Probe of leftist NGOs sunk after PM lifts party discipline on vote

[LeftishBrit]

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/probe-of-leftist-ngos-sunk-after-pm-lifts-party-discipline-on-vote-1.344869

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has freed his Likud Party colleagues to vote their consciences on two proposals to set up Knesset investigative committees examining the activities and funding sources of certain left-wing Israeli organizations. The withdrawal of Likud support for the bills has all but ended their chances of being passed.

The idea for one of the probes had been promoted by Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, who heads the Yisrael Beiteinu Party. That bill proposed examining the role of non-governmental organizations in delegitimizing the Israel Defense Forces and would probe their funding sources.

The other bill had been proposed by Likud MK Danny Danon and would have looked into the role of foreign governments in funding these groups and buying land in Israel.

....
Yisrael Beiteinu then immediately asked for the vote to be postponed, when Lieberman saw that he would have difficulty mustering a majority without solid Likud support.

It now appears the vote on the matter will be shelved.


(One bit of good news!)

[Ken Burch]

1. It is good news. But I have a feeling Beitenyu won't let it go at that.

They're way too invested in the "NGO's are an anti-Israel cabal" myth to give up that easily.

Still, any victory against McCarthyism is a good thing.

[azurnoir]

2. That is good news albeit I agree with Ken that Lieberman's party

will not let it go quietly

[pelsar]

3. i prefer transparency.....

its doesnt matter which party or what the reasons, seems to me any non profit should have to list and publicize it sources....why is that a bad thing?

and i don't care what the various motivations are for those who propose it.....

why would people prefer "secret money", at least those who believe in democracy? I would like to know whos funding the settlements, and whos funding the various human rights groups.....and everything in between.

[henank]

4. Agreed

And anyway, in what way is the Israeli version different from the American http://www.fara.gov/"> Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA)?

[LeftishBrit]

5. If this were expected to apply equally to ALL organizations, I might agree

But it was clearly intended specifically to harrass the lefist and human-rights organizations. They weren't going to look into who was funding the settlements.


'and i don't care what the various motivations are for those who propose it.....'

But that does matter, because it affects how it's implemented. Why would one care about the motivations about McCarthy and others in America in the 1950s who wanted to investigate 'un-American' and 'subversive' activities? Wouldn't it be a good thing to investigate the activities of neo-Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan and those who promoted lynchings? Wouldn't it be a good thing to discover the plans of a 1950s Tim McVeigh before he blew up a government building? But that was not the purpose - and the McCarthyite activities were carried out in accordance with their purpose.

I am glad that this has been defeated - and let's note that it was not just left-wingers who opposed it.

[pelsar]

6. transparency on whos funding....is not harassment

this is simply about who is funding what activities in israel.......of course the right opposes it, they also don't want their sources exposed.

explain to me again, why its good for non profits to be able to hide their funding from me? Non profits whos very intention is to affect the foreign policy and security polices of the country i live in? (note this goes for right and left))

and how does keeping it a secret fit in to a democracy?

democracy is above all about tolerance, and the real test comes, when the govt does something you may not like personally and it may hurt your own personal agenda, but in the interest of democracy, it must be supported.

this is such a case.

[LeftishBrit]

7. 'examining the role of non-governmental organizations in delegitimizing the Israel Defense Forces'

Sounds like a bit more than funding transparency to me!

Also: investigating the role of funding *organizations* is one thing; but this sort of bill could lead to hounding of *individuals* who donate to causes that someone doesn't like.

Here's a post that I made some time ago concerning a somewhat related issue, which shows that I have some of the same concerns even when it comes to people who support causes that I strongly dislike:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=425516&mesg_id=425545

And let's note: the argument that democracy requires transparency and the avoidance of secretiveness was one that was frequently used in 19th-century England to oppose the concept of the secret ballot.

[pelsar]

11. i stop at the individual...

meaning the transparency of who is donating as far as i am concerned cannot go down to the individual level, just the organizations that are contributing. Of course it can be taken too far, as per your example of opposing the secret ballet.

i've never liked the massive amount of money that is poured in to the settlements from outside, but its was never an issue. Pass this law and it can become one, that is one reason why it didn't pass. There are two sides to that bill, where both right and left use outside sources to finance their campaigns.

at any rate....i admit to being a fanatical on the need for tolerance, its more important to me than any issue as i believe its really the basic building block for a long lasting society that can adjust and change as it citizens values change.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

8. Should you be forced to publicise all your sources of income?

The presumption in a democracy is that no-one should have to do anything unless it infringes on someone else's rights, and that people should be able to keep things secret unless knowledge of those things is necessary for the maintainance of law and order or similar.

If you want to distrust or campaign against a not-for-profit organisation because it won't reveal its sources of funding, fine. If enough people agree with you then keeping that information secret will undercut their work enough that they will choose to reveal it; if not it won't.

But the question in a democracy is not "why is it good for these people to be able to do this?" but "why is it necessary to force these people not to do this?"

[LeftishBrit]

9. I agree here

If a government is actually *funding* an organization, then it has every right to demand disclosure of all other funding sources, and of all the organization's activities, and to withdraw funding if the transparency is not provided.

If a charity/ other private organization is not government-funded, then potential donors and investors have a right to demand transparency from the charity, and to refuse to donate, and to advise others not to donate if they don't find the charity sufficently transparent. At least in the UK, there are organizations that advise donors as to which charities provide best 'value for money'; they are unlikely to recommend donating to a charity that isn't seen as transparent.`

However, for a government to be able to investigate and punsh organizations critical of itself seems more like an infringement of democracy than a promotion of democracy. And as said above the proposal that there should be investigation of 'the role of (such organizations) in *delegitimizing the IDF* sounds far more like an investigation of 'subversive activities' than mere requirement for transparency.

My own 'disclosure' here: I know several people, including one relative, who lived in America in the 50s and left because of the atmosphere created by McCarthyism; this probably makes me particularly anxious about government attempts to investigate, 'expose', control and punish groups and individuals seen as over-critical of the government.

At any rate, it is to Israel's credit that they *did* stop short of imposing this measure.

[pelsar]

10. i'm not so innocent....

democracies have to use at times illiberal methods to preserve the democracy.......hence i don't agree with such broad generalizations as the publics right to know everything....

and i agree with your question, which basically translates to, that all is allowed unless there is a specific reason to forbid it.
______________

its not a matter of distrust so much as policy. A not for profit is a public organization, i believe all public organizations should have to publicize their doings, etc. as well as their fundings since they are affecting state policy, either for or against the state

Will it "undercut their work'? if we know who is funding them? defending them? possibly but that is the price to pay for such organizations.
_______________

[Ken Burch]

20. The NGO's aren't a THREAT to Israeli democracy, or to Israel

Nothing they have spoken critically about is unchallengably essential to Israel's survival.

[pelsar]

22. the concept of secret funding is the threat....

as a democracy, we the citizens have a right to know who is funding what public group...and i can't believe i even have to write such a basic tenant of democracy....


the more you write, the stronger my impression is that you are far less enthused about what democracy is all about and far more prefer a model of government that is less concerned with evenly defending and protecting those that you disagree with politically....am i getting warm?

[Ken Burch]

23. You're totally cold.

You keep acting as if there's some reason to assume these groups are funded by people with diabolical intent.

Why are you so sure of that?

I'm pro-democracy-and that means being anti-McCarthyism. This proposal is about intimidating people out of supporting NGO's that the Israeli government doesn't like.

There simply isn't anything suspicious out there. The NGO's in Israel are innocent of wrongdoing. And it really doesn't MATTER who funds them. They aren't political parties OR terrorist groups.

[pelsar]

26. nothing diabolical..just want honesty

And it really doesn't MATTER who funds them.

....what i'm amazed at, and always are, is your massive intolerance for others. You seem to believe that someone like myself who believes all NGOs and other non private groups should have to expose their funding among other things, has to have some "diabolical intent" when there is nothing of the sort.

so, explain to me again, why certain NGO's should have secret funding and others should not (I'm assuming you believe the settlers funding should be exposed).

let me guess, because your right and the other is wrong, hence you have two sets of rules....

[Ken Burch]

28. Don't put words in my mouth

They're never going to pass a settler financial disclosure act anyway.

The assumptions about "European government" funding are also unjust. If those European governments are funding such groups, it is only out of a sincere concern for human rights. Why is THAT so difficult to accept?

No European government of today is operating out of Nazi intent.

[pelsar]

30. i'm just clarifying..

you definitely dont like democracy....

you definitely dont like the concept of the peoples right to know...you've made that VERY CLEAR.

__________

i understand what your saying, its not hard to understand: I'll explain, your saying that because your values are the correct ones, any attempt to disrupt your political goals is simply unjust.

what you have a hard time seeing, is that your very sentences and belief is exactly word for word, what i hear from people with different political beliefs and they too dont believe in the full set of democratic values.
__________________


Its the intolerant types that are the real threat to democracy-no matter how lofty your goals and beliefs are...that you might want to consider

[Ken Burch]

32. I DO like democracy

Democracy INCLUDES the right to be free from repression and vicious attacks.

Democracy includes the right to be protected from McCarthyism.

I don't have to be for the right of right-wing Likudniks to subject NGO funders to McCarthyite attacks to prove that I'm pro-democracy.

Sometimes, what you cynically call "transparency" is actually a DANGER to democracy.

It wouldn't be "pro-democracy" to give a dictatorial government the names of those providing aid and comfort to an antifascist resistance. It wasn't "pro-democracy" for the House Un-American Activities Committee, in the 1950's, to demand that people tell the committee the names of all their friends who were members of the Communist Party. In Central America in the 1980's, it wouldn't have been "pro-democracy" to tell the Salvadoran regime who was sheltering people the death squads wanted to kill.

It's absurd to say that I'm being "intolerant" by wanting to protect people whose only crimes are supporting groups that defend the oppressed. It's not a crime to donate to NGO's that report to the world what's being done to Palestinians.

Your position is basically saying that I have to defend the right to "witchhunt" in the name of defending "transparency and democracy". It simply doesn't matter who funds the NGO's dealing with the I/P situation, since those groups aren't doing anything that equates to treason against Israel.

I defend free speech and the protection of dissidents. This legislation is about silencing free speech. It's about intimidating people who support groups whose ONLY crime is pointing out how badly Palestinians are being mistreated. It's McCarthyism and democratic societies never NEED McCarthyism.

[pelsar]

34. McCarthyism?/death squads?.....quite a jump

I doubt Norway or Sweden are really afraid of israeli MacCarthyism,,,,is that what you claiming?


your actually equating public transparency of funding to people sheltering people from death squads?

will the israeli govt send out hit squads to knock off NGO funders in sweden?
_____________


yes ken, you do believe in the "ends justify the means" and clearly believe israel should NOT be a democracy, No one who believes in the concept of transparency for public organizations, a basic democratic concept can justify the concept that certain public groups get an exception

[Ken Burch]

37. It's bullshit to say I don't believe Israel should be a democracy

Why does opposing a McCarthyite bill equate to that? Are you really arguing that Israel will cease to be a democracy UNLESS everyone finds out who funds the NGO's? How do you get there by ANY logic?

None of the NGO's are trying to stop Israel being a democracy. By exposing human rights problems, they are actually trying to make the state MORE democratic. They are living up to the ideals of the Jewish tradition-ideals that including supporting justice and human rights for all.

Israeli democracy is NOT at risk from the NGO's. To believe that it is, you'd have to believe that the Israeli government MUST be free to do whatever it wants to Palestinians, with nobody at all being around to challenge the IDF/Likudnik narrative.

And in fact, the only REAL threat to Israeli democracy comes from those who believe that nothing the Israeli government does in the name of "security" or "self-defense" should EVER be subject to questioning or debate. As an American, I don't accept it when THIS country's leaders try to silence debate on either of those issues, so why should I accept when any other country's leaders do so?

[pelsar]

42. its called hyperbole.....death squads, McCarthytie bill?

As you wrote the ACLU is transparent....and i can't recall any death squad hits on them?
-------

yes, putting certain groups above "democracy" is a direct threat to democratic values.....we have lots of groups here who believe in exactly that, just like you do.

having transparency with NGO's will not make them extinct as per your argument, it just means citizens like myself get to know about them....

btw your argument is getting weirder and weirder:
And in fact, the only REAL threat to Israeli democracy comes from those who believe that nothing the Israeli government does in the name of "security" or "self-defense" should EVER be subject to questioning or debate

i think your confused, having additional information actually AIDs to debate, i believe its your the one who is arguing for less information, more secrecy.....ironic isn't it.

[Shaktimaan]

43. I don't understand...

why the issue of transparency regarding NGOs is such a big deal.

In recent years, European governments have provided an estimated 100 million euros in taxpayer funds annually to a very narrow group of Israeli, Palestinian and European political advocacy organizations. When these groups sponsor quasi-academic conferences, newspaper advertising campaigns and public rallies heralding sweeping allegations of Israeli wrongdoing, the public has the right to know that the money was provided by a foreign government.

This transparency is an elementary requirement for the informed debate that is essential to the democratic process. While all external funding for Israeli civil society, across the political spectrum, should be public knowledge, large foreign government transfers are very different in principle from private donations.

All governments have interests and use power to pursue those goals. When officials from Sweden, Switzerland, Denmark, Norway, and another dozen nations use their “soft power” to fund dozens of Israeli groups, such as Breaking the Silence, Yesh Din, and the Public Committee Against Torture in Israeli, whose officials travel the world declaring that Israel is a nation of war criminals, these groups are also promoting the interests of their sponsors. ‏

(In contrast, the U.S. government generally does not fund Israeli political advocacy NGOs, and the few exceptions, such as the ill-advised attempt to use the “Geneva Initiative” organization, ended quickly.‏)

In election after election, the governments chosen by Israeli voters have differed with European positions. However, by massively funding opposition NGOs, many of which claim to promote human rights ‏(although they do this selectively‏), Europe tries to interfere with and manipulate the legitimate outcome of Israeli elections.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/transparency-for-ngos-is-not-anti-democratic-1.345164

[Ken Burch]

46. The NGO's aren't trying to influence the outcome of Israeli elections

And, since the electoral trend in Israel has been relentlessly right-wing in recent years, even if they had been they haven't had any meaningful effect.

It's not as if the results last time would've been even FURTHER to the right without the NGO's. The vote for the peace parties was as low as it could possibly have gone anyway.

[pelsar]

50. of course they are....but thats to be expected

israel is a very political place. The NGO's play a back role for all political groups, providing info for the party of their choice either directly or indirectly.

you seem to confuse results with principles. It doesn't matter who wins or who loses, its a matter of laws and rules. i prefer to live in a state where the rules are followed even if your losing......because if if your winning this time, next time you might lose.

[Ken Burch]

52. When have the NGO's ever NOT followed the rules?

What have they done that was ever THAT insidious?

Besides...Sweden or Norway have no particular interests at stake in the I/P situation. THEY aren't trying to destroy Israel, and you know it.

(I'm fine with the concept of transparency...what I object to is the assumption that there's some sort of nefarious plot that needs to be exposed. There isn't. There's just sincere concern for human rights. That's all there is. Is there a reason you can't accept that?)

Neither Norway nor Sweden, nor any OTHER European country, is a mortal enemy of Israel.

[Shaktimaan]

58. It's not about a nefarious plot.

In America, if you donate to a particular political group then that information is out for anyone to see. It hasn't done anything to discourage donating. It HAS done a lot for creating accountability.

The whole point of having these organizations is that they provide accountability and thus influence towards Israel's actions and policies. But transparency works both ways. Knowing where an organization gets its funding is critical to determining its credibility. I'll give you an example... a lot of people, myself included, think that Jimmy Carter takes unfair and dishonest stances regarding the I/P conflict. He's spoken and written at length about his opinions on the matter. It also happens that Carter receives a large amount of his funding from Arab sources. Is this a co-incidence? Perhaps. I certainly don't think so. But I do believe that knowing it is useful in determining how much of his rhetoric I'm going to believe without doing further research.

There's just sincere concern for human rights. That's all there is. Is there a reason you can't accept that?

Well, OK. How do you really know that?

Your stance is that the NGOs are doing good work and have no ulterior motives. On its face that seems to be a position that's impossible to stand behind as you have no evidence one way or the other. It's an assumption. One we'd all like to have, to be honest. I'd have liked to think the same about Jimmy Carter. But his defense of authoritarian Arab regimes, along with his criticism of Israel left me thinking otherwise; and knowledge of where his funding streams come from just provides further evidence that I should take his opinions with a grain of salt. No one sent out death squads to silence him. Just like no one will be sending out brownshirts to take down HRW.

Your McCarthyism parallel isn't accurate because we aren't talking about individual people's opinions here, we are talking about organizations. Organizations with influence. In such a case we should always err towards transparency. Aside from offering hysterical scenarios about dictators quashing dissent (which obviously doesn't apply in a free democracy) you have yet to offer a single reason why such transparency would be a negative thing. Why in the world wouldn't you want to know who is funding these NGOs? (You say it doesn't matter who funds them. If that is TRULY the case then it speaks against your argument for keeping it a secret, doesn't it?)

[pelsar]

47. because we the citizens have a right to know.

its that simple....i dont believe public organizations should have secrets from the citizens.

its limits debate, limits information and it very anti democratic.
___

its clear you feel that since they are doing good in your view, they dont have to play by democratic rules, well thats exactly how the settlers feel, how hamas feels and everybody inbetween about their own organizations.

i dont believe a democracy can survive when certain public groups get exceptions and dont have to play by the rules

[Ken Burch]

49. The NGO's haven't bent OR broken the existing rules

None of the ones in the I/P situation have done anything illegitimate. None of them are trying to overthrow the Israeli state. They just defend human rights-something that, by definition, is a politically neutral act.

Why is it so important to be able to denounce and demonize those who fund those groups? No one is funding them with evil intent. They aren't bankrolled by Nazis or any other sort of antisemites. And they do no harm.

Nobody is stopping anyone in Israel from speaking out against what the NGO's do. They are as open to criticism as anything else there. Why isn't that suffecient?

[pelsar]

53. no they haven't broken any rules..

if they did, they would lose their status and start paying taxes....

you confuse the goal with the means.

i happen to like btselem, for example and have contributed to them, but that doesn't mean i should not be able to learn about their funding or more about them...

------------
They are as open to criticism as anything else there. Why isn't that suffecient?
good point, the reason is quite simple, the more i know about them, the more information i have the better i am able to defend or criticize them.

____

Ken i have to go for now, honestly, this has been the most interesting discussion i have had here in a very long time. I appreciate you passion, i understand it, i can sympathize with it.......but democracies, cannot afford such risks. And israel cannot afford to lose its status as a democracy, it already walks a very thin line.

[Ken Burch]

55. Don't ever accuse me of being anti-democratic again.

I regard that as a personal slander and expect, at some point, an apology.

NOTHING the NGO's do puts Israeli democracy at risk.

[Ken Burch]

56. When you come back, you'll have to explain what you mean by "such risks".

You still haven't explained how anything any of the NGO's has done threatens Israeli democracy. The sense I'm getting is that what really drives that claim, at least from SOME people, is the notion that, if it weren't for the NGO's, the peace parties would have been completely wiped out and Likud and Beitenyu would have an outright majority all by themselves.

Arguing that it was illegitimate that the Israeli Right didn't do better than it did in recent elections is ALSO part of the "end justifies the means" argument(I don't, for the record, believe that the end-and btw, what "end" do you believe I seek in this situation?-justifies ANY means, so please don't imply that I do).

If it were to turn out that the NGO's were funded by European governments, would this, in your view, automatically discredit their work? If so, why? Even the European countries that are sympathetic to Palestinians don't really want the State of Israel to be abolished, you know. And they don't harbor massive ill will towards those that Israel claims to represent.

[pelsar]

60. lets try again (the DU site was inaccessible for a day)

there are a couple major points that will be difficult for you to understand, but i shall try:

you basic point, as far as i understand is that the NGOs are morally correct, do only moral work, bring light upon a dark area and help save lives...and there is nothing wrong with that, hence nothing to investigate.

lets start with their moral standing of saving lives...unfortunately in israel and in the middle east, saving lives doesnt stand up to either the superior moral values of the settlers, or hamas. You see, the settlers are busy saving not just jewish souls, but the land for those same mortals. Hamas on the other hand, is about saving the land for the soul of the whole Palestinian people as well as muslms worldwide, and they really don't care for their physical well being at this point. So hama's moral standing is beyond that of the settlers and the settlers superior moral standing sure beats the HRG's....now i could go on, but the concept is that many many groups are busy saving souls/lives, they all claim moral superiority.

groups claiming moral superiority is simple standard over here...no matter how much you shout the NGO's really are morally superior, there will be someone with just as much passion as you shouting that their group is really the morally superior and should get special treatment.

