JPost discovers 'exclusively' that only Left-wing NGO's receive money from foreign governments - UPDATED
JPost is shocked, just shocked, to discover that
nearly all the NGO's being targeted by the new NGO transparency bill being debated in the Knesset are Leftist.
On Thursday, The Post exclusively obtained the list of NGOs
which show that 23 out of the 25 organizations are left-wing, with only
two being centrist or non-affiliated. There are no right-wing
organizations.
The Justice Ministry bill in question, which
returned to the Knesset Constitution, Law and Justice Committee on
Wednesday after passing a first reading in the plenum, requires any NGO
receiving more than half its funding from a foreign political entity
identify itself as such in any publications and any meetings with public
officials, and has been controversial because most of the organizations
under the bill’s purview were predicted to be left-wing. The list,
obtained on Thursday, confirms that that suspicion.
...
The organizations listed included, B’Tselem, Breaking the Silence, the
Economic Cooperation Foundation, Yesh Din and The Public Committee
Against Torture in Israel. According to the Justice Ministry report,
Yesh Din, for example, receives NIS 4.7 million of its NIS 5.3 million
budget from foreign political entities. B’Tselem gets NIS 6.2 million of
its NIS 9 million budget from foreign sources as well.
On Wednesday, Nonprofits Registrar representative Yafit Shemer
told the Knesset committee that the legislation on transparency for
organizations getting most of their budgets from foreign governments
will affect 27 NGOs.
Committee chairman Nissan Slomiansky (Bayit
Yehudi) prohibited Shemer from presenting the list to the MKs, arguing
that he wants the bill to be “clean” of being drafted in a way that
would target specific NGOs, sparking vocal debate among lawmakers. The
Justice Ministry did not respond to requests for the list.
The reason the Left needs funding from foreign governments is because most Israelis have turned Right after the Oslo debacle, and will not support Leftist NGO's.
But don't worry. This bill will eventually go to the Supreme Court which will undoubtedly find an excuse to strike it down. Maybe then we can have a rational discussion about the balance of powers and the Supreme Court's dictatorship in this country. But probably not.
Funny how no one bothered to interview Professor Gerald Steinberg, the director of NGO Monitor and the country's leading expert on this issue, for this article.
UPDATE 4:31 PM
Professor Steinberg is quoted in an
earlier article on this issue.
NGO Monitor President Prof. Gerald Steinberg said donations of more
than NIS 100m. per year from foreign governments “distort Israeli
democracy and dangerously damage its sovereignty.”
But this
should be mitigated by dialogue with lawmakers in Europe, many of whom
oppose their government’s donations to political organizations.
Of course, those European lawmakers seem to be having trouble stopping those contributions....
Oh and here is another interesting tidbit from that earlier article.
Also on Wednesday, the Knesset approved in a preliminary reading the
“V15 bill,” meant to make American- style Super PACs illegal. The
measure proposed by MK Yoav Kisch (Likud) would limit political
organizations’ ability to raise funds in an election year by making the
limitations on NGOs involved in elections similar to those on a
political party.
The legislation is nicknamed “V15” after an
organization that campaigned against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
in the last election using advanced data methods to target voters
door-to-door.
V15 was
sponsored by
Obama cronies and
US tax dollars, and staffed by the Obama administration.
Labels: Gerald Steinberg, Knesset elections 2015, NGO funding, NGO Monitor, NGO's, V-2015
Exposed: 'Breaking the Silence' collects intelligence on the IDF - Does it reach their European masters?
Greetings from Boston where I have been working all week, and where the Sabbath does not start for several more hours. I will be here until Sunday morning. Sunday is a travel day, but I'm not heading back to Israel just yet. I'm heading West... (and should have WiFi access on the plane, so you may see a few more posts on Sunday). And for those who watch the weather reports, it looks like I will once again escape a serious winter snowstorm by the skin of my teeth, God Willing.
For those of you who have forgotten 'Breaking the Silence,' they are an organization that claims to be dedicated to exposing IDF abuses of 'Palestinians' in Judea and Samaria. They are funded by
European governments, by the European Union (which awarded them the prestigious
Andrei Sakharov prize) and by private American citizens (as well as by
UNICEF and OxFam). Br'eaking the Silence' interviews
discharged IDF soldiers and
debriefs them regarding their IDF service. Or so they claim. It now seems that they do a lot more.
You might recall that recently, an organization called Ad Kan (Until Here) turned over video evidence to Israel's Channel 10 about human rights violations by 'human rights' groups
Taayush and B'Tselem.Spreading the wealth, the group handed over material on '
Breaking the Silence' to Israel's Channel 2, which reported on it Thursday night (link and video in Hebrew). The material shows that 'Breaking the Silence' is collecting military intelligence which has no connection to 'human rights' violations in Judea and Samaria or anyplace else. And the unanswered question is 'with whom does 'Breaking the Silence' share that intelligence material?' That intelligence material could clearly and presently endanger the State of Israel.
Here's a
summary in English.
In its investigation, Channel 2 cited unpublished testimonies from
Israeli soldiers that were obtained by the right-wing NGO Ad Kan, which
sent some of its members to join Breaking the Silence undercover. The
report claimed that Breaking the Silence collected “operational and
intelligence” information about IDF activities from both current and
former soldiers.
Channel 2 also broadcast videos of Breaking the Silence asking
soldiers “questions [that] appear to revolve more around their
operational activity rather issues regarding Palestinians and human
rights.”
While Breaking the Silence says it gathers anonymous testimonies from
Israeli soldiers about the IDF’s purported human rights abuses, these
testimonies have been previously criticized as being unsubstantiated and lacking context. In recent months, the group has come under increased scrutiny over the ethics of its practices.
In the wake of the new Channel 2 report, Breaking the Silence denied
any wrongdoing and emphasized that it works closely with Israel’s
military censor. Breaking the Silence CEO Yuli Novak added that several
organizations and members of the Knesset were trying “to silence” her
group.
And it seems that the next group to come under scrutiny may be 'rabbis' for 'human rights.'
In How Non-Governmental Organizations Became a Weapon in the War on Israel,
which was published in the February 2016 issue of The Tower Magazine,
Gerald Steinberg, president of NGO Monitor, wrote about a subsequent
investigative report involving Breaking the Silence and Nawi.
The broadcast became headline news and the fallout
continued for weeks. Nawi was arrested at Ben-Gurion Airport when he
tried to flee the country.
A few days later, a follow-up program aired
more hidden-camera footage, this time showing Nawi with officials from
two other prominent “human rights” NGOs—Breaking the Silence (BtS) and
Rabbis for Human Rights (RHR). Both groups were shown giving money to
Nawi, who then handed out checks to Palestinians, apparently for taking
part in violent demonstrations. RHR claimed that Nawi was paid for
providing transportation services. BtS denounced everyone involved in
the program as “Stasi,” a reference to the notorious East German
intelligence service.
Steinberg observed that even before the broadcast of Nawi with
representatives of Breaking the Silence, there was growing criticism of
the group across the political spectrum in Israel.
Prior to the Uvda broadcasts, BtS and its patrons were
the particular focus of growing anger among many Israelis on the Right,
center, and even the center-Left. This anger followed a major jump in
the visibility of BtS, which reflected the group’s million- dollar
budget. BtS events in churches, universities, and national parliaments
around the world featured “anonymous testimony” that alleged systematic
immorality by IDF soldiers, with no corroborating evidence.
