Guardian Sponsored Film Full of Blood Libels
4 days ago
Showing posts with label NGO. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NGO. Show all posts
Sunday, July 8, 2012
BDS IN THE PEWS
European, U.S. and Canadian Government Funding Behind Anti-Israel Activism in Mainline Churches
NGO Monitor's latest report July 2nd documents the flow of funds from European, US and Canadian governments to several Palestinian and pro-Palestinian Christian NGOs that promote boycotts, divestment and sanctions (BDS), and supersessionist theologies, in mainline churches across the globe.
http://tinyurl.com/cb6j89t
The main findings:
• In the last decade, BDS aimed at Israel developed as a key issue in mainline Christian denominations in the United States, Europe, Canada, and elsewhere.
• A number of European governments, plus the United States and Canada provide funds for these church-based efforts to delegitimize Israel. These taxpayer funds are disbursed as grants to church-based humanitarian NGOs, which then transfer these funds to highly politicized pro-Palestinian NGOs, including Christian groups that promote within mainline churches BDS, the one-state solution and, in many cases, antisemitic supercessionist, or replacement, theologies
• The US government, through the National Endowment for Democracy (mostly funded by the US Congress) granted the Holy Land Trust $124,300 (2009, 2010, 2012). HLT's executive director Sami Awad, speaking at the National Leadership Conference for the Vineyard Church in 2009, told the audience (at 01:20:27 in the audio): "We've actually done training in non-violence for Hamas leaders and other militant groups as well." Hamas is listed as a terrorist organization by the US State Department and the EU. Further, the US Supreme Court upheld a law criminalizing material support for terror organizations. (Holder, Attorney General, et al. v. Humanitarian Law Project et al. 2010). The law defines "material support" as including "any property, tangible or intangible, or service, including... training, expert advice or assistance..." Based in Bethlehem, HLT is a signatory to the 2005 "Palestinian Civil Society Call for BDS" and supports the Kairos Palestine document. HLT conducts highly politicized tours to the region targeting church leaders.
• BDS strategists view the churches as a key target for promoting the BDS agenda because: "religious institutions are seen in many communities as embodying important moral and ethical principles... Divestment campaigns that target companies such as Caterpillar have been initiated in a number of major Christian churches. Not only will successful divestment campaigns financially weaken the Occupation, but will raise both the public profile and legitimacy of the BDS campaign."
To read the full report, click here. http://tinyurl.com/7lvsbyr
Thursday, December 29, 2011
Human Wrongs: The Worst of Amnesty, HRW, and others in 2011
As 2011 concludes, NGO Monitor released a list (below) of the most outrageous and absurd NGO actions from the past year, demonstrating the political nature of NGOs involved in the Arab-Israeli conflict. NGO Monitor also published an op-ed in the Jerusalem Post on the NGOs' lack of preparedness in 2011 during the Arab Springs. Another op-ed appeared in JTA as a letter to Tom Friedman and Hillary Clinton, facetiously discussing the state of American democracy.
The list:
1. Amnesty International's new Israel Researcher, Deborah Hyams, has a history of radical anti-Israel activism.
2. HRW's Sarah Leah Whitson race-baited American Jews and ignored the embarrassment of having praised Saif-Islam Qaddafi as a human rights reformer.
3. German NGO "Remembrance, Responsibility, and Future (EVZ)" exploited government funding designated for Holocaust reparations and education in order to join the delegitimization campaign against Israel and added to new antisemitism.
4. Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR) condemned as "war crimes" the IDF response to the terror attack in Eilat.
5. A number of NGOs attacked Judge Richard Goldstone after he honestly admitted the need to "reconsider" his UN report.
6. HRW appointed Shawan Jabarin to its Middle East Advisory Board, an alleged senior activist in the PFLP terrorist organization, and head of Al-Haq.
7. Members of Machsom Watch supported and hugged relatives of the murderers of the Fogel family killers.
8. Amnesty International defended Ittijah head Ameer Makhoul, a convicted Hezbollah spy.
9. Coalition of Women for Peace (CWP) accused the New Israel Fund (NIF) of being an "ally" of NGO Monitor, after NIF was forced to finally end funding to the pro-BDS group.
