Stamping out the last sane voices
This posting has these items:
1) WP: A danger to Israeli democracy, it is not new for an American paper to raise questions about Israeli democracy. This editorial in the Washington Post is the first to identify NGOs as an essential element of democracy which is now in danger in Israel;
2) Peace Now: Who is Funding the Right-Wing NGOs?, as an NGO that would be affected by the transparency bill, Peace Now gives us a report, with pie-charts, on all those rightwing NGOs;
3) Haaretz: Ambassador Shapiro Tells Minister Shaked: U.S. Concerned by ‘NGO Transparency Bill’, Barak Ravid reports that the US has strongly rebutted Ayelet Shaked’s claim that the anti-NGO bill is just like the US’s Foreign Agents Registration Act;
4) The Forward: The Hypocrisy of Claiming That Foreign-Funded NGOs Hurt Israeli Democracy, get past the bollards of acronyms and JJ Goldberg gives us a useful run-down of how US aid to NGOs, originally a Reagan programme of promoting American-style democracy works;
David Grossman addresses the largest peace rally during Operation Protective Edge in Tel Aviv, organised by Peace Now on August 17, 2014. Photo by Gali Tibbon /AFP
By Washington Post Editorial Board
January 02, 2016
ISRAEL, SURROUNDED not only by threats to its existence but also by governments and movements that practice tyranny, is a stubbornly free society. While its democracy is imperfect and rowdy, the bedrock commitment has remained during years of intense conflict. That commitment is precisely why Israel’s parliament should reject proposed legislation that would stigmatize nongovernmental organizations that receive funding from overseas. The proposal reflects the kind of tactic that Russia and China have employed to squelch dissent, and it is not in keeping with Israel’s core values as a democratic state.
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.
Ms. Shaked has advertised the legislation as providing more transparency, but that is not the real agenda. In fact, the legislation is aimed at delegitimizing progressive groups in Israel that have long been advocates for human rights and opposed to Jewish settlements in the West Bank, such as Peace Now, B’Tselem, the New Israel Fund and others. The reality is that many of these progressive groups rely on such funding from foreign organizations, and the law would force them to carry an unpleasant label suggesting that they are somehow at odds with Israel’s interests. Millions of dollars are also being sent to Israel to support right-wing causes such as settlement activity, but it comes largely from individual donors, not governments, so it would not be covered by the law. Israel’s nongovernmental organizations are already required, under an earlier law, to file disclosure reports of their funding, so the only effect of the new requirement would be to force them to wear a public badge in a way that is odious.
President Vladimir Putin of Russia has made NGO groups register as “foreign agents,” as if they were enemies of the state. In China, the new restrictions on nongovernmental organizations will forbid support from abroad and give oversight to the security apparatus. In both cases, dissent is being purposefully silenced, and valuable services will be denied to people who need them. Israel should not allow itself to be lumped with these regimes.
Israel’s democracy has been a pillar of strength through years of siege. It is not always easy to tolerate or defend groups that criticize the state or those in power, but allowing them to function normally is an important test of democracy, and, ultimately, the mark of an open and free society.
Who is Funding the Right-Wing NGOs?
Peace Now report
December 14, 2015
A. Confidentiality and ostensible transparency
We examined the reports for 2006-2013 of nine NGOs identified with the Israeli right, and found that the sources of hundreds of millions of shekels that have influenced policy and public opinion in Israel in recent years, and continue to do so, are not transparent, and that the public has no way of knowing where this funding originates.
Contributions that are not fully transparent (that is, they are either confidential or ostensibly transparent) total about NIS 487.29 million and comprise 98.35% of all contributions.
Of the total contributions (NIS 495.44 million), the fully transparent contributions total about NIS 8.15 million (1.7%) and ostensibly transparent contributions total about NIS 22.4 million (4.5%).
Israeli contributions reported in the financial statements total about NIS 4.26 million, comprising 0.85% of overall contributions.
B. Public funding (‘participations’)
A significant share of the revenues of the NGOs we examined is from public funding provided by Israeli taxpayers. This funding, which is listed in the NGOs’ reports as “participations,” is usually channeled through government ministries and local governments.
The NGOs we examined received total funding of about NIS 590.51 million in the years 2006-2013, including NIS 495.44 million (83.9%) from contributions and NIS 95.07 million (16.1%) from public sources.