In response, hundreds of IDF reserve officers petitioned the Minister
of Defense, demanding that BtS activists be barred from speaking on
military bases. In parallel, relatives of terror victims and fallen
soldiers demanded that Education Minister Naftali Bennett prohibit BtS
from speaking to high school students. NGOs like B’Tselem were also
criticized. On Israel’s popular Saturday night satire program Gav Hauma,
host Lior Schleien did a ten-minute routine based on the issue,
primarily lampooning BtS and related NGOs.
I'm amazed that B'Tselem is allowed to speak on military bases.... But what Professor Steinberg says about anger coming from 'even the center-Left' is true. Yesh Atid party leader
Yair Lapid has accused 'Breaking the Silence' of digging under the foundations of the State of Israel, and causing it both internal and external damage (link in Hebrew).
For those of you wondering why Israel feels the need to stop foreign governments from financing its NGO's, this is another data point.
Labels: B'Tselem, Breaking the Silence, Channel 2, European anti-Semitism, European Union, Gerald Steinberg, IDF, NGO funding, NGO Monitor, Oxfam, Rabbis for Human Rights, Ta'ayush, UNICEF
The New York Times brushes off attempted murder
The New York Times does a story on the
arrest of Ezra Nawi for
turning a 'Palestinian' land seller over to the tender mercies of the '
Palestinian security forces' and manages to turn it into an indictment of
free speech in Israel.
Ezra Nawi, an Israeli Jewish plumber, has a long history as a left-wing activist helping Palestinians in their struggle against Israel’s occupation of the West Bank. Now he is under arrest in Israel, after a right-wing activist surreptitiously filmed him bragging about exposing Arab brokers who tried to sell Palestinian land to Jewish settlers. Such sales are a capital crime under Palestinian law.
Considered
variously as a big-mouthed provocateur and a colorful human-rights
adventurer, Mr. Nawi has become the latest symbol in the battle between
advocacy groups on opposite sides of Israel’s political spectrum, and
the increasingly fierce debate here over the nature of Israeli society
and democracy.
The debate has heated up as Israel’s conservative government is pushing
forward contentious legislation that would require nongovernmental
organizations to disclose funding they receive from foreign governments
in their publications, advertising and meetings with public officials.
The proposed bill, which supporters say is meant to increase
transparency, would apply mainly to leftist groups critical of Israel’s
policy toward the Palestinians, since rightist groups mostly receive
private funding from abroad, and it has already drawn harsh criticism
from the Obama administration and European diplomats.
No, this story is not about the NGO law, which the Times so hates. It's about yet another Leftist fascist who thinks he has the right to endanger other people's lives.
It
is an odd case. Mr. Nawi, described in a 2009 New York Times profile as
“the Robin Hood of the South Hebron Hills,” helping Palestinians who
love him and “thwarting settlers and soldiers who view him with
contempt,” is now accused of endangering the lives of Palestinians. That
is because selling land to Israeli Jews is punishable by death
according to the Palestinian Authority. Although the authority is not
known to have carried out any executions for any offense in more than a
decade, there have been reports of torture in its prisons.
The
Ad Kan video, from about a year ago, shows Mr. Nawi behind the wheel of
his jeep, bragging about what appeared to be a dubious sideline to his
activist work in the West Bank.
He told the man sitting next to him, whom he believed to be a fellow
sympathizer, that he sometimes posed as a land broker and engaged with
other land dealers mediating sales of Palestinian-owned land to Jewish
settlers, then handed over their details to the Palestinian Authority
security services.
Asked what the Authority did with such people, Mr. Nawi said it “catches them and kills them.”
Days later, he was arrested at the airport as he was about to leave the country.
Odd? Not to anyone who knows the history of Israel's prosecutorial regime burying charges against the Left. Only by gathering evidence so convincing that even the Left-leaning Uvda had to run with it or lose all credibility could Nawi's disgusting behavior be exposed.
There is a story here. Too bad it's not the one the Times chose to tell.
Labels: anti-Israel media bias, Arab land sales to Jews, B'Tselem, Ezra Nawi, human rights, human rights activists, human rights NGO's, Israeli Knesset, New York Times, NGO funding, Ta'ayush, traitor
Jewish Voice for 'peace' seeks to free accessory to murder
Israel Radio reported this morning that a Jew and a 'Palestinian' - both 'peace activists' - are being held for meeting with an enemy foreign agent.
While the radio did not disclose who they are, the uber-Leftist Jew-haters at Jewish Voice for 'peace' are
petitioning for his release (if you think my description of JVP is an overstatement, go
here).
If you're wondering why this Jewish-born drek is being held, go
here.
Labels: ADL, Arab land sales to Jews, B'Tselem, Ezra Nawi, human rights, human rights activists, human rights NGO's, Israeli Knesset, Jewish Voice for Peace, NGO funding, Ta'ayush, traitor
Video with English translation of Ezra Nawi saying he turns 'Palestinian' land sellers over for torture and death
Thursday night's video showing Leftist 'human rights' activists Ezra Nawi and Nasser Najawa ran 44 minutes long. Now, StandWithUs has translated two of the key minutes into English (subtitles).
Let's go to the videotape.
By the way, I hope the gentleman referred to in the video as 'Arik' (the one who did the recording) is well-hidden. Nawi undoubtedly knows who he is and surely wants to have him killed.
Labels: Arab land sales to Jews, B'Tselem, human rights, human rights activists, human rights NGO's, Israeli Knesset, NGO funding, Ta'ayush
The Israeli Hard Left circles the wagons
Israel's Left is circling the wagons around two of its own. Ta'ayush's Ezra Nawi (pictured) and B'Tselem's Nasser Nawaja were shown on Israeli television on Thursday night telling a Right wing activist with a hidden camera that they turn over 'Palestinians' who wish to sell land to Jews to the '
Palestinian security forces' for torture and death.
Although the story has gotten little exposure outside of Israel, here it's all the rage. Over the weekend, Israel's hard left has been circling the wagons to
defend Nawi and Nawaja.
Both Nawi and Nawaja are among the most internationally renowned
members of Israel’s radical left. Earlier this year, Nawaja published an
anti-Israeli op-ed in The New York Times,
accusing the Jewish state of “dispossession and oppression.” Nawi is
considerably more prominent: when he was arrested, in 2007, for
attacking Israeli policemen during a West Bank demonstration, more than
20,000 people—including a long list of prominent Israeli academics as
well as progressive American celebrities like Noam Chomsky and Naomi
Klein—signed a petition demanding his release.
Responding to the piece with a statement on its Facebook page,
B’Tselem said that while it opposed tortures and executions, reporting
Palestinians interested in selling land to Israelis to the PA was “the
only legitimate course of action.”
These revelations comes at an inopportune moment for the two NGOs, as
the Israeli government is considering measures to regulate non-profit
organizations receiving financial support from foreign governments. Ta’ayush,
according to the Jerusalem-based group NGO-Monitor, receives some
foreign donations but does not disclose its funding.
B’Tselem, on the
other hand, is considered one of Israel’s leading civil rights
organizations, and receives financial support from
the governments of Sweden, Switzerland, Denmark, the Netherlands,
Norway, Germany, France, and the United Kingdom, as well as the European
Union and the New Israel Fund.
And from
prominent American Jews....
Amazingly, B'Tselem, a favored grantee of the American non-profit organization The New Israel Fund, defended the action portrayed on today’s show, claiming that “This is the only legitimate channel for a Palestinian.”