10. Wikileaks revealed that NIF Associate Director in Israel Hedva Radanovitz believed that "the disappearance of a Jewish state would not be the tragedy that Israelis fear since it would become more democratic."
11. Itamar Shapira of Breaking the Silence claimed "we are creating the terror against us, basically."
12, Kathleen Peratis, co-chair of HRW's Middle East and North Africa Advisory Committee, held meetings with Hamas
The list:
1. Amnesty International's new Israel Researcher, Deborah Hyams, has a history of radical anti-Israel activism.
2. HRW's Sarah Leah Whitson race-baited American Jews and ignored the embarrassment of having praised Saif-Islam Qaddafi as a human rights reformer.
3. German NGO "Remembrance, Responsibility, and Future (EVZ)" exploited government funding designated for Holocaust reparations and education in order to join the delegitimization campaign against Israel and added to new antisemitism.
4. Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR) condemned as "war crimes" the IDF response to the terror attack in Eilat.
5. A number of NGOs attacked Judge Richard Goldstone after he honestly admitted the need to "reconsider" his UN report.
6. HRW appointed Shawan Jabarin to its Middle East Advisory Board, an alleged senior activist in the PFLP terrorist organization, and head of Al-Haq.
7. Members of Machsom Watch supported and hugged relatives of the murderers of the Fogel family killers.
8. Amnesty International defended Ittijah head Ameer Makhoul, a convicted Hezbollah spy.
9. Coalition of Women for Peace (CWP) accused the New Israel Fund (NIF) of being an "ally" of NGO Monitor, after NIF was forced to finally end funding to the pro-BDS group.
10. Wikileaks revealed that NIF Associate Director in Israel Hedva Radanovitz believed that "the disappearance of a Jewish state would not be the tragedy that Israelis fear since it would become more democratic."
11. Itamar Shapira of Breaking the Silence claimed "we are creating the terror against us, basically."
12, Kathleen Peratis, co-chair of HRW's Middle East and North Africa Advisory Committee, held meetings with Hamas
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
NGOS IN ISRAEL - BACKGROUND TO THE DEBATE AND FAQS
NGOS IN ISRAEL - BACKGROUND TO THE DEBATE AND FAQS
NGO Monitor November 15, 2011
http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/ngos_in_israel_background_to_the_debate_and_faqs
The Israeli public, media, government and Knesset (legislature) are conducting an intense debate on massive foreign government funding for highly political non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Important concerns about the manipulation of Israeli democracy by foreign governments through NGO funding, and on influence of these groups, triggered this debate.
The media coverage of these issues, both in Israel and outside, is often distorted and confused. Basic questions about NGOs, NGO funding, and proposed Knesset legislation, need to be addressed.
Following are FAQs which address the core questions and present the basic facts, to promote a more informed and substantive discussion on these complex issues.
What is an NGO?
In theory, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are autonomous, non-profit and politically unaffiliated groups that claim to promote an agenda based on universal moral values, such as human rights, democracy, the environment, etc. NGOs can contribute to civil society and democracy by using their soft power to challenge governments and promote social interests, but they themselves are not necessarily democratic institutions. NGOs lack a system of checks and balances, and their powerful officials generally only provide accountability to their funders and activist members, and not to the citizens or societies whose lives are directly impacted by their activities.
Can an NGO receive sizable portions of its budget from governments and still qualify as a “non-governmental” organization?
No. As noted above, NGOs are meant to represent civil society, not the interests of foreign governments. Israeli NGOs that receive foreign government funding benefit from the misleading image of being “non-governmental,” non-political, and based in “civil society.” The government funders also use this framework to justify their use of NGOs as a policy instrument, and on a scale which is unique to Israel.
How many NGOs funded by foreign governments operate in Israel?
While the level of European and other foreign government funding for Israeli political advocacy NGOs is very large, it is impossible to provide a comprehensive accounting because, for many years, this funding was mostly done in secret. In addition, many Israeli non-profits, in violation of Israeli law, do not submit annual reports to the Registrar of Non-Profits (Rasham Amutot). However, as more information becomes available, particularly after the NGO Transparency Law (February 2011), additional and verifiable information will become available.
As of November 2011, NGO Monitor’s research reports list 23 Israeli political advocacy NGOs funded by foreign governments, all of which actively oppose, in varying degrees, the policies of the democratically elected government of Israel. A number of powerful groups receive more than 70% of their annual donations from foreign governments. (See Appendix 1)
How do these NGOs contribute to political campaigning and advocacy outside of Israel?
Although most of the foreign government funding is formally designated for “educating the Israeli public” and “changing public opinion” (both in violation of the norms on non-interference in other democracies), these Israeli NGOs are very active externally, in the delegitmization and political warfare against Israel.
Many of these Israeli NGOs, (including B’tselem, Adalah, Physicians for Human Rights-Israel, Public Committee Against Torture in Israel) have lobbyists in foreign capitals, who seek additional funding and promote the private political agendas of the NGOs. The use of government funding for such lobbying is incompatible with good governance principles.
Why do foreign governments provide so much money to Israeli political advocacy NGOs?
European and other governments use direct funding for Israeli NGOs in order to promote their own views and interests, regardless and often in opposition to the policies of the democratically elected representatives of the Israeli public. The NGOs that receive such funding promote opposition policies on highly complex and sensitive issues such as Jerusalem, the future of the West Bank, responses to terror in Gaza, and other core issues which are central to the lives of Israeli citizens. As opposed to presenting their views in public via standard diplomatic practices, foreign governments manipulate Israeli democracy through massive funding of an ideologically narrow spectrum of the Israeli political map.
Which governments are primarily involved?
The major government funders to Israeli NGOs are the European Union and individual European states including Sweden, Norway, Denmark, the United Kingdom, Ireland, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Spain Finland, Belgium, and France.
Most of these governments fund Israeli NGOs both via multiple frameworks, including national ministries of foreign affairs and through EU-membership.
Additionally, many governments outsource foreign aid – including support for NGOs – to local and international humanitarian organizations that distribute funds within Israel. This means that Israeli NGOs often receive both direct and indirect funding from a given government. For example, funding from ICCO (Netherlands), Oxfam Novib (Netherlands), Diakonia (Sweden), DanChurchAid (Denmark), and Trocaire (Ireland) – to list a few – originates with foreign governments.
Is it true that much of this European government funding for political NGOs in Israel is not transparent, in violation of basic democratic norms?
Yes. While some governments, notably the UK, have increased transparency, and others provide substantive responses to NGO Monitor research requests, most of the decisions in this area violate transparency norms. There is little information on how funding decisions are made, and who makes them; project evaluations (if they exist) are not made public, and often the amounts and other details are tightly held secrets, and if released, are in a highly confusing and incoherent format. The lack of parliamentary oversight in most countries and the EU adds to the consequences of the secrecy.
Within Israel, many NGOs do not submit the requisite annual reports to the Registrar of Non-Profits (Rasham Amutot). This situation has persisted for years due to lax enforcement and limited consequences for violators.
In other instances, the funding decisions are secretly made by unknown individuals chosen by embassies in Tel Aviv, representative offices in Ramallah and other regional frameworks, using processes that are hidden from top officials and ministerial oversight.
Due to this secrecy, conflicts of interest and other violations of due process cannot be prevented or exposed.
How much money is involved?
Due to a lack of transparency on the part of European funders and Israeli NGOs, and major indirect funding via aid organizations, no accurate number is available. We know that over 27 million NIS annually is provided to Israeli political advocacy NGOs by foreign governments. (Additional foreign government funding goes to Palestinian and international NGOs active in delegitimization campaigns.)
What is the NGO “halo effect”?
Statements made by self-proclaimed human rights NGOs are routinely accepted at face value by journalists, diplomats, academics, UN representatives, etc. Instead of viewing these political advocacy organizations as such, important audiences often perceive these NGOs to be morally objective arbiters. This “halo effect” provides immunity from scrutiny and criticism, and greatly increases NGO power.
Is the role of NGOs funded by foreign governments in Israel unique?
Both the amount of money given to NGOs and the quantity of these types of NGOs is not found elsewhere. Only Israel has dozens of NGOs operating under a façade of human rights whose credibility and impact are artificially amplified by massive foreign funding.
What can be done to offset the artificial influence of foreign-government funded NGOs in Israel and their role in political warfare?
Transparency and informed public debate, both in Europe and Israel, are vital. It is entirely appropriate for democratically elected representatives to introduce legislation that seeks to address this problematic funding. Committees debate the legislation, amendments are offered, and rigorous debates takes place – all reflecting a vibrant democratic system.
To address the root of the problem, European governments must enforce transparency, facilitate informed public debate, and hold themselves accountable for their NGO funding.
On the proposed Knesset legislation
What do the proposed bills say?
Two different bills have been proposed and approved for further consideration by the Ministerial Legislative Committee:
1. Proposed Bill for the amendment of the Income Tax Order (Taxation of public institutions that receive donations from a Foreign State Entity), 2011 (Fania Kirshenbaum – Israel Beiteinu
2. Proposed bill The “Amutot Law” [Non Profit Society] (Amendment – Banning Support by a Foreign State Entity), 2011 (Ofir Akunis and Tzipy Hotovely – Likud
For complete translations, see Appendix 2.
Has Israel already banned all government funding for political NGOs?
No. The proposed bills are in the earliest stages of the legislative process. As demonstrated by the NGO Transparency Law and many other examples, a bill can change dramatically from its initial introduction until it finally becomes Israeli law, if in fact it does.
NGOs and officials of European governments involved in funding them have campaigned against all regulation proposals, condemning them as “anti-democratic” or “fascist.” Are these descriptions accurate?
Unfortunately, NGO officials who fear that they will lose their political power and influence have labeled all critics “McCarthyites,” and all attempts to increase transparency regarding their funding and activities as “anti-democratic.”
By blurring the lines between valuable contributions to democracy and truly problematic bills, and greatly over-exaggerating the faults in those proposals, NGOs muddy a very important public conversation taking place.
Experience has shown that, as in most liberal democracies, the robust Israeli legislative process serves as a corrective mechanism, ensuring a proper balance of democratic values and societal concerns.
NGO Monitor November 15, 2011
http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/ngos_in_israel_background_to_the_debate_and_faqs
The Israeli public, media, government and Knesset (legislature) are conducting an intense debate on massive foreign government funding for highly political non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Important concerns about the manipulation of Israeli democracy by foreign governments through NGO funding, and on influence of these groups, triggered this debate.
The media coverage of these issues, both in Israel and outside, is often distorted and confused. Basic questions about NGOs, NGO funding, and proposed Knesset legislation, need to be addressed.
Following are FAQs which address the core questions and present the basic facts, to promote a more informed and substantive discussion on these complex issues.
What is an NGO?
In theory, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are autonomous, non-profit and politically unaffiliated groups that claim to promote an agenda based on universal moral values, such as human rights, democracy, the environment, etc. NGOs can contribute to civil society and democracy by using their soft power to challenge governments and promote social interests, but they themselves are not necessarily democratic institutions. NGOs lack a system of checks and balances, and their powerful officials generally only provide accountability to their funders and activist members, and not to the citizens or societies whose lives are directly impacted by their activities.
Can an NGO receive sizable portions of its budget from governments and still qualify as a “non-governmental” organization?
No. As noted above, NGOs are meant to represent civil society, not the interests of foreign governments. Israeli NGOs that receive foreign government funding benefit from the misleading image of being “non-governmental,” non-political, and based in “civil society.” The government funders also use this framework to justify their use of NGOs as a policy instrument, and on a scale which is unique to Israel.
How many NGOs funded by foreign governments operate in Israel?
While the level of European and other foreign government funding for Israeli political advocacy NGOs is very large, it is impossible to provide a comprehensive accounting because, for many years, this funding was mostly done in secret. In addition, many Israeli non-profits, in violation of Israeli law, do not submit annual reports to the Registrar of Non-Profits (Rasham Amutot). However, as more information becomes available, particularly after the NGO Transparency Law (February 2011), additional and verifiable information will become available.
As of November 2011, NGO Monitor’s research reports list 23 Israeli political advocacy NGOs funded by foreign governments, all of which actively oppose, in varying degrees, the policies of the democratically elected government of Israel. A number of powerful groups receive more than 70% of their annual donations from foreign governments. (See Appendix 1)
How do these NGOs contribute to political campaigning and advocacy outside of Israel?
Although most of the foreign government funding is formally designated for “educating the Israeli public” and “changing public opinion” (both in violation of the norms on non-interference in other democracies), these Israeli NGOs are very active externally, in the delegitmization and political warfare against Israel.
Many of these Israeli NGOs, (including B’tselem, Adalah, Physicians for Human Rights-Israel, Public Committee Against Torture in Israel) have lobbyists in foreign capitals, who seek additional funding and promote the private political agendas of the NGOs. The use of government funding for such lobbying is incompatible with good governance principles.
Why do foreign governments provide so much money to Israeli political advocacy NGOs?
European and other governments use direct funding for Israeli NGOs in order to promote their own views and interests, regardless and often in opposition to the policies of the democratically elected representatives of the Israeli public. The NGOs that receive such funding promote opposition policies on highly complex and sensitive issues such as Jerusalem, the future of the West Bank, responses to terror in Gaza, and other core issues which are central to the lives of Israeli citizens. As opposed to presenting their views in public via standard diplomatic practices, foreign governments manipulate Israeli democracy through massive funding of an ideologically narrow spectrum of the Israeli political map.
Which governments are primarily involved?
The major government funders to Israeli NGOs are the European Union and individual European states including Sweden, Norway, Denmark, the United Kingdom, Ireland, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Spain Finland, Belgium, and France.
Most of these governments fund Israeli NGOs both via multiple frameworks, including national ministries of foreign affairs and through EU-membership.
Additionally, many governments outsource foreign aid – including support for NGOs – to local and international humanitarian organizations that distribute funds within Israel. This means that Israeli NGOs often receive both direct and indirect funding from a given government. For example, funding from ICCO (Netherlands), Oxfam Novib (Netherlands), Diakonia (Sweden), DanChurchAid (Denmark), and Trocaire (Ireland) – to list a few – originates with foreign governments.
Is it true that much of this European government funding for political NGOs in Israel is not transparent, in violation of basic democratic norms?
Yes. While some governments, notably the UK, have increased transparency, and others provide substantive responses to NGO Monitor research requests, most of the decisions in this area violate transparency norms. There is little information on how funding decisions are made, and who makes them; project evaluations (if they exist) are not made public, and often the amounts and other details are tightly held secrets, and if released, are in a highly confusing and incoherent format. The lack of parliamentary oversight in most countries and the EU adds to the consequences of the secrecy.
Within Israel, many NGOs do not submit the requisite annual reports to the Registrar of Non-Profits (Rasham Amutot). This situation has persisted for years due to lax enforcement and limited consequences for violators.
In other instances, the funding decisions are secretly made by unknown individuals chosen by embassies in Tel Aviv, representative offices in Ramallah and other regional frameworks, using processes that are hidden from top officials and ministerial oversight.
Due to this secrecy, conflicts of interest and other violations of due process cannot be prevented or exposed.
How much money is involved?
Due to a lack of transparency on the part of European funders and Israeli NGOs, and major indirect funding via aid organizations, no accurate number is available. We know that over 27 million NIS annually is provided to Israeli political advocacy NGOs by foreign governments. (Additional foreign government funding goes to Palestinian and international NGOs active in delegitimization campaigns.)
What is the NGO “halo effect”?
Statements made by self-proclaimed human rights NGOs are routinely accepted at face value by journalists, diplomats, academics, UN representatives, etc. Instead of viewing these political advocacy organizations as such, important audiences often perceive these NGOs to be morally objective arbiters. This “halo effect” provides immunity from scrutiny and criticism, and greatly increases NGO power.
Is the role of NGOs funded by foreign governments in Israel unique?
Both the amount of money given to NGOs and the quantity of these types of NGOs is not found elsewhere. Only Israel has dozens of NGOs operating under a façade of human rights whose credibility and impact are artificially amplified by massive foreign funding.
What can be done to offset the artificial influence of foreign-government funded NGOs in Israel and their role in political warfare?
Transparency and informed public debate, both in Europe and Israel, are vital. It is entirely appropriate for democratically elected representatives to introduce legislation that seeks to address this problematic funding. Committees debate the legislation, amendments are offered, and rigorous debates takes place – all reflecting a vibrant democratic system.
