by Prime Minister Netanyahu with the participation of the Zionist center and the Labor party. Together, Israel’s democratic representatives should be taking the issue to Europe, demanding and using all available leverage to end the secrecy in the funding processes. Government funding from the EU, UK, Norway, the Netherlands or other countries, to dozens of groups that exploit human rights principles for political purposes is a form of moral corruption.
For more background on this issue, see:
Gerald M. Steinberg
December 18, 2013
[Article Excerpts]
Now is the time to ask whether the prime minister and senior cabinet members, including the defense and foreign ministers, are really serious about initiating a confrontation on foreign (mainly European) government-funded campaigns against Israel led by political NGOs. And instead of problematic draft legislation, which is immediately exploited to promote campaigns that demonize Israel as anti-democratic and anti-human rights, the government should produce a coherent and potentially effective long-term strategy to defend Israel’s sovereignty.
The demonization campaign singling out Israel was launched in 2001 by 1500 groups claiming to promote human rights at the UN Anti-Racism Conference’s NGO Forum held in Durban – and the consequences are serious. The tens of millions of euros, pounds, and krona provided by European governments to groups that exploit universal moral principles are gradually leading to the political isolation of Israel. The goals of this political war go far beyond ending the occupation, but rather seek to reverse the international acceptance of Jewish sovereign equality among the nations – the essence of Zionism.
Rather than passing legislation that infringes upon democratic values and invites further demonization of Israel, the emphasis should be on holding Europe accountable for its destructive anti-Israel NGO funding policies. There are certainly more than enough positive and constructive causes out there truly worthy of their support.
Groups spar with NGO Monitor over foreign funding
Posted by Ted Belman
Now is the time to ask whether the prime minister and senior cabinet members, including the defense and foreign ministers, are really serious about initiating a confrontation on foreign (mainly European) government-funded campaigns against Israel led by political NGOs. And instead of problematic draft legislation, which is immediately exploited to promote campaigns that demonize Israel as anti-democratic and anti-human rights, the government should produce a coherent and potentially effective long-term strategy to defend Israel’s sovereignty.
The demonization campaign singling out Israel was launched in 2001 by 1500 groups claiming to promote human rights at the UN Anti-Racism Conference’s NGO Forum held in Durban – and the consequences are serious. The tens of millions of euros, pounds, and krona provided by European governments to groups that exploit universal moral principles are gradually leading to the political isolation of Israel. The goals of this political war go far beyond ending the occupation, but rather seek to reverse the international acceptance of Jewish sovereign equality among the nations – the essence of Zionism.
Rather than passing legislation that infringes upon democratic values and invites further demonization of Israel, the emphasis should be on holding Europe accountable for its destructive anti-Israel NGO funding policies. There are certainly more than enough positive and constructive causes out there truly worthy of their support.
Groups spar with NGO Monitor over foreign funding
By SAM SOKOL
02/05/2013 03:51
Watchdog group report finds foreign government funding for Israeli organizations totaled NIS 34,355,579 in 2012.
Dollar bills. Photo: Steve Marcus / Reuters
Foreign government funding for Israeli organizations totaled NIS
34,355,579 in 2012, according to a report issued on Monday by the NGO
Monitor watchdog group.
2012 was the first year in which Israeli non-governmental organizations were required to report such donations, in line with the 2011 NGO transparency law.
“NGOs receive funding from two primary channels, either via direct funding from foreign governments, or indirectly via third parties such as foundations and humanitarian, development, and religious NGOs,” according to NGO Monitor.
The NGO transparency law was the source of controversy when it was introduced and was among a number of initiatives, along with the so-called “Nakba Law” – which fines state-funded organizations that reject Israel as a Jewish state or mourn on Independence Day by declaring it a nakba (“catastrophe” in Arabic”) for Palestinians – and the anti-boycott bill, that were condemned by critics as “anti-democratic.”
The law states that a “recipient of support that received a donation from a foreign governmental body will submit [a report], within a week of the end of the quarter in which the donation was received.”
The Association for Civil Rights in Israel condemned the law when it was proposed, asserting that “despite claims made by the promoters of this law, as though it is intended to increase transparency – in practice its purpose is to delegitimize and curtail the activities of organizations that receive funds from, among other sources, foreign states.”
NGO Monitor president Prof. Gerald Steinberg stated that he believes the law to be an “international model for transparency.”
“It has been proven to be effective and serves as a contribution to the democratic processes. Once received, the funding information is made public, allowing all Israelis to access data on the influence of foreign governments on political discourse,” Steinberg said, adding that he views “the amount of foreign funding going to NGOs involved in polarizing activity in the context of the Arab-Israeli conflict” as “alarming.”
The positions taken by NGOs receiving foreign funding, he said, are “often contrary to the stated positions of the government funders.”
“Additionally, some of the donors involved through indirect government support, such as Christian Aid, Diakonia, and the Norwegian Refugee Council, are also involved in the Durban strategy based on delegitimization campaigns targeting Israel,” Steinberg continued.