Israel’s Education Minister Naftali Bennett accused the
New Israel Fund and the European Union of funding Israeli human rights
activists who turn in innocent Palestinians, and later urged foreign
ambassadors to Israel to stop transferring funds to these organizations.
(Both, B’Tselem and Ta’ayush receive funding from France and the United Kingdom, as well as from American Jews.)
Ta’ayush has in the past partnered with Rabbis for Human Rights
– of which Rabbi Gordon Tucker of Temple Israel of White Plains is a
donor - to bring “hundreds of volunteers to work side-by-side with
Palestinian farmers during Olive Harvest campaign.”
The pushback from the Left has been so fierce that even journalists like Maariv's
Ben Caspit and Haaretz's
Barak Ravid (both Leftists themselves) have criticized the Left wing organizations for not disavowing Nawi and Nawaja (links in Hebrew).
Of course, then there are the real Jew haters, like
Gideon Levy, who still has a platform at Haaretz.
In a report on left-wing groups which operate in the West Bank, Uvda aired secretly recorded footage
of Israeli activist Ezra Nawi saying that he had exposed Palestinian
land brokers who sold West Bank land to Jews, and turned them over to
the Palestinian Authority.The right wing and the settlers celebrated the
event of course. Another outpost has fallen into their hands. They have
already compared the left-wing activist Nawi to the Duma murderers, no
less. The rightists and settlers, known for their deep concern about the
lives of Palestinians, were shocked by Nawi’s statements. But the right
is not the story. The story is how a lethal virus has penetrated what
is almost the last outpost of real journalism.
How has a McCarthyist right-wing organization, whose motives are
clear (and despicable) and whose sources are unknown, succeeded with
such ease in enticing such respected journalists as Ilana Dayan and Omri
Assenheim? How has this flagship joined the ranks of the false
propaganda which masquerades as journalism?
That is how to conduct delegitimization. That is how it is done to
liberal organizations in the darkest of regimes, and now here too, and
on Uvda – no less.
Presenting the human rights organizations as dangerous groups, and
penetrating them, is compared to penetrating ISIS. The McCarthyists are
glorified, depicted as heroes of Israel who excelled in battles in Gaza.
All these are well-known ploys. And against this background, all that
is left is to record Nawi boasting, to catch him uttering the taboo
words, to present him as a “senior” activist, to ignore the entire
context — the crimes of the occupation and the expulsion form the
Southern Hebron Hills, which you never heard about on Uvda. Just ignore
the holy work done by left-wing activists in this battered region, spice
it with a few lies such as “execution” by the Palestinian Authority,
add a few generalizations, suspicions and slander – and the dish is
ready.
To those of you with even the slightest suspicion that Levy is onto something, I suggest that you go
watch the video of Thursday night's broadcast (it's in Hebrew only, but I summarized it
here). It doesn't get much more clear cut. Nawi and Najawa turned 'Palestinians' who wanted to sell land to Jews ('Palestinians' whose existence the Israeli Left denies) over to the 'Palestinian security services' for torture and murder. And they did it with a sadistic smile.
It doesn't get much more disgusting.
Labels: Arab land sales to Jews, B'Tselem, human rights, human rights activists, human rights NGO's, Israeli Knesset, New Israel Fund, NGO funding, Ta'ayush
'Human rights' organizations @taayush and @btselem turn 'Palestinian' land seller over to 'Palestinian security services' for torture
For those who can, I strongly recommend watching
the original report (44 minutes in Hebrew). Unfortunately, Blogger only allows the uploading of videos up to 100 megabytes - this one is nearly 180 megabytes.
Here's a brief summary:
Ilana Dayan's
Uvda (Fact) program on Israel's Channel 10 last night featured an expose on a group of Right wing activists from the center of the country who managed to place a mole in Taayush, a Jewish-Arab organization that advocates for 'Palestinian human rights.'
The mole, an alumnus of an elite IDF combat unit who won an award for bravery during the war in Gaza in the summer of 2014 (while this was going on!), managed to record Ezra Nawi, the Jewish leader of Taayush, in conversations with an Arab land owner who wished to sell land south of Hebron (near Jewish villages) to Jews.
Nawi met with the land seller (in the mole's presence), and then proceeded to conspire with a Btselem 'Palestinian' activist named Nasser Nawajeh to turn the land seller over for 'investigation' by the 'Palestinian security services.'
Yes, that's right, the European-financed 'human rights organizations' turned over (and apparently not for the first time) a 'Palestinian' who wished to sell land to Jews to the 'Palestinian security services' for torture (Nawi says it outright) and 'neutralization' (i.e. murder).
I'm hoping this video will be translated into English because it rips the mask off the 'human rights' activists and the self-hating Jews who are trying to destroy the Jewish state.
JNi.media has written a
more lengthy summary. Here is some of it:
The laws on ownership of land under the Palestinian Authority (PA),
originally enacted during the Jordanian occupation of Judea and Samaria
(1948–1967), prohibit Arabs from selling Arab-owned lands to “any man or
judicial body corporation of Israeli citizenship, living in Israel or
acting on its behalf.” According to several media sources, including the
NY Times, Ha’aretz and Jerusalem Post, selling land to Jews is
considered an act of treason by the Arabs because it threatens the
future Palestinian state and leads to “the spread of moral, political
and security corruption”. Arabs in the Palestinian Authority who sell
land to Israelis may be sentenced to death. The interrogation by PA
security forces of Arabs suspected of selling land to Jews involves
severe torture.
...
When asked what happens once Palestinian Authority police lays its
hands on the sellers, Nawi says, “It catches them, kills them.” He then
added with a vicious smile, “First Zubur, then Gazanga.” Zubur is an
Arabic word used in Hebrew to describe hazing—humiliation and physical
torment. The Gazanga part is not a known word, but implies, in the
context of the tape, the demise of the victim.
Ezra Nawi and his Arab associate, B’Tselem activist Nasser Nawaj’ah,
from the village of Yatta, are left-wing stars, who have been part of
the anti-settlement movement for decades. This is why the Israeli left,
before and immediately following the broadcast Thursday night, began a
campaign in their defense.
The left has praised Nawi and Nawaj’ah to high heaven over the years,
including accolades from linguist, philosopher, cognitive scientist,
historian, logician, social critic, and political activist Noam Chomsky;
author, social activist, and filmmaker Naomi Klein; Ben-Gurion
University Prof. Niv Gordon; and Meretz Chairperson MK Zehava Galon.
They will not allow for these two folk hero activists to gain a new
renown as agents of death.
B’Tselem accused the show of legitimizing what was, essentially, a
right-wing operation. In that sense, the fact that journalist Dayan
described sending to their certain death Arabs whose only sin is wanting
to sell land to Jews, appears from B’Tselem’s point of view like her
embracing of the “occupation.” Gideon Levy told Dayan on air that “If
that’s all that those plants discovered, it’s a badge of honor for the
human rights organizations.”
...
Deputy Knesset Speaker MK Betzalel Smotrich said “what we’ve watched
tonight is the loss of a moral compass, a betrayal of the State of
Israel and an injury to life under the guise of defending human rights.
This phenomenon is not an invention of Ezra Nawi, unfortunately it is
typical of many of the extremist left wing organizations which are
concealing an extremist political agenda under the cover of human
rights.”