To address the root of the problem, European governments must enforce transparency, facilitate informed public debate, and hold themselves accountable for their NGO funding.
On the proposed Knesset legislation
What do the proposed bills say?
Two different bills have been proposed and approved for further consideration by the Ministerial Legislative Committee:
1. Proposed Bill for the amendment of the Income Tax Order (Taxation of public institutions that receive donations from a Foreign State Entity), 2011 (Fania Kirshenbaum – Israel Beiteinu
2. Proposed bill The “Amutot Law” [Non Profit Society] (Amendment – Banning Support by a Foreign State Entity), 2011 (Ofir Akunis and Tzipy Hotovely – Likud
For complete translations, see Appendix 2.
Has Israel already banned all government funding for political NGOs?
No. The proposed bills are in the earliest stages of the legislative process. As demonstrated by the NGO Transparency Law and many other examples, a bill can change dramatically from its initial introduction until it finally becomes Israeli law, if in fact it does.
NGOs and officials of European governments involved in funding them have campaigned against all regulation proposals, condemning them as “anti-democratic” or “fascist.” Are these descriptions accurate?
Unfortunately, NGO officials who fear that they will lose their political power and influence have labeled all critics “McCarthyites,” and all attempts to increase transparency regarding their funding and activities as “anti-democratic.”
By blurring the lines between valuable contributions to democracy and truly problematic bills, and greatly over-exaggerating the faults in those proposals, NGOs muddy a very important public conversation taking place.
Experience has shown that, as in most liberal democracies, the robust Israeli legislative process serves as a corrective mechanism, ensuring a proper balance of democratic values and societal concerns.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
A Response to TIME Magazine Article
We strongly suggest viewing the video “Israel’s Critical Security Needs” that presents the dilemma facing Israel in any negotiated settlement with the Palestinians, See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytWmPqY8TE0 . The physical size of Israel is always overestimated and this video puts its size into the context of any future agreement.
===================================
A Response to TIME Magazine Article
By Ron Dermer, Senior Advisor to the Israeli Prime Minister Jan. 18, 2011
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2043016,00.html
Dear Mr. Stengel,
I wanted to bring to your attention a recent article in Time entitled "Israel's Rightward Lurch Scares Some Conservatives." I hope that you will agree that the article's obvious bias and numerous distortions are not worthy of the standards of your prestigious magazine.
Israel is depicted in the article as essentially sliding towards fascism. Your correspondent refers to Israel's Shin Bet (the equivalent of the FBI) as a "secret police," claims that the Israeli government "increasingly equates dissent with disloyalty," and accuses the Prime Minister of "taking a page from neighboring authoritarian states."
The evidence offered for these outrageous allegations includes a preliminary vote in our parliament that would require naturalized citizens to make a pledge of allegiance, a proposal to strip citizenship from Israelis convicted of espionage and terrorism, a motion to investigate foreign government funding of local NGOs, calls on Jews to not rent property to Arabs, and demonstrations demanding prohibitions of Arab boys from dating Jewish girls.
But your correspondent did not find it necessary to inform your readers of a few facts.
Oaths of allegiance are commonplace in most democratic countries, including the United States. Naturalized citizens in America swear an oath to its Constitution and to defend the country against "all enemies, foreign and domestic." Israel's proposed pledge would require naturalized citizens to swear an oath to Israel as a Jewish and democratic state, words taken directly from our Declaration of Independence.
Moreover, Great Britain, France, Germany, and Italy are just some of the many countries where citizenship can be stripped for various infractions that are defined as undermining "national interests." Are these European countries not democratic?
In the United States, Senator Joe Leiberman proposed a bill last year to "add joining a foreign terrorist organization or engaging in or supporting hostilities against the United States or its allies to the list of acts for which United States nationals would lose their nationality." Is American democracy threatened by such a bill?
As for questioning the legitimacy of foreign government funding of Israeli NGOs, mentioning America's Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA) may have presented a more balanced picture.
FARA requires that any organization engaged in lobbying in the U.S. that receives money from foreign individuals, let alone foreign governments, must among other things register as a foreign agent with the Department of Justice and permit the Attorney General to inspect all of its activities.
