We Say: Transparency is indeed a good thing. However, Israel’s NGO law (passed in July 2016) is not about transparency – it is about demonizing progressive NGOs. The fact is, transparency regarding NGOs and their funding has long existed in Israel. Indeed, enhanced transparency for NGOs receiving foreign government funding has been in effect for years, by virtue of a 2011 law. According to that law, all non-profit organizations receiving funding from foreign governments must disclose all such funding in their quarterly reports to the government’s registrar and must post this information publicly. The NGOs in question do, in fact, publish these details on their websites, fully available to the public.

If transparency was truly the issue in question, then the 2016 “transparency” law would have been written to require disclosure not only with respect to foreign government funding (which goes almost entirely to progressive civil society NGOs and other NGOs working on peace and human rights) but also with respect to foreign individuals (who provide massive amounts of funding for right-wing NGOs). Instead, the bill permits right-wing NGOs to continue to maintain secrecy with respect to their funders, while NGOs on the left, which are already transparent about their donors, are publicly branded, in effect, as agents of foreign governments.

We Say:Israel’s 2016 NGO “transparency” law is, in fact, explicitly discriminatory – by design and with intent. Its authors openly stated that they wished to target progressive groups that they dislike. By focusing solely on foreign government funding, and ignoring funding from foreign individuals, the law is structured to only affect progressive groups, since right-wing groups – whose agendas align comfortably with that of the right-wing government under which it was passed – do not receive funding from foreign governments. These same groups, however, receive large amounts of funding from foreign individuals and entities, including foundations and non-governmental foreign organizations.

And while funds coming from foreign governments are already public – subject to scrutiny and transparency both on the donor’s end and on the recipient’s end – private funds are not. Such funds could come from shady sources, from criminals, or, indeed, from individuals who seek to engage in “blatant interference … in Israel’s domestic affairs by means of money.” One such foreign donor who uses money to interfere in Israel’s domestic affairs and advance a far-right agenda is US gambling mogul Sheldon Adelson. The Adelson-owned free daily paper, Israel Hayom, has earned the nickname “Bibi-ton” for its consistent parroting and promotion of Netanyahu’s agenda; it is estimated that the publication loses roughly $3 million each month.

In the past (November 2011), when Knesset members submitted a bill that sought to limit foreign government funding for Israeli NGOs, the government’s own legal advisor, