Some NGOs’ detrimental effect on Israel’s image in the world has recently
sparked a flurry of legislative action, not all of which is in line with
democratic values.
At the beginning of the year, Foreign Minister Avigdor
Lieberman proposed creating a Knesset “inquiry committee” that would single out
and scrutinize the foreign funding of NGOs critical of Israel, particularly
those that focus on supposed Israeli “war crimes.” Thankfully, that initiative,
which would have blurred the lines between the executive, judicial and
legislative arms of government, was voted down in the Knesset.
Now two
additional legislative initiatives have been presented to the Ministerial
Legislation Committee, for consideration next month, that are designed to
curtail the work of NGOs deemed hostile to Israel.
MK Ofir Akunis (Likud)
has proposed to limit donations that a “political” NGO could receive from
foreign entities to NIS 20,000 a year. (A political NGO is defined as one that
attempts to “influence the internal political discourse and the character and
policies of the State of Israel.”) Meanwhile, MK Faina Kirschenbaum (Israel
Beiteinu) would revoke tax-free status on donations that political NGOs can
receive from foreign entities, resulting in a 45 percent tax on donations. To
protect pro-Israeli NGOs, Kirschenbaum suggests a litmus test: Non-profits that
receive some of their funding from the Israeli government would not be hurt;
those that don’t, would.
We share the concern of lawmakers who have seen
certain NGOs exploit their status as human rights’ watchdogs to advance a
decidedly anti-Israel agenda. During Operation Cast Lead, for instance, some
NGOs provided inaccurate figures on the ratio of combatant to noncombatant
deaths, and/or claimed that the IDF purposely targeted Palestinian civilians in
Gaza, an allegation later retracted by Richard Goldstone, author of the UN Human
Rights Council on Operation Cast Lead that bears his name. Some NGOs use
disparaging terms to describe Israel, referring to it, for instance, as an
“apartheid state,” though no systematic comparison with the institutionalized
racism and colonialism implemented in South Africa is, or could be, provided.
And this is just a sampling.
Nevertheless, it would be highly unwise and
anti-democratic to pass legislation empowering the government to single out
purportedly biased NGOs for censure. Using ideological criteria to determine
which NGOs are eligible for donations or tax breaks and which are not curtails
freedom of speech and is a slippery slope that could lead to an ideological
witch hunt.
THE BEST remedy is increased transparency. As US Supreme
Court Justice Louis Brandeis famously put it in 1913, “Sunlight is said to be
the best disinfectant.”
Legislation sponsored by coalition chairman Ze’ev
Elkin (Likud) and framed after the US’s Foreign Agents Registration Act was
already approved back in February, making the Akunis and Kirschenbaum bills
superfluous.
Elkin’s legislation requires all NGOs, regardless of their
political leaning, to issue quarterly reports on their foreign government
funding. Those that refrain from disclosure will be subject to a fine of nearly
NIS 30,000. If properly implemented, Elkin’s law will enable Israelis to
formulate more educated and informed opinions regarding the activities of these
NGOs. Elkin’s law might even inspire European countries to adopt similar
legislation.
Prof. Gerald Steinberg, head of NGO Monitor, an Israelbased
research group instrumental in promoting the Elkin law, has noted that in many
European countries taxpayers are regularly denied detailed information on the
way their hard-earned euros are put to use. The exact amount of public funds
transferred to ideologically partial NGOs operating in Israel (and elsewhere) is
often obscured by lumping them together under the vague and highly general
category of “funding for international human rights activities.” Steinberg
estimates that upwards of 100 million euros in public funds are transferred
annually to NGOs operating in Israel.
Our lawmakers should be concerned
by the fact that too many NGOs here are intent on presenting a hypercritical,
distorted picture of Israel to the world, and receive large sums of money to
help them do so. However, the answer to this challenge is not to curtail NGOs’
freedom of expression. Doing so plays into the hands of Israel’s many detractors
in that it would constituted self-inflicted damage to one of our biggest assets
– Israeli democracy. Israel’s vibrant democracy does not merely survive
criticism, it thrives and is improved by it, especially when much of this
“criticism” can be exposed for what it really is: disingenuous and ideologically
motivated propaganda.