The report’s editor, Ami Assenheim, told Makor Rishon about the
process that preceded the screening: “Nawi is not alone,” he said. “You
see a mix of left-wing activists from other places. Nawi collaborates
with another Jewish activist in Ta’ayush. These are not the actions of a
single individual in a single organization. You see people conspiring
to turn in a land broker to the Preventive Security Force (PSF), knowing
what would be the fate of people like him. They were very embarrassed
when we called them up for a response. There were long silences and
phone hang-ups.”
Nawi himself accused the report of being an effort to sabotage his
heroic work on behalf of the Palestinian population in the southern
Hebron Mountain. “I wasn’t the one trapping the land broker, the
opposite is true,” he said. Nasser Nawaj’ah also denied his role as it
was described in the report, but not quite with the same level of
self-righteousness.
A couple of comments. The timing of this show's release is probably not accidental. As I have noted previously, the Knesset is currently considering a bill to expose foreign government funding of 'NGO's. This show could well advance that bill.
The comments by the Right wing infiltrators at the end were particularly notable. They said that they actually feel sorry for the ordinary 'Palestinians' who are being used not only by their own 'leadership,' but also by organizations that purport to protect their human rights. In other words, the Israeli Right is far more humane to 'Palestinians' than are the 'human rights' organizations.
Sadly, this story is unlikely to get a lot of publicity outside of Israel. But that shouldn't stop us from trying.
Labels: Arab land sales to Jews, B'Tselem, human rights, human rights activists, human rights NGO's, Israeli Knesset, NGO funding, Ta'ayush
'A danger to Israeli democracy'?
In an editorial in Sunday's editions, the Washington Post blasts a bill proposed by Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked (Jewish Home) which would force disclosure of foreign government funding of Israeli NGO's.
The proposed law, introduced by Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked, was
approved by a cabinet committee Dec. 27 and sent to the Knesset, where
it faces additional debate and votes. It would apply to those
organizations that receive more than half their funding from “foreign government entities.”
The groups would be required to identify themselves as principally
funded from overseas in any public communications and in interactions
with government officials, and they would have to list the sources of
funding in reports. Members of the groups would also be required to wear
a special badge when present in the Knesset, with their name and the
name of the NGO. This is now a requirement of lobbyists. Violations could result in stiff fines.
Apparently the Post has never heard of a US law called the Foreign Agents Registration Act. This was lifted from a Facebook page.
The Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) was enacted in 1938. FARA is a
disclosure statute that requires persons acting as agents of foreign
principals in a political or quasi-political capacity to make periodic
public disclosure of their relationship with the foreign principal, as
well as activities, receipts and disbursements in support of those
activities. Disclosure of the required information facilitates
evaluation by the government and the American people of the statements
and activities of such persons in light of their function as foreign
agents. The FARA Registration Unit of the Counterintelligence and Export
Control Section (CES) in the National Security Division (NSD) is
responsible for the administration and enforcement of the Act.
Most of the groups that would be forced to register in Israel are Leftist groups which are funded by foreign governments. The Post itself notes that most Rightist groups will not be affected because their foreign funding comes mostly from individuals.
The Post blinds itself to the difference between the pernicious influence of a foreign government which acts out of its own self-interest and those of an individual who in any event is unlikely to be an actor in foreign relations. Hopefully Israel's Knesset will be smart enough to ignore the Post and see the difference - just like Congress did nearly 80 years ago.
The bill is definitely not a danger to Israeli democracy.
Labels: Ayelet Shaked, Israeli Knesset, NGO funding, NGO's, Washington Post
But not 'Palestine'?
Four Dutch NGO's - including the local branch of Oxfam - are
laying off significant portions of their staff. But note where their activities are being cut back: In countries like Sudan and Rwanda where such activities are critical. Note where they're not being cut back: In 'Palestine' or 'Palestinian territories' where they're more political advocacy than humanitarian (Hat Tip:
Mike P).
Minister Lilianne Ploumen of Foreign Trade and Development
Cooperation announced the cuts earlier this year. From January 1st 2016
the development aid organizations will be losing more than 80 percent of
their government subsidy, going from about 50 million euros per year to
between 7 and 15 million euros per year.
The Minister wants to limit subsidies to initiatives that helps
people in third world countries defend their rights – something she
calls “lobbying and advocacy”. She therefore largely stopped the subsidy
for normal development, such as helping small farmers in Africa break
into the local market. She called the cuts “painful”. But according to
Ploumen, the world has changed and the importance of official
development funds for the development of a country is decreasing. “It is
also no longer the only funding stream”, she said when she presented
the new policy, according to the Volkskrant. “Businesses now contribute
in many ways. The concept of development aid will eventually disappear.”
This translates into layoffs for the four large development aid
organizations. Hivos will be laying off 50 of its 145 employees at the
Dutch office, Oxfam Novib will be laying off about 75 of its 325,
Cordaid 69 of its 250 and Icco will lose 175 of its 350 employees. The
organizations will also stop funding to projects all over the world next
year. Hivos will be withdrawing support from, among others, a project
to stop female genital mutilation in Iraqi Kurdistan – a project that is
internationally regarded as successful. Icco is withdrawing from South
Africa, Colombia, Peru and Brazil. Oxfam Novib is stopping all
initiatives in Bangladesh, Rwanda, Sudan and Zimbabwe.
According to the four development aid organizations, focusing only on
lobbying and advocacy is a risky strategy. “You only have legitimacy to
lobby and advocate for something if you’re already active in the
place”, Marinus Verweij, director of Icco, said to the Volkskrant.
“Otherwise it is not credible.”
Priorities, man, priorities!
Labels: Bangladesh, Brazil, Colombia, humanitarian aid, Iraqi Kurds, NGO funding, NGO's, Oxfam, Peru, Rwanda, South Africa, Sudan, Zimbabwe
It's come to this: Obama-Kerry 'peace talks' envoy paid by Qatar (and Norway)
The New York Times reported at length on Sunday on the
financing of US think tanks by foreign governments (see also
Memeorandum). Among the US think tanks who receive significant financing from foreign governments is the Brookings Institute.
The arrangements involve Washington’s most influential think tanks, including the Brookings Institution, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and the Atlantic Council.
Each is a major recipient of overseas funds, producing policy papers,
hosting forums and organizing private briefings for senior United States
government officials that typically align with the foreign governments’
agendas.
Most
of the money comes from countries in Europe, the Middle East and
elsewhere in Asia, particularly the oil-producing nations of the United
Arab Emirates, Qatar
and Norway, and takes many forms. The United Arab Emirates, a major
supporter of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, quietly
provided a donation of more than $1 million to help build the center’s
gleaming new glass and steel headquarters not far from the White House.
Qatar, the small but wealthy Middle East nation, agreed last year to
make a $14.8 million, four-year donation to Brookings, which has helped
fund a Brookings affiliate in Qatar and a project on United States
relations with the Islamic world.
Some
scholars say the donations have led to implicit agreements that the
research groups would refrain from criticizing the donor governments.
“If
a member of Congress is using the Brookings reports, they should be
aware — they are not getting the full story,” said Saleem Ali, who
served as a visiting fellow at the Brookings Doha Center
in Qatar and who said he had been told during his job interview that he
could not take positions critical of the Qatari government in papers.
“They may not be getting a false story, but they are not getting the
full story.”
The directors of the institutions claim that all that money doesn't blind them and doesn't make them execute the donors' wishes.
In interviews, top executives at the think tanks strongly defended the
arrangements, saying the money never compromised the integrity of their
organizations’ research. Where their scholars’ views overlapped with
those of donors, they said, was coincidence.
Here's the reaction of one director whose name should be familiar to those who follow the goings on in Israel.