C. Lack of transparency in government funding
In their reports, the NGOs do not provide details on the public funding they receive or the purpose of this funding. The NGOs provide details in their reports on only 15.5% of the public funding they receive.
Public funding during the years 2006-2013 totaled about NIS 95.07 million; about NIS 14.71 million (15.5%) is transparent and about NIS 80.36 (84.5%) is confidential.
The first conclusion is that there is an enormous lack of transparency, of surprising scope, vis-à-vis the sources of funding of the nine NGOs we examined. Only about 3.87% of the funding is truly transparent – that is, the public can know the specific source of the funding from the NGOs’ reports, including the names of the persons or entities that contributed NIS 590.51 in total revenues (contributions and public funding) during 2006-2013.
The low level of transparency stems from several main reasons: The first reason is a large-scale lack of reporting by NGOs on their funding sources, and disparities of millions of shekels between the total revenues reported as contributions and the sums displayed in the detailed lists of contributors. In the case of the two richest NGOs – the Ir David Foundation (Elad) and the Yesha Council – there is minimal transparency. The Ir David Foundation’s file at the Registrar of NGOs does not include a single list of contributors for the years 2006-2013, while the Yesha Council’s file includes lists of contributors only for 2011-2012, and these lists were only submitted when requested by the Registrar of NGOs in 2014 as part of an in-depth audit.
The second reason pertains to public funding, which generally entails budgets or non-monetary assets transferred to the NGO from government ministries or local government authorities – that is, from the public coffers. The NGOs we examined, which receive millions of shekels in public funding, do not fully report the identity of the entities that fund them. Six of the nine NGOs we examined receive a substantial part of their funding from public sources. Israeli law permits the NGOs to withhold the names of the entities that provide this funding. This means that the Israeli public has no way of knowing who is transferring its tax money to a particular NGO.
The third reason stems from the fact that most of the reported contributions received by the NGOs we examined came from overseas (nearly all of them from the United States). Only the name of the foundation that transferred the money is cited in regard to most of this funding, rather than the name of the person or entity that actually contributed the sum. (In this study, we call this situation “ostensibly transparent.”) Israeli law allows an NGO to receive money from a foreign foundation without specifying who contributed it. (Thus, the information disclosed to the public includes only the name of the foundation and the sum channeled through it.) American law, under which these American foundations operate, also does not require disclosure of the names of their contributors whose money is channeled to NGOs in Israel.
Consequently, there is particularly low transparency regarding the sources of foreign funding of the NGOs we examined. In fact, transparency is almost non-existent. If Israeli legislators seek to increase the transparency of these funding sources, they will have to do this in a way that requires the NGOs to report the identity of the original contributor of the money and not suffice with citing the name of the American foundation that served as a conduit for transferring the funds.
The findings of the study point to a clear conclusion: There is a need to increase transparency regarding the sources of foreign funding of these (and other) NGOs. This conclusion gains further strength when considering the fact that money streamed to the NGOs from abroad comprises the lion’s share of their annual budgets.
In summary, the study shows how the NGOs we examined submit reports that do not allow the public to receive a true picture of the sources of their funding. The bottom line is that most of the funding these NGOs receive remains in the dark, is not open and transparent, or is only ostensibly transparent.
For the full report click here pdf file.
Israeli left-wing activists hold placards and their national flag during a Peace Now march at the Rabin Square in Tel Aviv, on Dec. 19, 2015. Photo by AFP/ Getty images
Ambassador Shapiro Tells Minister Shaked: U.S. Concerned by ‘NGO Transparency Bill’
Shapiro makes it clear to the justice minister that, in contrast to her assertions, the bill has no similarity whatsoever to any legislation in the United States.
By Barak Ravid, Haaretz
January 11, 2016
United States Ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro has expressed his government’s concerns over potential adverse effects of the “NGO transparency bill” that Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked is pushing through the Knesset in a meeting he held with her Sunday.
The bill would require Israeli NGOs that receive a majority of their funding from foreign governments to be labeled as such when in the Knesset. A senior American official remarked that Shapiro made it clear to Shaked that in contrast to her assertions, the bill has no similarity whatsoever to any legislation in the United States.
Shaked’s bill passed through the Ministerial Committee for Legislation a few weeks ago and is now being debated in the Knesset. The meeting between Shapiro and Shaked followed other meetings the ambassador has had in recent weeks with Foreign Ministry and Prime Minister’s Office officials, in which he informed them that the United States is dissatisfied with this bill. The ambassadors of Germany, the United Kingdom, France, the Netherlands and the European Union have conveyed similar messages reached Shaked and the PMO.
