The fierce debate over New Israel Fund allocations for highly politicized NGOs (non-governmental organisations) is long overdue.  In this context, Martin Indyk’s article, published under the banner of “The Truth about the New Israel Fund”, presents a strong, but often misleading defence, as detailed below.  There is a huge gap between Indyk’s lofty rhetoric and the NIF’s troubling funding policies, as NGO Monitor’s systematic analysis clearly demonstrates.

For example, while Indyk is right in noting that NIF funds disadvantaged sectors in Israel, he fails to mention that 20 percent of donor money is diverted to some 20 NGOs primarily involved in demonization campaigns. Under the façade of supporting Israeli “civil society”, these NIF affiliates lobby the US, UK and other governments demanding acceptance of the Goldstone report, participate in UN Human Rights Council attacks on Israel, and speak on university campuses during “Israel Apartheid Week”. They promote double standards used to single-out Israel, and degrading the universal foundation of human rights.

Indyk is wrong in claiming that such activity, funded by NIF donors, “strengthens Israel much more than it strengthens Israel’s critics”. In contrast to the claim of “responsible criticism”, NIF-supported
Mada al-Carmel publishes crude posters with images of an Israeli soldier touching the breasts of an Arab woman, with the slogan “the occupation penetrates her life everyday”.  (In contrast to this offensive propaganda, Arab “honour killings” and other customs that degrade women are ignored.)

Indyk also argues that, “NIF does not support divestment, boycott or sanction activities against the State of Israel and will not fund organizations devoted to such efforts.”  and NIF CEO Daniel Sokatch recently repudiated the BDS campaign and demonization such as “apartheid”.

But in sharp contrast to these words, in practice, NIF funds a number of NGOs directly engaged in BDS:

A)    NIF grantee Coalition of Women for Peace (CWP – $285,509 in 2006-8) runs the “Who Profits?” divestment project, tracking corporations that “are directly involved in the occupation.” “Who Profits?” had a major role in divestment in Norway and is pressing a similar project in the UK.
B)    NIF grantees Mossawa ($517,642 in 2006-8), Machsom Watch, and CWP signed a May 2009 letter to the Norwegian Government Pension Fund, calling “upon the Norwegian people to join us in our efforts and to stop investing in the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory.” They accused Israeli and international corporations of “provid[ing] specifically designed equipment for the surveillance and repression of [the] Palestinian population.”
C)    Officials from Adalah and Physicians for Human Rights-Israel ($503,537 in 2006-8) participated in a conference on BDS and “lawfare” under the UN Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People (Geneva, July 22-24, 2009).

Indyk also rejects “ultra-nationalism in all its manifestations,” but ignores those grantees that call for the end of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state. Large-scale NIF funding artificially amplifies voices that seek to silence the Zionist narrative:

A)    Adalah’s ($1,045,292 in 2006-8) 2007 proposed constitution for Israel called for replacing the Jewish foundation with a “democratic, bilingual and multicultural” framework. This “Democratic Constitution” – based on the “a one-state solution” – would permit Jewish immigration only for “humanitarian reasons.”
B)    Mossawa’s November 2006 position paper proposing a constitution for Israel, called for the eradication of the Israeli flag and national anthem, the right of the Arab minority to have a veto over matters of national import, and the immediate implementation of the Palestinian “Right of Return.”
C)    Mada al-Carmel ($450,000 in 2006-8) helped compose and publish the “Haifa Declaration,” a document that calls for a “change in the definition of the State of Israel from a Jewish state” and accuses Israel of “exploiting” the Holocaust “at the expense of the Palestinian people.”

Finally, Indyk tries to reduce the widespread criticism of NIF into a debate on the percentage of the Goldstone report based on NIF-funded NGOs. This is a diversion. The focus should be on the role of these NGOs in the wider UN-based demonization, including:

A)    Adalah’s participation in a press release from Palestinian NGOs following the publication of the Goldstone Report, urging countries to “re-evaluate their relationship with Israel.”
B)    Testimony from a PCATI ($48,888 in 2006-8) official in Geneva before the UN’s Goldstone inquiry, referring to Israel’s “unacceptable collective punishment” and to Palestinian “martyrs.”

The Israeli public has the right to know who is behind this form of political warfare. But instead of endorsing transparency, and participating in Knesset discussions on these topics, NIF and its NGO affiliates have boycotted and sought to delegitimize this activity. Ironically, in contrast to his opposition to transparency for NIF, Mr. Indyk cites NIF’s support for Israel’s Freedom on Information laws.  As long as such duplicity continues, Israeli anger over NIF’s funding policies will grow.