“Our business is to influence policy with scholarly, independent
research, based on objective criteria, and to be policy-relevant, we
need to engage policy makers,” said Martin S. Indyk, vice president and
director of the Foreign Policy Program at Brookings, one of the oldest
and most prestigious think tanks in Washington.
Do any of you think Indyk is telling the truth? If yes, consider this:
In
their contracts and internal documents, however, foreign governments
are often explicit about what they expect from the research groups they
finance.
“In Washington, it is difficult for a small country to gain access to powerful politicians, bureaucrats and experts,” states an internal report
commissioned by the Norwegian Foreign Affairs Ministry assessing its
grant making. “Funding powerful think tanks is one way to gain such
access, and some think tanks in Washington are openly conveying that
they can service only those foreign governments that provide funding.”
...
The Brookings Institution,
which also accepted grants from Norway, has sought to help the country
gain access to American officials, documents show. One Brookings senior
fellow, Bruce Jones, offered in 2010 to reach out to State Department
officials to help arrange a meeting with a senior Norway official,
according to a government email. The Norway official wished to discuss his country’s role as a “middle power” and vital partner of the United States.
Brookings organized another event in April 2013,
in which one of Norway’s top officials on Arctic issues was seated next
to the State Department’s senior official on the topic and reiterated
the country’s priorities for expanding oil exploration in the Arctic.
William
J. Antholis, the managing director at Brookings, said that if his
scholars help Norway pursue its foreign policy agenda in Washington, it
is only because their rigorous, independent research led them to this
position. “The scholars are their own agents,” he said. “They are not
agents of these foreign governments.”
But
three lawyers who specialize in the law governing Americans’ activities
on behalf of foreign governments said that the Center for Global
Development and Brookings, in particular, appeared to have taken actions
that merited registration as foreign agents of Norway. The activities
by the Center for Strategic and International Studies and the Atlantic
Council, they added, at least raised questions.
“The Department of Justice needs to be looking at this,” said Joshua Rosenstein, a lawyer at Sandler Reiff.
Ona
Dosunmu, Brookings’s general counsel, examining the same documents,
said she remained convinced that was a misreading of the law.
Norway,
at least, is grateful for the work Brookings has done. During a speech
at Brookings in June, Norway’s foreign minister, Borge Brende, noted
that his country’s relationship with the think tank “has been mutually
beneficial for moving a lot of important topics.” Just before the
speech, in fact, Norway signed an agreement to contribute an additional
$4 million to the group.
Norway's ruling party is not exactly a
friend of
Israel either....
Read the whole thing.
Here in Israel, the government now believes it knows why the latest 'peace talks' were so biased against Israel. His name is
Martin Indyk and he's the director of Brookings and, as noted above, on the payroll (indirectly) of Qatar and Norway (and other countries).
“Qatar has been a major bankroller for Hamas and other terrorist organizations,” one government official said. “The fact that the same Qatari government is also a major provider of funds for a respectable Washington think tank raises a whole series of questions about that think tank’s relationships and impartiality.”
Among the questions this has raised in Jerusalem is the degree to which the institute can impartially draw up papers relating to Qatar, such as its role in the Middle East and the financing of terror organizations.
Qatar is Hamas’s main financial backer.
...
Indyk, who took leave from Brookings to serve as the US special Middle East envoy during the nine months of unsuccessful Israeli-Palestinian negotiations that ended in April, returned to the think tank after the negotiations failed and is currently its vice president and director of the Foreign Policy Program.
...
In a recent interview with Foreign Policy magazine about the Gaza conflict, Indyk said US President Barack Obama became “enraged” with Israeli criticism of US Secretary of State John Kerry.
Indyk said Gaza has had a “very negative” impact on the US-Israel relationship.
“There’s a lot of strain in the relationship now. The personal relationship between the president and the prime minister has been fraught for some time and it’s become more complicated by recent events.”
The Qatar connection might also explain why US Secretary of State John
FN Kerry was so anxious to do Qatar's (and Turkey's) bidding during
Operation Protective Edge.
Arutz Sheva
adds:
Indyk, who served as US negotiator in the failed peace talks, has had his impartiality put into question before due
to his position on the executive board of the radical-left New Israel
Fund, which funds numerous anti-Israel NGOs. In May, Indyk was accused of engaging in a "nasty" anti-Israel tirade at a bar following an address to the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
Qatar has not only funded Hamas, but according to reports pushed the group to reject
a ceasefire in the recent Operation Protective Edge and return to its
terror war on Israeli citizens, threatening to expel Hamas politburo
chief Khaled Mashaal if it didn't do so.
The position of Qatar led Israel's Ambassador to the UN Ron Prosor in August to label the oil-state "a Club Med for terrorists,"
adding that the "hundreds of millions of dollars" Qatar gave Hamas
meant "every one of Hamas's tunnels and rockets might as well have had a
sign that said 'Made possible through a kind donation of the emir of
Qatar.'"
A few more take-aways from this story:
1. Maybe you all now understand why Israel has tried to control or stop foreign government funding of NGO's.
2. The Obama administration touted itself as the 'most transparent administration evah.' Is this what they had in mind?
3. With all the bellyaching by the likes of Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer about a supposed 'Israel lobby,' Israel does not appear on the list of countries that have donated money to US think tanks. But nine Arab countries do appear on the list. I'm sure you're all shocked.
Kudos to the New York Times (for a change) for actually letting this story come out.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Brookings Institution, Hamas, John Kerry, Martin Indyk, Middle East peace process, NGO funding, Norway, Qatar, Think Tanks
45% tax on foreign donations to anti-Israel NGO's approved
The Ministerial Committee for Legislation has approved, by an 8-4 margin, a bill that would
place a 45% tax on foreign donations to anti-Israel NGO's. The decision has been appealed by 'Justice Minister' Tzipi Livni, meaning that another vote in the committee will have to be taken. Bills that are approved by the Committee have a good chance to become law because they are presumably backed by the governing coalition.
The law is a joint initiative of MK Ayelet Shaked (Jewish Home) and
MK Robert Ilatov (Yisrael Beytenu) and its purpose is "reducing the
involvement of foreign political entities in Israeli democracy, which is
carried out through financial support to NGOs whose actions or goals
deviate grossly from the limits of democratic discourse," according to
the bill.
The bill, once enforced, will impose a 45% tax on foreign donations to seditious NGOs.
Groups affected by the tax would have to meet one of the following
criteria: calling for boycott, divestment, or sanctions (BDS) against
Israel or Israeli citizens; calling for the prosecution of Israeli
soldiers in international courts; denying that Israel is a Jewish
democratic state; incitement to racism; or supporting an armed struggle
by an enemy nation or terror organization against Israel.
Ronen Shoval, Chairman of grassroots Zionist student organization Im
Tirtzu, had sent a strong letter to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu
urging him to support the law earlier this week.
In his letter, Shoval brought a quote from former Supreme Court
president Meir Shamgar, who expressed his displeasure regarding the
financing of NGOs by foreign countries. Shamgar stated in 2012, "I think
that support of political bodies by foreign governments is something
that should intimidate any person who believes in true democracy," and
called foreign funding for organizations that are meant to influence the
government "abnormal."
Shaked, who initiated the bill, stated that "it would be too easy to
take the bait and listen to statements which claim that this law
violates democracy in Israel."