L, United States Ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro
On Monday, the U.S. embassy issued a highly irregular statement regarding the Shapiro-Shaked meeting.
“Among the topics discussed was the government’s draft NGO bill, which would require Israeli NGOs who receive a majority of their funding from foreign governments to be labeled as such,” stated the announcement. “Ambassador Shapiro sought more information about the draft legislation from the Minister, and noted the U.S. government’s concerns on the matter.”
The U.S. embassy further stated:
The Ambassador noted that Israel is a strong and vibrant democracy, which gives substantial voice to all points of view and promotes a thriving, transparent civil society. He reiterated the United States’ view that such a free and functioning civil society is an essential element of a healthy democracy, and that governments must protect free expression and peaceful dissent and create an atmosphere where all voices can be heard.
A senior U.S, official remarked that one of the goals of the meeting was to respond to claims that Shaked has made in recent weeks that her bill is no different from the American’s foreign agent law. Shapiro told Shaked there is absolutely no similarity between the two.
The U.S. embassy issued an additional statement in which it provided information about the differences between the American law and the justice minister’s bill. It noted that the U.S. law does not put any limitations or additional demands of transparency on NGOs that receive donations from abroad “other than those generally applicable” to all American citizens.
“In contrast, the draft Israeli law would target NGOs simply because they are funded principally by foreign government entities. That is not how the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) works,” the embassy remarked. “FARA requires individuals or organizations to register as foreign agents only if they engage in certain specified activities at the order, request, or under the direction or control, of a foreign principal – not simply by receiving contributions from such an entity. As a result, it does not create the chilling effect on NGO activities that we are concerned about in reviewing the draft Israeli NGO law.”
The embassy statement ended by saying “Ambassador Shapiro and Minister Shaked agreed to continue their dialogue on this and other issues of mutual concern.”
The Hypocrisy of Claiming That Foreign-Funded NGOs Hurt Israeli Democracy
By JJ Goldberg, Jewish Forward
January 08, 2016
If you haven’t heard of SSuDEMOP, now is a good time to get acquainted. The odd-looking initials stand for South Sudan Democratic Engagement Monitoring and Observation Programme.
South Sudan, which won independence from Islamist-ruled Sudan in 2011, is the world’s newest nation and its most dysfunctional. It ranks No. 1 on ForeignPolicy.com’s Failed States Index. SSuDEMOP is part of a small army of nongovernmental organizations fighting an uphill battle there to promote democracy and human rights. The parliament has been trying for years to muzzle the do-gooders, but it hasn’t yet managed to agree on a formula.
So why should Americans be watching this particular pro-democracy group in this particular trouble spot? Because last October it became the newest major grantee of the International Republican Institute. The institute, headquartered in Washington and linked to the Republican Party, is one of several organizations that get taxpayer dollars from Congress to help NGOs working for social change in other countries.
You know, that thing that drives right-wing Israeli politicians crazy.
America is one of about a dozen Western democracies that spend significant taxpayer funds annually to support NGOs promoting democracy and human rights in nations they consider democracy-challenged. All told, they work in about 100 countries. Sometimes they have local government blessing, whether enthusiastic or grudging. Sometimes they work by stealth.
The various Western democracy programs work closely together, sharing ideas, funding each other’s work and partnering on major projects. In one respect, however, the American effort stands apart from the others. Most of our allies are active in Israel, mainly to support NGOs that work in the gap between Israel’s domestic democracy and its military rule in the territories. America doesn’t go there.
Our allies’ work has aroused enormous resentment in Israel in recent years, especially on the right. Several rounds of legislation to curb the funding have come before the Knesset since Benjamin Netanyahu’s government came to power in 2009. One such law was passed in 2011. An amendment to strengthen it, promoted by Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked, is before the Knesset right now.
Activists claim that the foreign government funders are trying “to promote their own views and interests, regardless and often in opposition to the policies of the democratically elected representatives of the Israeli public,” in the words of a leading opponent, NGO Monitor, which is itself an NGO.
How does America promote its views of democracy abroad? It’s complicated. The effort works through a small network of organizations created by Congress in 1983, at President Reagan’s initiative. The organizations are nominally independent and not-for-profit, but partisan operatives dominate their boards and staff. Most of their funding comes from Congress through USAID, the federal government’s foreign-aid agency.