When i say you don't have tolerance, this is what i mean, to accept that somebody else has just as much passion and belief as you do, even if you dont agree on anything, and that for a society to work, you both have to play by the same rules....those rules in israel are the rules of a democracy.

which brings me to my second point.
as a citizen of a democracy i demand transparency of public organizations. In fact there is no reason for me to be denied such a very basic aspect of a democracy. When i say you really don't believe in democracy, i mean it. The test for anyones belief is not that they claim "they believe," its when the believe in something even though that belief will hurt their own personal agenda, or create additional hardships for them. Classic example is letting the Nazis march in skoki, Illinois. The concept of free speech demanded that they be allowed to march, despite the grossness of it.

This to me was a test for those who really do believe in democracy or not. Transparency is a pretty basic concept of any democracy. In fact its a nobrainer as far as i am concerned. If you dont believe that public organizations should be transparent, that they should have secret funding, then you simply don't believe in a very basic right for the citizens of a democracy.

Your claim, that they dont need to because they are morally superior and have done "nothing wrong" is simply showing not just your intolerance to us citizens but your contempt for our views as if we don't even have the right to question motives, actions and funding of a public organization.

WOW!

so how does that endanger a democracy?...secret funding of a public group (spare me their moral innocence, thats not the point), be it NGO, Settler Inc, Northern Muslim Alliance, etc is against the very concept of what a democracy is all about. If secret funding is good for the NGO's then it sure is good for the every other public group...thats how democracies work.

The publics right to know is a basic building block of a democracy, because you believe it may hurt the NGO's that your believe in, you would rather forgo that particular aspect of democracy...thats not someone who believes in democracy.

___

NGO's being funded by European governments doesn't discredit their work, that much is already public knowledge

[Shaktimaan]

57. I don't think you meant to send this to me.

I happen to agree with you. My question was not understanding the potential harm transparency could do. Why is it such an issue to ask NGOs to reveal their funding sources? Directed to Ken.

[Ken Burch]

12. There were never any QUESTIONABLE sources for NGO funding

And none of those groups did anything for which they should have to be investigated.

There isn't any conspiracy here. All the NGO's are guilty of is bringing the truth to light.

[pelsar]

14. its not a matter of questionable sources...its about...

THE PEOPLES RIGHT TO KNOW.....or all of a sudden your against that?

i guess your against transparency in govt as well?

[azurnoir]

15. If the NGO is getting funding from a public source ie taxpayers then yes

of course it is the public who's tax dollars are being spent right to know however if it is privately funded then no it is not, however what this is about is well put here

Does Arab Money Fund Left-Wing Israeli NGOs?

In the context of Israeli politics, it is the most incendiary charge made thus far against human rights groups and other left-wing nongovernmental organizations: that some of the money that funds their work comes from Arabs — or even from terrorists.

As the Knesset steams ahead with plans to probe the country’s human rights groups, critics of the NGOs are now seeking to advance this charge with a study that purports to supply supporting data.

Im Tirtzu, a right-wing group that says domestic human rights groups are undermining Israel’s legitimacy, released a report January 11 claiming to prove that money from Arab countries, organizations and funds is channeled to Israel through Palestinian charities “in order to influence internal Israeli state policies.”

The study seemed timed to add heft to the allegation of Arab funding that Yisrael Beiteinu, a right-wing party in the government coalition, first made against the NGO’s to persuade the Knesset to investigate them. David Rotem, a Yisrael Beiteinu lawmaker, told the Forward that his party is convinced that funding for the human rights groups comes from Saudi Arabia, and that he suspects it has terrorist origins. “If is being backed by terrorists or Al Qaeda, we ought to know,” he said.

http://www.forward.com/articles/134820/

[pelsar]

24. we might actually agree....

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/transparency-for-ngos-is-not-anti-democratic-1.345164

perhaps you might want to explain to your colleagues here (you probably have more credit than i do....), why transparency of public organizations is "kinda" important in democracies.

[azurnoir]

36. I think your confused it it would be important to

'democracy' or in this particular case Israeli democracy if the organizations were receiving funds from the Israeli government and it is important for the government of any country to be transparent as to which NGO's they may be funding, but the responsibility for transparency is the governments not the organizations or in this case Non-Governmental-Organization's

[pelsar]

39. its the govt that makes the laws to demand transparency

its up to the govt to create the laws that demand transparency....if a public organization (non taxable) as the NGO's are get tax relief, that puts them in the public arena...they are not paying taxes like i have to.

i believe i should know not just what they're doing with their funds, but where its coming from and whos spending it. Its pretty basic. The only reason i can fathom of someone believing that certain public groups should not have to be transparent is that their agenda is such that, its more important than one of the cornerstones of democracy.

As ken has been explaining to me: certain political groups with specific goals are so important that basic democratic values don't apply to them. (as hamas/settlers/jews for jesus/haridi/etc have all explained several times)-----

[Ken Burch]

44. Bullshit. You are personally slandering me.

You don't have to support this bill to be pro-democracy. This isn't about "transparency". It's about trying to dry up funding for the NGO's.

I haven't personally attacked you in this thread. Please stop falsely accusing me of being anti-democratic. You're speaking untruthfully about me.