It is hard to imagine any democratic country accepting foreign governments intervening in its domestic affairs by funding domestic groups engaged not merely in criticism of a particular government's policy but also attacking the very foundations of the State.
What would Britain do if the French government was actively funding a British NGO that sought to eliminate the monarchy? What would the United States do if the Iranian government was funding American NGOs pressing for a withdrawal of US forces from the Middle East?
There is a vigorous public debate in Israel, including within the Likud party, over the best means to address the problem of foreign government funding of local NGOs. Proposals range from launching a parliamentary investigation to laws banning or restricting such funding to measures to ensure full transparency. Far from being a sign of Israel's slide toward fascism, the current debate in Israel is a testament to how vibrant our democracy truly is.
Finally, contrary to the implication of your correspondent, Prime Minister Netanyahu has publicly and forcefully condemned the racist sentiments that were mentioned in the article. For example, this is what the Prime Minister said at the opening of Israel's annual Bible Quiz to an audience of mostly observant Jews a few hours after he learned of the letter calling on Jews not to rent apartments to Arabs:
"There are non-Jews among the citizens of this country. How would we feel if someone said not to sell apartments to Jews? We would have been outraged, and indeed we are outraged when we hear such things in neighboring countries or anywhere else. Such statements should not be made, neither about Jews nor about Arabs. They must not be made in any democratic country, let alone a Jewish-democratic country that respects the moral values of the Jewish heritage and the Bible. Therefore, the State of Israel categorically rejects these things."
Contrast this unequivocal condemnation by the leader of Israel to the Palestinian Authority law that mandates the death penalty for any one who sells land to Jews. Such laws are all too common in a Middle East in which Christians are persecuted, gays are hanged in public squares and women are stoned for adultery.
In Israel, things are different. Here, we protect the rights of women, gays and minorities, including the 20% of Israelis who are Arabs, who enjoy freedom of speech and religion and the protections afforded by independent courts and the rule of law.
Every decision in Israel is put under the microscope by one of world's largest foreign press contingents, the hundreds of human rights organizations and NGOs that operate freely here, a famously adversarial local press and most critically, by a vociferous parliamentary opposition.
Israel has upheld its democratic values despite being threatened like no country on earth. In defending itself against wars of aggression, unparalleled terror campaigns and continuous promises to annihilate it, Israel has a track record on the protection of rights that would compare favorably to the record of any democracy, much less democracies under threat.
Even in peacetime, other democracies enact laws that would be inconceivable in Israel. The Swiss ban on minarets and the French restrictions on headscarves passed in Europe, not Israel.
One final point regarding media coverage in the Middle East. In 2000, after an Italian television station (RAI) was threatened by the Palestinian Authority for broadcasting the film of a Palestinian mob lynching two Israeli soldiers, RAI issued a shameful apology. Similarly, in 2003, CNN admitted to burying negative coverage about Sadaam's regime so that its personnel could continue working safely in Baghdad.
I can assure you that no matter how biased and unbalanced your correspondents' coverage of Israel, they will always be free here to write whatever they want. Of course, Time is also free not to print it.
===================================
A Response to TIME Magazine Article
By Ron Dermer, Senior Advisor to the Israeli Prime Minister Jan. 18, 2011
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2043016,00.html
Dear Mr. Stengel,
I wanted to bring to your attention a recent article in Time entitled "Israel's Rightward Lurch Scares Some Conservatives." I hope that you will agree that the article's obvious bias and numerous distortions are not worthy of the standards of your prestigious magazine.
Israel is depicted in the article as essentially sliding towards fascism. Your correspondent refers to Israel's Shin Bet (the equivalent of the FBI) as a "secret police," claims that the Israeli government "increasingly equates dissent with disloyalty," and accuses the Prime Minister of "taking a page from neighboring authoritarian states."
The evidence offered for these outrageous allegations includes a preliminary vote in our parliament that would require naturalized citizens to make a pledge of allegiance, a proposal to strip citizenship from Israelis convicted of espionage and terrorism, a motion to investigate foreign government funding of local NGOs, calls on Jews to not rent property to Arabs, and demonstrations demanding prohibitions of Arab boys from dating Jewish girls.