"In fact, any person with healthy reasoning and a clear understanding
knows that the opposite is true. In a civilized, democratic country
there are choices which reflect the will of the people and portray,
through voters' decisions, the state's outlook," she continued. "It is
inconceivable that a minority of extremists who don't wish to give a
'mandate' to Israel, and participate in criminal acts of subversion
against the state by financial means from foreign benefactors, will also
receive tax breaks."
"Undermining the sovereignty of the government is tantamount to
failure to respect the will and decision of the people," Shaked
declared. "High taxes on foreign money to organizations that incite
against IDF soldiers and incite to racism are the minimum that the state
can and should do for itself."
Howls of protest coming from Washington, Brussels, London, Paris, Amsterdam and Berlin in 5... 4... 3... 2... 1....
Labels: Ayelet Shaked, Israeli Knesset, NGO funding, NGO's
Norway funding the US Left
We've known for a while now that the Norwegian government supports
'Palestinian' and Leftist Israeli NGO's. It turns out that Israel is not the only country where the Norwegians are attempting to practice thought control. According to this report, Norway has been
a big supporter of US Leftist 'think tanks' like Think Progress and the Brookings Institute.
Newspaper Aftenposten reported on Wednesday that around NOK 250 million (USD 43 million) from the ministry’s foreign aid (bistand)
budget was sent to some 40 organizations in the US in 2011 alone. About
half of it, according to a confidential state report obtained by Aftenposten,
was sent further to developing countries, but the rest stayed with
organizations including The Brookings Institution and the Center for
American Progress.
...
Aftenposten reported that the internal document, which had
been withdrawn from the public domain, was ordered by the ministry and
written last year by the Norwegian Peace Building Resource Center, which
was established as an independent organization by the ministry itself
in 2008. Its report offers an overview of how the Norwegian government
is trying to buy influence among US organizations that in turn can
influence US policy in Washington. The organizations mostly conduct
research, foreign aid projects of their own and environmental
protection.
The Brookings Institution, a long-established think tank that aims to
strengthen American democracy along with economic and social welfare,
received NOK 10 million over a three-year period for studies on changes
in the balance of international influence. The New America Foundation
received NOK 580,000 to study regional dimensions in the conflict
Afghanistan, including relations with Iran. The Center for American
Progress, a major think tank for the Democratic Party, received NOK 1.3
million to look at fairness in the workplace. The Woodrow Wilson
International Center for Scholars, meanwhile, received NOK 3.5 million
in 2010 for peace research in Latin America.
The list goes on, with the resource center’s report noting that only
the governments of Qatar and the United Arab Emirates have given more
money to the various organizations in the US, according to Aftenposten.
But don't worry: All that money being sent to the US isn't distracting the Norwegians from their real mission.
The money sent to the US organizations accounts for a fairly small
percentage of Norway’s foreign aid budget, which amounted to NOK 27
billion last year. The five largest recipients of Norwegian foreign aid
in 2011 were, according to the most recent figures available,
Afghanistan, Tanzania, Palestine, Somalia and Mozambique.
I wonder whether the US Federal Election Commission might take a look at how much Norwegian money went to the Obama campaign.
What a silly thought....
Labels: NGO funding, Norway
Your tax dollars at work: US also funding radical Leftist Israeli NGO's
And you thought that it was only European governments that were using taxpayer money to fund radical Israeli NGO's. No. It turns out that the United States of Obama is also
funding radical Leftist NGO's in Israel. This is Caroline Glick.
According to the report, in accordance with the NGO Transparency
Law which requires NGOs to report on donations received from foreign
governments, three Israeli NGOs received funding from the US.
Keshev,
a radical leftist "media watchdog" group run by some of Israel's most
outspoken, and radical journalists and writers received NIS 492,452 in
direct aid from the US government. To understand how subversive Keshev
is, it suffices to note that they
criticized the Israeli media
for rushing to judgment about Fatah's unity deal with Hamas. That is,
the group the US supports believes we should not criticize Fatah for
joining forces with a genocidal jihadist movement committed to the
obliteration of Israel that is in cahoots with the Iranians.
Through
Catholic Relief Services,the US also gave NIS 220,304 to the
anti-Israel pressure group B'Tselem. The money was used to fund
B'Tselem's video project. B'tselem's video project involves the
distribution of video cameras to Palestinians to film snuff films that
portry Israelis as aggressive bullies who seek to harm the Palestinians
for no reason.
Finally, the US government donated NIS 15,474 through the Foundation for Middle East Peace to the far left internet outlet
Social TV.
To a certain degree, Social TV can be -- and has been -- portrayed as
the anti-Zionist answer to Latma, the Hebrew-language media criticism
site that I run. But Latma is wholly funded by private contributors and
foundations.
It would have never occurred to
me to ask a foreign government to fund the project. It never would have
occurred to me to ask a foreign government to get into the media
watchdog game in Israel. But then, from reading the report it is clear
that the aim of the US government is not, in fact to help Israeli media
outlets do a better job reporting on events. Rather, the report
indicates that the US government has decided to use radical Israeli NGOs
to wage political warfare in Israel. The aim of this campaign is to
convince the public that Israel is to blame for the absence of peace
with our neighbors.
Labels: anti-Israel media bias, NGO funding, NGO Monitor, NGO's, United States
The New York Times gets Netanyahu all wrong
An appalling editorial that
misstates facts right and left graces the pages of Sunday's New York Times. Who wrote it? I'd love to know....
Six decades after Israel’s founding, its citizens remain deeply at odds over the future of their democracy. The latest illustration is the disintegration of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s new governing coalition after only 10 weeks.
The coalition is just fine thank you. Kadima, a party that currently has 29 seats, but which polls say will drop to single numbers in new elections, has left the coalition. Why do you think they joined in the first place? Hint: It wasn't because they actually care about the issues.
But when Shaul Mofaz and his centrist Kadima Party joined the government in May, the merger created a much broader coalition. It seemed to give Mr. Netanyahu — a disappointing, risk-averse leader — unprecedented authority to get things done.
Actually, Kadima joined the coalition to save itself from electoral defeat. They latched onto one populist issue - the need for a replacement for the Tal Law - and hoped to use it to bootstrap themselves back into the Knesset. Recent polls make it clear that no one was fooled by that ploy.
Mr. Mofaz became deputy prime minister and outlined an encouraging agenda. The first priority would be integrating minority populations of ultra-Orthodox Jews and Israeli Arabs into the military and civilian service.
Actually, one of the main reasons that the partnership with Kadima failed was the fact that Kadima was opposed to drafting 'Israeli Arabs.' They were only interested in 'getting' the ultra-Orthodox. The rest of the coalition had broader goals. No way you would know that from reading the New York Times.
The coalition would also revive peace negotiations with the Palestinians, pass a national budget and enact electoral reforms.
It takes two to tango on 'peace negotiations.' Is the Times even aware that Abu Mazen
canceled a meeting with Mofaz? No Israeli coalition can decide to 'revive peace negotiations with the Palestinians' unless the 'Palestinians' also want to revive them. That is clearly not the case. The coalition actually did start work on a national budget, which is not something that happens overnight (although the Times is also loathe to point out that our most recent national budget - which was for two years - was passed more recently than the last Obama administration budget).
But the coalition quickly collapsed over the issue of military service, which has exacerbated tensions between secular and religious Jews and with Arabs. Secular Israelis are increasingly resentful of the tendency of the ultra-Orthodox to refuse to serve and to separate themselves from the country’s mainstream.