[azurnoir]

51. as I stated if indeed these groups are 'tax exempt' in Israel

then tax them however I note you do not mention the Israeli government being as 'transparent' as you are NGO's and in this case it is leftist NGO's

forcing this issue and undeniably the motives are entirely political and quite pointed has not one wit to do with democracy, Israel could if it believes these organizations are indeed 'subverting' the government would be within it's democratic rights to ban them all together claiming public endangerment, rather go on the witch hunt it was proposing

btw I do understand that you are likely to have some problems with groups like Breaking the Silence

[pelsar]

61. transparency is a cornerstone...

the fact that there is corruption in the israeli govt, areas of non transparency doesn't excuse them....

Clearly this is a political issue, and i actually was surprised to hear that NGO's and others have the right to secret funding, i had always assumed they had to report as they do in the US. The reason the law didnt pass was simply because the "right" and the religious saw what it would do to their own pet NGO's......

which is precisely why i am for it, democracy has a nice aspect where it attempts to apply its laws equally.
--------------------
you really shouldnt try to imply what i believe and dont...you should ask first.

i have no problem with Breaking the Silence, Combatants for Peace,, etc. i happen to like their goals and methods ..Ah but i admit to a certain problem with the checkpost ladies......
(the israeli left is far more nuance than your general western left, were not so simplistic as back every group just because they claim the title "peace"etc

[Ken Burch]

54. Look...if Israelis are THAT suspicious of the motives of the NGO's and their funders

why not just BAN them and be done with it? Wouldn't that take care of the whole thing?

What I object to is this bizarre notion that other countries are funding the NGO's out of the desire to destroy Israel. You simply have no reason to even THINK that.

[pelsar]

63. you dont get it....its not about suspicion...its about citizens rights

We have probably one of the most pluralistic societies in the world here...israels a magnet for almost every kook group in the world, and they all get funded from outside sources.....
___________________

I don't have any notion that norway or sweden have some secret plan to fund NGO's as a first step to destroy israel...what i find bizarre is that your actually promoting secret funding to public groups and that you believe the public should not know about it.....

Can i assume that their board of directors, membership lists, bank accounts, also be kept secret from the public?

or the really bizare thing is that you seem to believe that if its made public, there will be witch hunts to destroy them.

as if the 4 mothers movement were afraid of being on mossads hit list.....

[LeftishBrit]

59. Firstly...

there is a difference between taxpayer- and non-taxpayer-funded organizations. If an organization is funded *by* the government, then of course they have a right to know what the're funding.

If I am donating to a charity or a non-government political group then *as a donor*, I expect them to be transparent to me. If they aren't, then it's *my choice* not to donate. Not the government's. In many countries, charities can have a favoured status for tax purposes; and certainly governments have a right to withhold this if transparency is not forthcoming. In any case, political campaigning organizations usually don't get charitable status for tax purposes; nor should they.

And the 'exceptions' seem to be being made by the proponents of these bills. As I understand, originally there was no intent to investigate funding for RW organizations; I believe Netanyahu did eventually suggest that these should be included, perhaps out of fairness, perhaps because he thought the bill more likely to pass if they were. And you seem to be only focussing on one aspect of the proposals: the investigation of funding sources. One of the proposed bills was not just to investigate the funding sources, but the *activities* of the organizations; their role in 'delegitimizing'. To me, this is scary, and I am very glad that it was defeated.

I don't think that 'McCarthyism' is hyperbole. The term may now be a dirty word, but it wasn't in the 1950s. Hindsight is 20-20 and makes it easy to see McCarthyism as a sinister anti-democratic witch-hunt. But in the 1950s, a democratic, and in some ways ultra-libertarian, country was able to be convinced that these tactics were necessary to combat dangerous influences on the country. And I am sure that many people at the time thought of it as necessary transparency. In fact, if I had donated to a political campaigning organization at the time of the Soviet Union, I would have quite liked to know whether some of its funding came from pro-Soviet sources. But we know what happened when politicians with power and an axe to grind started 'investigating'.

I am not an ultra-libertarian, anarchist, or anti-government paranoiac; but I don't trust government as much as *that*. I don't want my government (the British government) to decide to investigate the 'delegitimizing' activities of left-wing, anti-war or anti-cuts organizations! If this means that they are also limited in their ability to investigate right-wing organizations that I hate (e.g. the English Defence League), then that is the price that I pay for living in a free society.

[pelsar]

62. the exposure of the non transparency is far more important

israeli internal democracy is very strong, do you have any idea just how many human rights groups of various shades are in israel? over 20!.........the fact that there is no transparency is very disturbing to me and far outweighs any investigation that might follow. Whats it going to turn up?.

...that most of Israel,backs the concept of having HR groups in israel? The israeli right doesn't own the courts, doesn't even own the street, or even the knesset when it comes to human rights, civil rights etc.

and so they will "investigate" the activities, once they open that door, all the other NGO's will start getting investigated and the religious fear that most of all, for here the right and left will pounce on them, when they games are exposed....which is why it failed.

and that is not a complement to israeli democracy...where the far right and the far left and the religious all agree to secret funding....and us citizens get screwed

[Ken Burch]

16. This isn't about transparency

It's about the totally unjust implication that NGO's are doing something illegitimate.

There's nothing here to get to the bottom OF.

There simply IS no anti-Israeli conspiracy among NGO's. All they've done is tell the truth about what they've seen.

You've made the most cynical use of the phrase "The People's Right To Know" that I've ever seen.

NGO's are, by definition, honorable and trustworthy organizations. They shouldn't have to prove their innocence of anything.

