Following the release of two major NGO Monitor reports, a study on EU funding for political NGOs, and an analysis of Human Rights Watch’s Middle East coverage in 2007, NGO Monitor’s impact has been felt in a range of important publications:

1.   Europe’s Hidden Hand: NGO Monitor study on EU funding for political NGOs in the Arab Israeli conflict

In April 2008 NGO Monitor published a highly detailed examination of European Union (EU) funding of political NGOs in the Arab-Israeli conflict. The fifty-page report, ‘Europe’s Hidden Hand’, provides the first in depth analysis of this important area, and reveals that between 2005 and 2007, the EU provided tens of millions of Euros from public money to NGOs whose activities directly contradict EU policy. The report also uncovers and analyzes the lack of transparency and accountability in EU funding of NGOs in this region. (Click here for full report)

Gerald’s Steinberg’s oped on this subject was published in the Wall Street Journal European Edition, on May 6, 2008: "State of the Union: Funding Israel’s Detractors."


"…In the 60 years of Israeli independence, relations with Europe have gone through phases of cooperation as well as conflict. Some of the recent friction results from hidden European Union funding for anti-Israel "civil society organizations." While supposedly promoting peace and coexistence, these groups often preach division and confrontation. The secrecy of the NGO funding process also stands in sharp contrast to the EU’s pious claims of transparency and accountability. There is no central database on NGO funding and many EU officials contacted proved unwilling or unable to provide any

2  . NGO Monitor’s annual analysis of HRW and media response

Following NGO Monitor’s latest annual analysis of Human Rights Watch’s Middle East reporting in 2007 (see NGO Monitor’s 2007 Report on HRW: Bias and Double Standards Continue, April 29, 2008), a number of newspapers sought out HRW’s response to the findings:


"Report: Rights group shows clear anti-Israel bias," Ynet news, May 1, 2008.

"…According to the report, HRW accuses Israel of "collective punishment" in a way that is applied to no other country in the world.

NGO Monitor’s report notes that Russia’s 1999 policy of denying power, water, food or any humanitarian supplies to Chechnya was condemned by HRW but was not referred to as collective punishment. The report also notes that Azerbaijan’s blockade of Armenia in 1994 was actually supported by HRW on the grounds that Armenia was "financing" a war.

In contrast, the report notes, HRW condemns Israel as guilty of "collective punishment" despite continued rocket attacks from Gaza against Israeli civilians. These attacks, while condemned by HRW, are repeatedly referred to as "retaliatory", with Israel implicitly culpable for the violence on both sides, NGO Monitor says."

"NGO accuses HRW of Israel obsession," by Abe Selig, Jerusalem Post, May 1, 2008.

"Human Rights Watch has systematically condemned Israel for "collective punishment" in the Gaza Strip, undermining its stated agenda of promoting human rights universally, according to a report released this week by the Jerusalem-based watchdog NGO Monitor. …

…While [HRW Middle East Division Deputy Director] Stork could not point out any other country HRW had accused of "collective punishment," he stood by his organization’s use of the term, and its application to Israeli policies in the Gaza Strip.

"When that’s what the crime is, that’s what we call it," he said. "When the shoe fits. Collective punishment is completely appropriate to describe the Israeli blockade of Gaza."

3.   NGO Monitor on Physicians for Human Rights –Israel’s moral turpitude

A disturbing diagnosis, Daniel Fink, The Jerusalem Post, April 30, 2008

"…The community of medical humanitarians is perhaps the most trusted of all NGO actors. Organizations like Medicins Sans Frontiers, Physicians for Human Rights-Israel (PHR-I), Medical Aid for Palestinians (MAP UK) and others are presumed to be the most credible sources in this conflict zone. Indeed, their mandate is to "come for the benefit of the sick, remaining free of all intentional injustice" as stipulated by the Hippocratic oath. Impartiality is their modus operandi. However, evidence demonstrates that even these groups are succumbing to partisanship and the facile oppressor-victim paradigm of the Arab-Israeli conflict. And most disturbing is their lack of moral outrage when sick Palestinians are used as fodder by terrorist groups…."

4.   UK Charity Commission addresses War on Want over ‘Apartheid Campaign’

The UK Charity Commission has addressed War on Want (WoW) after objections regarding its pamphlet, ‘Together we can knock down Israel’s Apartheid Wall‘. In a March 13, 2008 reply to complaints, which reflected NGO Monitor’s analyses, the Charity Commission writes that it has taken seriously concerns over War on Want’s condemnation of the security barrier and support for trade sanctions against Israel. The letter also states that WoW trustees have given "written assurances….that they will review their strategy on political campaigning and consult with [the commission] before pursuing further controversial campaigns." However WoW denied making such a commitment.