The issue came to a head after the Supreme Court invalidated a law that granted draft exemptions to thousands of religious students and mandated that it be rewritten by Aug. 1.
The Times acts like Mofaz joined the government after the court ruling.
But that's not the case. The court ruling was the main reason Kadima joined the government. They saw an opportunity to save their political skins. It didn't work out that way.
There was also talk of doubling army enlistment for Arabs. Israeli Palestinians are not required to join the army, and most do not. Many feel like second-class citizens and are deeply conflicted about their place in Israeli society.
Whose talk was that? Not Mofaz's. And what's an 'Israeli Palestinian'? I would guess that anyone who describes themselves as an 'Israeli Palestinian' would feel quite conflicted about their place in Israeli society. But we refer to them as 'Israeli Arabs,' while some of them refer to themselves as 'Palestinians.' Unless the Times is referring to Arabs who live beyond the 1949 armistice lines, and no one is proposing to draft
them.
Demographic changes are making political compromise harder. Experts say an influx of Jews from the former Soviet Union and a high birthrate in the ultra-Orthodox community mean that many Israelis have a cultural mistrust of the democratic values on which the state was founded.
Jews from the former Soviet Union and ultra-Orthodox Jews (especially the ones who come from New York City) have a 'cultural mistrust' of the 'democratic values' on which the state was founded? Who wrote that line?
Bill Clinton? Two words: Prove it.
The Palestinian population is also expanding, hastening a day when Jews could be a minority.
Actually, the 'Palestinian population' is expanding at
about the same rate as the
Jewish population, and if the world would allow them to leave, many of them would opt to do so. So that line is nonsense. Based on current trends, Jews will not be a minority here.
Mr. Netanyahu’s past dependence on hard-line parties has manifested itself in aggressive settlement building and resistance to serious peace talks with the Palestinians — who themselves have not shown enough commitment to a solution. Without Kadima’s moderating force, these trends will continue.
Actually, Mr. Netanyahu has not built a single 'settlement' since taking office, implemented a 10-month 'settlement freeze' and has spent the last 3+ years calling for 'talks without preconditions' with the 'Palestinians.' It's the 'Palestinians' who have refused to come to the table. Oops.
There are other worrisome developments. The Association for Civil Rights in Israel has expressed concern over “intensifying infringements on democratic freedoms.” In the past two years, activists say, more than 25 bills have been proposed or passed by the Parliament to limit freedom of speech and of the press; penalize, defund or investigate nongovernmental groups; restrict judicial independence; and trample minority rights.
I think that throwaway line was referring to
this. It's been more than a year, and the NGO's still seem to be around. Hmmm.
Labels: Bill Clinton, Binyamin Netanyahu, demography, Haredim, IDF, Kadima, New York Times, NGO funding, Russian immigrants, settlement freeze, Shaul Mofaz, Supreme Court
Shocka: 'Peace Now' violated non-profit associations law
I am just so shocked.
This Hebrew report indicates that 'Peace Now' has for years been violating the non-profit associations law by engaging in political activity while having a tax-exempt status as an 'educational' non-profit association. Furthermore, they have been significantly financed by the governments of Norway, Finland, the European Union and England - the latter specifically to report on 'settlement construction.' I am so totally shocked.
Maybe they'll have their tax-exempt status revoked. Maybe they'll be forced to reincorporate as what they really are - a for-profit business. Imagine the outrage in Europe.... And maybe that's an opening to go after their 'American Friends' too....
Ah, what a sweet dream for the Sabbath.
Labels: NGO funding, Peace Now
Time to find a new attorney general
One of the high points of the Watergate scandal nearly 40 years ago was the
resignations of Elliot Richardson and William Ruckelshaus for refusing to defend President Nixon. But in Israel, we have a 'better' idea. In Israel,
an attorney general decide not to defend the government he serves and yet not be required to resign. He becomes yet another hurdle on the way to having a law declared constitutional... except that we don't have a constitution except in the minds of the Supreme Court Justices.
Attorney-General Yehuda Weinstein on Tuesday warned Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu that he would not be able to legally defend bills restricting foreign funding of NGOs.
Weinstein said in a letter to Netanyahu, obtained by Israeli media on Tuesday, that the proposed legislation was unconstitutional.
"The bills severely damage a number of constitutional rights, including freedom of expression, freedom of association and the right to equality."
Weinstein added in the letter that the passage of the laws would put Israel in a category with pariah states that have taken similar action.
Sorry, but the attorney general is a government servant and if he cannot serve the government, he ought to be fired. And substantively he's also wrong. No one is trying to shut down these NGO's - only to cut off their foreign governmental funding.
Labels: constitution, NGO funding
Clinton 'concerned' over 'anti-Democratic' wave in Israel
With the 'Arab Spring' blowing up in her face all around her, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (pictured here with Mutassim Gadhafi) is 'concerned' about an
'anti-Democratic' wave that might limit funding to her good friends at Peace Now.
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton voiced concerns over a wave of anti-democratic legislation in Israel noting a proposal to limit donations to aid foundations.
Speaking at the Saban Forum in Washington, Clinton also criticized the exclusion of women from Israel's public life.
EXCLUSION of women? Why? Because we won't make Tzipi Livni Prime Minister?
In a cable exposed by Wikileaks, 'Peace Now' admitted that 95% of their funding comes from abroad. Almost no Israelis support them.
But this is what concerns Hillary instead of her total failure and her boss' total failure to state a coherent foreign policy. This is what concerns Hillary instead of her boss' efforts to degrade the United States' power and influence around the world.
What could go wrong?
Labels: Hillary Clinton, NGO funding, Peace Now
EU denies funding 'Peace Now'
When I saw this, I didn't know whether to laugh or to cry.
The European Union is claiming that it does not fund 'Peace Now.' The EU’s spokesman in Israel, David Kriss, made the comments in a conversation with Arutz Sheva on Thursday. The interview took place in the wake of the Knesset’s Legislation Committee’s recent support for the proposed NGO bill, which limits the funding that political non-governmental organizations (NGOs) may receive from foreign governments and international bodies.
He said that the EU has not provided support to Peace Now for years.
“No Peace Now project was supported in the 2011 budget, and the call for submission of applications for projects for 2012 has not yet been published,” Kriss said, adding, “All projects in Israel which are supported by the EU are clearly listed on the website of the EU’s Delegation to Israel.”
Asked whether it is possibly that the EU intervened in Israeli politics, Kriss replied vaguely, “The EU supports the promotion of the universal values of human rights and peace."
I don't believe that story - they've never denied it until now. But I am waiting to hear a response from the experts (this is being written before the Sabbath), which I will post as soon as it is received.
Labels: European Union, NGO funding, Peace Now
What's a democracy?
For those trying to get a handle on our ongoing debate on NGO funding by foreign governments and the process of selecting Supreme Court Justices, Martin Sherman's
lengthy Friday JPost column is a good place to start.
The configuration and conduct of the judiciary, and the operation of NGOs funded by foreign sovereign sources, comprise the two blades of a “scissors” that are threatening to sever the bond between the most elemental constituents of democratic governance – between the demos and the kratos (between the people and the power).
The symbiotic interaction between an indisputably politically biased judiciary and organizations funded largely by governments with interests divergent – frequently radically so – from those of Israel, bestow inordinately disproportionate influence on an electorally insignificant minority.
As such, these activities comprise a severe perversion of the democratic process – quite the reverse of the noble endeavor to protect it that their vocal advocates attempt to promote.