And it doesn't really MATTER who funds them.

[LeftishBrit]

18. Although I agree with you on much of this issue...

one cannot say that 'NGOs are, *by definition*, honourable and trustworthy organizations'.

It is true that NGOs are by definition not run by the government, and thus do not come under the same dutues of 'transparency' toward the government as a government-funded organization.

It's also clear that in this case the MKs who proposed these measures are at least as concerned with probing the organizations' subversive 'delegitimizing' activities than with anything to do with financial transparency.

But one cannot say that ALL NGOs are by definition honourable. What about 'charities' that fund the settlers? What about hardline 'pro-life' and other religious-right organizations? What about NGOs that are simply crooked and defraud their donors and investors - it does happen?

[Ken Burch]

19. All right, I probably did go too far on that point.

McCarthyism has that effect on me. Sorry.

[pelsar]

21. you just dont like transparency.....at least not when its "your team"

and it is my right to know who is funding NGOs that affect or are attempting to affect my countries policies.

i've known for a long time that many here do believe in the concept of: the ends justifies the means.....i always find that realization rather disappointing

i believe your clarifying the issue,

just to make my point, and i admit i am guessing here, but if there was a probe to expose who is funding the settlers, you would probably jump on the idea and agree that it is the "peoples right to know".

did i get that right?

[Ken Burch]

25. We already know who's funding the settlers.

Rich Americans brag about doing it all the time.

And it isn't about "my team" or transparency. It doesn't MATTER who's funding the NGO's. They don't do what they do just to please the funders. They do what they do because of the reality they encounter on a day-by-day basis. Why is that so difficult to accept?

The link I posted in the forward article quotes the leader of NGO Watch, the leading anti-NGO organization in Israel, stating that his group found no evidence at all that Arab organizations were funding Jewish NGO's in Israel. That statement should put that particular accusation to rest. There's no reason to believe that Irn Tirzu, an organization on the extreme right of the Israeli political spectrum, is more credible on this than NGO watch, or that the McCarthyites in Yisroel Beitenyu should be indulged any further in their insistence on witchhunts.

The NGO's are NOT the enemies of Israel. They just bring things to light that the Israeli government would prefer to keep hidden. And there's no reason that bringing all their funders to light would lead to anything positive.

We all favor transparency. But the term is inappropriately used here. There's nothing BEING hidden.

[pelsar]

27. i never mentioned arabs...did I?

There's nothing BEING hidden.

yes there is: the funding, actually its not hidden, there simply is no law that states they have to be transparent.

so now explain...what is that YOUR afraid of:
And there's no reason that bringing all their funders to light would lead to anything positive.

and why is it that you believe that NGOs in democracies should have hidden funds?

[Ken Burch]

29. Most of those groups will provide a funding prospectus on request, anyway.

And the reference to Arab funding was in response to the Forward link I posted-there have been a lot of (obviously spurious)right-wing accusations that Arab groups were funding Jewish NGO's in Israel. That's what I was addressing. And the accusation of "Arab funding" is the elephant in the room on this issue, in terms of Israeli politics. It's a standard rightist tactic in Israel to insinuate that any Jewish Israeli who expresses concern about the way Palestinians is treated is a stooge of the Arabs(at times, the sickening term "kapo" has even been used, and I hope you would agree that it should never be used in this context). It's all about trying to whip the Israeli electorate into a "no choice" mindset on security issues.

The only other reason I could see for insisting on making the donors public is to try to intimidate both Jewish Israelis and people in the American and European Jewish communities out of making donations to NGO's by opening them to aggressive public attack from hard-line, right-wing anti-peace "pro-Israeli" people. That's why I've likened it to McCarthyism.

There's simply no reason to take this tack towards the NGO's in this case. They aren't doing anything that could possibly justify a McCarthyite attack on their funders. They just report on human rights abuses and the mistreatment of innocent Palestinian civilians. It's not like they're in league with Hamas or anything.

[pelsar]

31. dont care if it makes it harder on NGOs...

thats irrelevant to the values of democracy....thats a pretty pathetic excuse for hiding funding.

the accusation about arab funding and secret arab plans is irrelevant, i dont buy your hysterics either about McCarthyism..same hyperbole from both sides, always the same.....

[Ken Burch]

33. Without the NGO's, the story of what's happening to Palestinians would never be heard

That is WHY the Israeli government is pushing for this. It's about silencing challenges to the ruling narrative. It has nothing whatsoever to do with "democracy", especially since none of the NGO's is working to overthrow democracy within Israel.

The ONLY thing that would be heard would be the Israeli government line. The NGO's are the last line of defense against Israel's slide towards militarism and fascism.

You keep acting as if there's something in disclosing the funding that would vindicate some larger point. Why does it even MATTER who's funding the NGO's? They aren't political parties. They aren't running guns. They're more like the ACLU.

Sometimes, in situations where repression is in place, the right to anonymous free speech needs to be protected, especially if it could lead to violent retribution against those expressing it. That's the reality here.

And again, the NGO's aren't doing anything that is really all THAT threatening to Israel.

[pelsar]

35. its called the principle...a basic value

Israeli human rights groups are home grown, they can still get funding from foreign and local sources.....

yes they are like the ACLU who has survived many many years and will continue to do so, and they are transparent...see how that works?

