Borderline Views: Who's monitoring the monitor?

[Scurrilous]

<snip>

"The Knesset on Tuesday will host a conference which will bring it into disgrace. Instead of upholding the traditions of democracy and free speech, it will be responsible for an attempt to trample on the principles of freedom of expression by those who hold divergent views to those of the government. Most surprising of all is the fact that the event is to be hosted and chaired by Government Services Minister Michael Eitan, a parliamentarian who has become known for his staunch defense of democratic values - most recently leading the counterassault on the attempt to have all citizens registered with biometric identity cards.

The conference has been put together by two right-wing organizations - NGO Monitor headed by Prof. Gerald Steinberg at Bar-Ilan University, and the Institute of Zionist Strategies headed by West Bank settlement leader Yisrael Harel. The invitation to the event shows that, with the single exception of MK Daniel Ben-Simon, only right-wing MKs will be attending, while the list of invited NGOs is no more than fiction. Adding their names to the list of unconfirmed attendees was no more than a publicity stunt aimed at making the event appear to be more balanced than it really is. They will be absent and never had any intention of participating in this latest round of NGO bashing. And even Ben-Simon cancelled his participation at the last moment after finding out about the true nature of the meeting.

Reading its publications, it is very clear that NGO Monitor has, for a number of years, had a dual objective. Its reports deal almost entirely with a critique of peace-related NGOs and especially those which focus on human rights, as though there were no other NGOs to examine. The second is to point the blame for the funding of these NGOs at the door of the European Union in what has become a very blatant anti-Europe policy.

In an unprecedented move, NGO Monitor requested detailed information from the EU on 105 projects which were funded under the auspices of either the Partnership for Peace (PFP) or the European Instrument for Development and Human Rights (EIDHR) programs as though they were carrying out a police investigation for fraud. And despite the fact that the EU provided copious material in response, over and beyond what it normally releases, NGO Monitor has not allowed the facts to get in the way of its preconceived conclusions.

NGO Monitor itself does not practice the same degree of transparency that it demands from others. It constantly refuses to disclose its own funding sources, over and beyond the minimal amounts which are registered with the official register of nonprofit organizations and which account for but a small percentage of its actual income.

And despite many requests for NGO Monitor to investigate, on an equal basis, the activities and funding of right-wing NGOs, many of which support illegal activities in the West Bank, it has consistently refused to do so. Many of these NGOs are North American-based and fund activities in settlements which are deemed illegal by both international and US law, while otherssupport hesder yeshivot whose leaders, just a week or so ago, supported the illegal call for soldiers to refuse orders aimed at future settlement evacuation. It would appear that what is sauce for the goose is certainly not sauce for the gander as far as NGO Monitor is concerned."

more

[LeftishBrit]

1. Very good article.

I entirely agree that:

'Instead of being proud that under intense conditions of conflict, the best of Jewish tradition and humanistic values enables it to set up organizations which are concerned with the human rights even of its enemies, is to be commended, not attacked. Organizations such as B'Tselem, Adalah, Bimkom and Ir Amim, to name but a few of those attacked in the NGO Monitor report, are a credit to Israel and its values of democracy'

In fact, I feel that the attitude of groups like NGO Monitor, and some of their supporters, to Israeli and international human rights organizations is, ironically, *remarkably* similar to that of some extreme anti-Zionists to Israel! They report selectively; they demonize their opponents; they interpret anything with which they disagree as due to the worst possible motives; they do not subject all NGOs to the same standards; they present themselves as objective while refusing to acknowledge right-wing xenophobic associations; and they sometimes have genuine criticisms which get drowned in the hysterical demonizations. I'm sometimes surprised that they don't see the irony.

[shira]

3. questions

1. Do you believe HR organizations are above legitimate criticism?
2. How does NGO-M demonize other HR ngo's? Can you define NGO-M demonization so that we can universally apply that in other cases?

-------

BTW, the narrow goals of NGO-M are quite clear:

We intend to publicize distortions of human rights issues in the Arab-Israeli conflict and provide information and context for the benefit of NGOs working in the Middle East. We hope this will lead to an informed public debate on the role of humanitarian NGOs.

NGO Monitor's objective is to end the practice used by certain self-declared 'humanitarian NGOs' of exploiting the label 'universal human rights values' to promote politically and ideologically motivated anti-Israel agendas.

Btselem also has narrowly focused goals - and one is not to report against Hamas or Fatah HR violations. NGO-M seems no more 'selective' in their reporting than Btselem, right?

[shira]

4. example of recent criticism of Amnesty International. Legitimate criticism or demonization?

The Irreversible Decline of Amnesty International
Nov 5, 2009
http://standpointmag.co.uk/node/2390

[aranthus]

2. He undercuts his argument by overstating.

His real point is that the conference sponsored by NGO Monitor has a biased agenda because NGO Monitor is itself biased (it criticizes only Left Wing NGO's, but not Right Wing NGO's, and only NGO's critical of Israeli human rights practices). So far, fair comment. But look what he starts with: "The Knesset on Tuesday will host a conference which will bring it into disgrace. Instead of upholding the traditions of democracy and free speech, it will be responsible for an attempt to trample on the principles of freedom of expression by those who hold divergent views to those of the government."

Excuse me? How does a conference, even one unfairly critical of Left Wing NGO's, trample on free speech? It doesn't. Does the conference forcibly exclude those who disagree? Doesn't look like it. I can understand why the Left would stay away given the agenda, but having an agenda isn't the same as trampling free expression. Criticizing those who disagree with you IS free expression. The good professor is engaging in hyperbole and a complete misrepresentation of the principles of free speech, and that undermines his point.