While scholars may disagree as to the exact definition of “liberal democracy,” and while most would agree that it should not entail the unrestrained tyranny of the majority, it is doubtful whether any would suggest that it comprises the notion of the rule of the minority.
So while protection of minority rights – an important element of liberal democracy – is one thing, the right to subvert – indeed supersede – the will of the majority is quite another.
...
The ample financial resources of these political NGOs, with agendas often inimical to the vision of preserving Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people, allow them to lodge frequent petitions with a like-minded High Court of Justice.
This has impeded, undermined and delayed policy decisions of the elected government.
The efficacy of these foreign-funded forays is not necessarily dependent solely on the decisions handed-down by the courts. Sometimes significant practical impact on government policy can be achieved by interim injunctions, the publicity (usually negative for Israel) generated by the lodging of the petition itself, out-of-court settlements reached to avoid drawn-out legal proceedings, irrespective of the substantive merits of the petitions, and so on.
Moreover, this symbiosis between a politically partisan judiciary and externally financed NGOs has had several disturbing effects which are not often clearly articulated and hence not clearly understood.
First, it allows foreign governments to affect Israel’s policies by circumventing accepted diplomatic practices in manners which are far from transparent – either to their own domestic publics or to the Israeli electorate.
Second, it permits electorally inconsequential segments of the population to short-circuit public debate and to influence events far beyond their domestic weight, using the resources of official alien sovereignties whose interests are very different – indeed often diametrically opposed – to those of Israel.
All of these restrict the policies of Israeli authorities on a wide range of issues on the national agenda, including vital matters of security and defense. The result is an ongoing erosion of the public perception of the stature of elected executive and legislative branches of government and a commensurate enhancement of that of the unelected, elitist judiciary.
Why anyone would consider that preserving such a perverse state of affairs furthers the cause of liberal democracy beggars the imagination.
Read the whole thing. Yes, he's spot-on.
Labels: NGO funding, Supreme Court
Soccer Dad's Middle East Media Sampler
Here's Soccer Dad's Middle East Media Sampler for Tuesday, November 22.
1) Reconsidering the Post's editorial
Yesterday's Washington Post editorial condemning a proposed NGO law in Israel begins with:
FOR YEARS repressive governments in the Middle East have sought to curb scrutiny of their human rights records and prevent the development of organized opposition by banning civil society groups from receiving funding from foreign governments. As the Arab Spring spreads across the region, some of those controls are easing. So it is shocking to see Israel’s democratic government propose measures that could silence its own critics.
The premise here, that somehow Israel is headed in an authoritarian direction is offensive. Even if the law passes, it still has to survive court challenges. If it as badly written as its critics contend, it will never actually become law.
Furthermore, England has an extremely liberal libel law allowing even miscreants to sue, even if the information published about them is accurate. Is there anyone who accuses England of not being a democracy on account of this?
Finally what's troubling about the editorial is how it later contends that groups like Peace Now and B'Tselem would be affected and that this would be bad for Israeli democracy.
I had a hunch. I did a little digging and found an article in the Washington Post about Israeli plans to build new apartments in Jerusalem, Israel approves more building in East Jerusalem:
Hagit Ofran, a leader of Peace Now, an Israeli group that opposes the settlements and monitors their expansion, accused the government of “exploiting the housing crisis in Israel to promote its settlement policy,” which she said was meant to undermine prospects for a Palestinian state.
First of all Peace Now in this case is described simply as an "Israeli group." That gives them an authority to speak out about their government's actions. However what would happen if the reporter, Joel Greenberg, had, instead, described Peace Now as "a group mostly funded by European governments," would Ofran's statement have carried the same weight in this context?
Additionally, the view expressed by Peace Now is a fringe view in Israel. That's not to say that it shouldn't be heard, but should it be amplified above other opinions? Shouldn't the sole "Israeli group" cited in the article be representative of Israeli public opinion?
Furthermore, even though the apartments in question are to be built in areas that even the Palestinians concede will go to Israel in any final agreement, her charge about undermining "a Palestinian state," is left unchallenged in the article. Nor does the statement stand alone. Ofran's statement is used to bolster the arguments of the Palestinian Authority against Israel. This is more than simply an effort to correct Israel's flaws, as the Post editorial claims. Groups like Peace Now team up with Israel's enemies in efforts to delegitimize Israel. This is something that the Post's own reporting does.
In short the problem with the Washington Post's editorial is that it's premature, it's disproportionate in response to the problem and, finally, its own reporting, the Post exacerbates the problem that its editors claim doesn't exist.
Evelyn Gordon wrote a column for the Jerusalem Post, Right End, Wrong Means. It was reprinted in the Jewish Chronicle.
The only proper way to crack down on foreign funding of problematic NGOs is to ban all NGOs, without exception, from accepting money from foreign governments, or from foreign organizations funded by foreign governments. Since most foreign government money – 80 percent, according to Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman – goes to “political” NGOs, such a ban would hurt very few genuine charities. The government could choose to compensate these groups by upping its own funding, but if not, this an acceptable price to pay to protect Israel from blatant foreign subversion.
Somehow I doubt that even a more carefully crafted law would satisfy the editors of the Washington Post.
2) Reconsidering Saif's plight
The other day I wrote about the capture of Saif al-Islam Qaddafi. The New York Times reported:
But while transitional government leaders in the capital, Tripoli, promised that Mr. Qaddafi would be closely guarded and turned over to the International Criminal Court to be tried on war crimes charges, leaders in Zintan insisted that they would not hand him over until a formal national government was formed — a process that is in the works but at least a day or two away.
Such insistence on factional power is at the heart of international concerns about Libya’s future. And after Colonel Qaddafi’s capture and killing at the hands of militiamen a month ago, his son’s case will be an important test of Libya’s commitment to the rule of law.
Despite the promise to turn over Saif to the ICC, it isn't at all clear why the ICC should have jurisdiction over his case, than the interim government of Libya. The UN restored Libya to its seat on UN Human Rights Council, so apparently there would be an international consensus the current government is legitimate. Of course if the new Libyan government has control, his fate is sealed.
It occurred to me that Saif's contacting the ICC was a shrewd move on his part. The ICC, in his mind, was his "get out of noose free" card. Whether or not the new Libyan government keeps its promise in regards to Saif, it shows how international law can be twisted by scoundrels for their own purposes.
3) Christians in the Middle East
By Joseph Bottum.
For all the solicitous attention paid to them by such international Christian organizations as the World Council of Churches, you would think they were a larger and more important group. Much of the Vatican's diplomacy—its occasionally adversarial relations with Israel, its Palestinian favoritism, its reluctance to condemn the Islamic dictatorships—derives from its belief that the ancient Christian communities of the Middle East are at risk, and that the best way to defend them is to be seen to side with Arabs against their perceived enemies.
Hard to say the Vatican is wrong about the first part. At the beginning of the twentieth century, large numbers of Christians still lived in their traditional Orthodox and Catholic communities, from the Holy Mountain of Mount Athos all the way around the Mediterranean—through Asia Minor, down the Levant, and across North Africa to Morocco. In 1914, they made up 25% of Ottoman Empire.
...
The second part of the Vatican's view of the Middle East, however—the idea that what is left of the Christians can be defended by trying to forge relations with Muslim extremists—has proved dangerously wrong, both as an understanding of the Christians' situation and as a strategy for helping them.
Labels: Christians in Muslim countries, Middle East Media Sampler, NGO funding, Peace Now, Seif al-Islam Gadhafi, Soccer Dad