Sometimes, in situations where repression is in place, the right to anonymous free speech needs to be protected, especially if it could lead to violent retribution against those expressing it. That's the reality here.


violent retribution?...hit squads on charity organizations?

now keeping things secret is equal to free speech?



jesus you really are off the deep end here:

[Ken Burch]

38. If nobody in Israel wanted to get retribution against the NGO's

or their funders, then nobody would be pushing for this bill. The whole push for this is based on the notion that the NGO's and their funders are part of an anti-Israel conspiracy. That idea is nonsense. All the NGO's do is report truthfully on human rights situations. Nothing they do "delegitimizes"(and the word "delegitimize isn't even a real word, anyway)the State of Israel.

Why can't you accept that the funding for those NGO's is, in fact, motivated solely by sincere concern for human rights?

[pelsar]

45. the motivation is irrelevant....democratic values are at stake

i dont give a shit what the motivations are of the NGO's....be it for greater israel, a one state solution, stop human trafficking, stop the human bombs, civil rights for street walkers, education for the poor, subsides for the refugees, IDF excess, etc

----

i want the country i live in, to live up democratic values, even when it hurts, because only then do you know if your living in a real democracy. I want the citizens to know as much as possible about whats going on in the country even if is uncomfortable...and NOBODY gets an exception


you dont, you clearly believe that some groups dont have to live within the rules of a democracy.......your beliefs are just as dangerous as others who also believe in their own exceptions.

[Ken Burch]

48. Democracy includes the right to be protected from extreme retribution

Besides, if Israel already supposedly has evidence that the countries you mentioned are sponsoring the NGO's, isn't the evidence they do have enough?

Clearly, countries like Norway and Sweden couldn't seriously be accused of being in an anti-Israel cabal anyway. They are honorable parliamentary democracies.

Nobody deserves to be denounced for funding the NGO's. The aren't evil and they aren't Israel's enemies.

[Shaktimaan]

40. you seem to be making a lot of assumptions here.

They don't do what they do just to please the funders. They do what they do because of the reality they encounter on a day-by-day basis. Why is that so difficult to accept?

Well, unless you know who is funding them and they've told you why then I don't see how you can really make this kind of assumption. I'm not saying that I think you're wrong... in fact you are probably right. But it is always a useful tool to see how an organization gets its funding. If what you're saying is totally true then transparency would have no bearing on their operations.

or that the McCarthyites in Yisroel Beitenyu should be indulged any further in their insistence on witchhunts.

This is hardly McCarthyism. Or a witchhunt. It's a perfectly fair question to ask who is funding these organizations that report on and influence Israeli policy.

We all favor transparency. But the term is inappropriately used here. There's nothing BEING hidden.

Their funders are being hidden. Thus you can't really speak with any authority as to whether or not it matters or influences the policies of the NGO.

[Ken Burch]

41. The only reason the identity of the funders is an issue

is if we accept that the existence of the NGO's is, by definition, a threat to Israel's very survival. And that those who fund them are driven by a specific and explicit desire to wipe the state off the map. There's simply no reason to believe this to be even possibly the case.

I'm for transparency, but we all know that isn't really what this is about. It's about trying to discourage people and groups in other countries from funding these NGO's by opening them to accusations of being "anti-Israel", and, well, let's just say it, of being antisemitic(this is part of the larger hasbara meme that any serious criticism of Israeli security policies OR any genuine concern for how Palestinians are being treated could ONLY be driven by antisemitism).

That's why I've called this McCarthyism and I stand by that.

There's no reason to treat the NGO's as inherently suspect organizations, OR to try to dry up their funding sources.

[pelsar]

64. your assumption is wrong-start with that

is if we accept that the existence of the NGO's is, by definition, a threat to Israel's very survival

and your afraid that because they are transparent then "funding will dry up"......what other tenants of democracy are you willing to forgo for your agenda?.. you've already dumped the publics right to know?

Didnt the US survive McCarthyism? because people stood up to their principles?....because the govt went to far and it was the people who believed in democracy stood fast and defeated the overreach of the govt?

Thats how democracies work, the people stick to the principles of democracy when the govt goes to far, you dont throw out democratic values, because you believe the govt has gone to far....you fight back using the tools of democracy (wasn't it the openness of the govt attacks, the transparency of it, that lead to its eventual downfall?)

[Ken Burch]

17. From the link, this argues strongly against claims that Jewish-run Israeli NGO's are Arab stooges

"NGO Monitor, Israel’s most prominent watchdog of human rights groups and a longtime critic of many of them, publicly rejects the turn that criticism against those groups is taking.

Gerald Steinberg, president of NGO Monitor, said that he finds Yisrael Beiteinu’s claim to be based on “very flimsy evidence.” Steinberg criticized the shift in the debate from research-based claims, like those of his group, to what he considers the populist and alarmist claims of Yisrael Beiteinu.

Steinberg said that NGO Monitor has looked into the question of whether Jewish-run Israeli NGOs receive money from Arab governments and terrorist organizations, and has concluded that this is not the case. “My fear is that they will raise the issue of Arab money, it will be shown to be a red herring and people will say all the concern about NGOs was without basis,” he said. The real question, he asserted, was how, why and to what value European governments are funding NGOs, issues that he fears will now go unexplored."

Read more: http://www.forward.com/articles/134820/#ixzz1F8T1iktN

[Violet_Crumble]

13. I hope that's the last people will hear of that bit of RW nuttery n/t