But your correspondent did not find it necessary to inform your readers of a few facts.
Oaths of allegiance are commonplace in most democratic countries, including the United States. Naturalized citizens in America swear an oath to its Constitution and to defend the country against "all enemies, foreign and domestic." Israel's proposed pledge would require naturalized citizens to swear an oath to Israel as a Jewish and democratic state, words taken directly from our Declaration of Independence.
Moreover, Great Britain, France, Germany, and Italy are just some of the many countries where citizenship can be stripped for various infractions that are defined as undermining "national interests." Are these European countries not democratic?
In the United States, Senator Joe Leiberman proposed a bill last year to "add joining a foreign terrorist organization or engaging in or supporting hostilities against the United States or its allies to the list of acts for which United States nationals would lose their nationality." Is American democracy threatened by such a bill?
As for questioning the legitimacy of foreign government funding of Israeli NGOs, mentioning America's Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA) may have presented a more balanced picture.
FARA requires that any organization engaged in lobbying in the U.S. that receives money from foreign individuals, let alone foreign governments, must among other things register as a foreign agent with the Department of Justice and permit the Attorney General to inspect all of its activities.
It is hard to imagine any democratic country accepting foreign governments intervening in its domestic affairs by funding domestic groups engaged not merely in criticism of a particular government's policy but also attacking the very foundations of the State.
What would Britain do if the French government was actively funding a British NGO that sought to eliminate the monarchy? What would the United States do if the Iranian government was funding American NGOs pressing for a withdrawal of US forces from the Middle East?
There is a vigorous public debate in Israel, including within the Likud party, over the best means to address the problem of foreign government funding of local NGOs. Proposals range from launching a parliamentary investigation to laws banning or restricting such funding to measures to ensure full transparency. Far from being a sign of Israel's slide toward fascism, the current debate in Israel is a testament to how vibrant our democracy truly is.
Finally, contrary to the implication of your correspondent, Prime Minister Netanyahu has publicly and forcefully condemned the racist sentiments that were mentioned in the article. For example, this is what the Prime Minister said at the opening of Israel's annual Bible Quiz to an audience of mostly observant Jews a few hours after he learned of the letter calling on Jews not to rent apartments to Arabs:
"There are non-Jews among the citizens of this country. How would we feel if someone said not to sell apartments to Jews? We would have been outraged, and indeed we are outraged when we hear such things in neighboring countries or anywhere else. Such statements should not be made, neither about Jews nor about Arabs. They must not be made in any democratic country, let alone a Jewish-democratic country that respects the moral values of the Jewish heritage and the Bible. Therefore, the State of Israel categorically rejects these things."
Contrast this unequivocal condemnation by the leader of Israel to the Palestinian Authority law that mandates the death penalty for any one who sells land to Jews. Such laws are all too common in a Middle East in which Christians are persecuted, gays are hanged in public squares and women are stoned for adultery.
In Israel, things are different. Here, we protect the rights of women, gays and minorities, including the 20% of Israelis who are Arabs, who enjoy freedom of speech and religion and the protections afforded by independent courts and the rule of law.
Every decision in Israel is put under the microscope by one of world's largest foreign press contingents, the hundreds of human rights organizations and NGOs that operate freely here, a famously adversarial local press and most critically, by a vociferous parliamentary opposition.
Israel has upheld its democratic values despite being threatened like no country on earth. In defending itself against wars of aggression, unparalleled terror campaigns and continuous promises to annihilate it, Israel has a track record on the protection of rights that would compare favorably to the record of any democracy, much less democracies under threat.
Even in peacetime, other democracies enact laws that would be inconceivable in Israel. The Swiss ban on minarets and the French restrictions on headscarves passed in Europe, not Israel.
One final point regarding media coverage in the Middle East. In 2000, after an Italian television station (RAI) was threatened by the Palestinian Authority for broadcasting the film of a Palestinian mob lynching two Israeli soldiers, RAI issued a shameful apology. Similarly, in 2003, CNN admitted to burying negative coverage about Sadaam's regime so that its personnel could continue working safely in Baghdad.
I can assure you that no matter how biased and unbalanced your correspondents' coverage of Israel, they will always be free here to write whatever they want. Of course, Time is also free not to print it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