IRI has a board made up of GOP heavyweights, chaired by Sen. John McCain, the Arizona Republican. Its sister organization, the National Democratic Institute, has Democratic bigwigs on its board and is chaired by the Clinton-era secretary of state Madeleine Albright. The other two are the American Center for International Labor Solidarity and the Center for International Private Enterprise.
The four organizations have different agendas, though they sometimes overlap, since they’re all promoting American-style democracy. But their methods are similar: They mix grants to local NGOs in target countries with programs that they themselves operate on the ground.
If that’s not complicated enough, there’s a fifth organization that oversees the other four, the National Endowment for Democracy. It gets USAID funds and allocates them to the four institutes. The endowment also makes grants of its own to NGOs in close to 40 countries.
Altogether the federal budget for democracy and human rights in 2015 was $2.4 billion, out of a total nonmilitary foreign aid budget of $17.5 billion.
Local responses to the democracy institutes’ work around the world vary widely. The private enterprise center helps businesses grow and is generally well received in the 40 countries where it operates. The labor solidarity center, not surprisingly, faces hostility almost everywhere it’s active. Considering that its work promoting unions abroad is funded by a Congress that barely tolerates unions at home, the fact that it operates at all is an achievement.
On the other hand, reception of the two party-linked institutes and the democracy endowment itself varies wildly from country to country. The ups and downs are a useful barometer of various countries’ openness to democracy and human rights. In Malawi, the Gender Coordination Network funded by the National Democratic Institute to integrate women in local government has strong local support. In South Sudan, any democratic activists, even moderates like the Republican institute-funded SSuDEMOP, take their lives in their hands daily.
Most governments aren’t content to sit back and take it. USAID reports that more than 90 countries have “sought to pass” laws in recent years, “hampering the ability of civil society organizations [ie NGOs] to register, operate freely, or receive foreign funding.”
Fifty countries actually have such laws on the books, according to The International Center for Not-for-Profit Law, an independent Washington watchdog. The restrictions range from arbitrary police raids and prison sentences, to limits on the types of permitted activity (usually allowing humanitarian aid but not advocacy), to bans on foreign funding and “cumbersome and time-consuming” reporting requirements.
The Israeli legislation pending before the Knesset falls between the last two categories. It doesn’t ban foreign government funding outright, but it imposes a cumbersome reporting process on the recipient NGOs.
[Specifically, the bill requires that NGOs receiving more than 50% of their funding from foreign governments or entities (like the United Nations or the European Union) must post that fact prominently on their websites, include it in every public communication, and identify themselves by having their representatives wear a special tag on their clothing every time they’re in the Knesset building, whether for lobbying or testimony.
[Supporters make two arguments in its favor: First, that it’s not meant to inhibit foreign funding, which is perfectly legitimate, but merely to enforce “transparency” so the public knows who’s doing what. The trouble with that argument is that transparency is already required. All of the affected organizations have the information readily available on their websites, as required under the initial 2011 legislation. What this bill does is require them to shout to the world that they are somehow foreign agents, as subtly distinguished from true Israelis.]
The second argument, contradicting the first, is that such foreign funding is not legitimate because it constitutes foreign interference in Israeli democracy. The NGO Monitor group, which has been working since 2001 to build opposition to foreign funding, says that when foreign governments work at “educating the Israeli public” and “changing public opinion,” they’re operating “in violation of the norms on non-interference in other democracies.”
It’s not clear what norms they’re talking about. That sort of education and opinion-changing has been at the heart of U.S. democracy assistance since the Reagan administration. Here’s how USAID describes it: “A democratic political culture requires a vibrant civil-society sector and an independent media to ensure that citizens are well informed about the actions and performance of government institutions and officials, and that citizens have the means to freely influence public policies.”
And, the agency says, “Because civic action and engagement with government can result in political reform, USAID emphasizes support for civil-society organizations whose advocacy efforts give voice to citizens and increase their influence on the political process.”
[What the Israeli supporters of the NGO bill really mean is that they don’t like it when somebody criticizes the government’s decisions or tries to change its behavior. They seem to think that of the two parts of democracy — empowering the majority and protecting minorities — the first one always trumps the second. And they don’t like to hear otherwise.]
So who exactly is violating democratic norms here?