Norway was the biggest donor to Israeli NGOs, NGO Monitor reported, with NIS 4,598,507 NIS donated to local organizations both directly and through third parties.
B’Tselem led Israeli NGOs in the amount of foreign funding, the report stated, with NIS 4,144,203 received, followed by ACRI with NIS 3,614,668.
ACRI spokesman Marc Grey took issue with Steinberg’s assertions, telling The Jerusalem Post that his organization’s donors are already listed on its website and that “the transparency law is as redundant today as it was when it was passed.”
Grey stated that “far from being deleterious, foreign funding to human rights organizations supports the protections of human rights and freedoms fundamental to the ongoing health of the state.”
“Beyond the fact that the basis for Israel’s relations with democratic countries is shared values – democracy and human rights above all – the State of Israel itself is a recipient of funds from these very same countries, in the framework of trade agreements, investments, loans, and donations,” he said.
Sarit Michaeli, the spokeswoman for B’Tselem, also responded negatively to the report, saying that NGO Monitor’s figures constitute “information B’Tselem has published on its website for years, long before we were legally required to do so.”
“NGO Monitor are Israeli government apologists masquerading as an objective watchdog,” she said. “They do not even practice what they preach in terms of their own transparency and their sloppy, third-rate research.”
“It seems that NGO Monitor can’t even calculate numbers properly, as they report completely missed several donations appearing in our quarterly reports, amounting to a gap of over 2 million NIS. This miscalculation not only ridicules their sloppy research, but also casts doubts on their conclusions about the amounts of funds provided by different countries,” Michaeli added.
2012 was the first year in which Israeli non-governmental organizations were required to report such donations, in line with the 2011 NGO transparency law.
“NGOs receive funding from two primary channels, either via direct funding from foreign governments, or indirectly via third parties such as foundations and humanitarian, development, and religious NGOs,” according to NGO Monitor.
The NGO transparency law was the source of controversy when it was introduced and was among a number of initiatives, along with the so-called “Nakba Law” – which fines state-funded organizations that reject Israel as a Jewish state or mourn on Independence Day by declaring it a nakba (“catastrophe” in Arabic”) for Palestinians – and the anti-boycott bill, that were condemned by critics as “anti-democratic.”
The law states that a “recipient of support that received a donation from a foreign governmental body will submit [a report], within a week of the end of the quarter in which the donation was received.”
The Association for Civil Rights in Israel condemned the law when it was proposed, asserting that “despite claims made by the promoters of this law, as though it is intended to increase transparency – in practice its purpose is to delegitimize and curtail the activities of organizations that receive funds from, among other sources, foreign states.”
NGO Monitor president Prof. Gerald Steinberg stated that he believes the law to be an “international model for transparency.”
“It has been proven to be effective and serves as a contribution to the democratic processes. Once received, the funding information is made public, allowing all Israelis to access data on the influence of foreign governments on political discourse,” Steinberg said, adding that he views “the amount of foreign funding going to NGOs involved in polarizing activity in the context of the Arab-Israeli conflict” as “alarming.”
The positions taken by NGOs receiving foreign funding, he said, are “often contrary to the stated positions of the government funders.”
“Additionally, some of the donors involved through indirect government support, such as Christian Aid, Diakonia, and the Norwegian Refugee Council, are also involved in the Durban strategy based on delegitimization campaigns targeting Israel,” Steinberg continued.
Norway was the biggest donor to Israeli NGOs, NGO Monitor reported, with NIS 4,598,507 NIS donated to local organizations both directly and through third parties.
B’Tselem led Israeli NGOs in the amount of foreign funding, the report stated, with NIS 4,144,203 received, followed by ACRI with NIS 3,614,668.
ACRI spokesman Marc Grey took issue with Steinberg’s assertions, telling The Jerusalem Post that his organization’s donors are already listed on its website and that “the transparency law is as redundant today as it was when it was passed.”
Grey stated that “far from being deleterious, foreign funding to human rights organizations supports the protections of human rights and freedoms fundamental to the ongoing health of the state.”
“Beyond the fact that the basis for Israel’s relations with democratic countries is shared values – democracy and human rights above all – the State of Israel itself is a recipient of funds from these very same countries, in the framework of trade agreements, investments, loans, and donations,” he said.
Sarit Michaeli, the spokeswoman for B’Tselem, also responded negatively to the report, saying that NGO Monitor’s figures constitute “information B’Tselem has published on its website for years, long before we were legally required to do so.”
“NGO Monitor are Israeli government apologists masquerading as an objective watchdog,” she said. “They do not even practice what they preach in terms of their own transparency and their sloppy, third-rate research.”
“It seems that NGO Monitor can’t even calculate numbers properly, as they report completely missed several donations appearing in our quarterly reports, amounting to a gap of over 2 million NIS. This miscalculation not only ridicules their sloppy research, but also casts doubts on their conclusions about the amounts of funds provided by different countries,” Michaeli added.
No comments:
Post a Comment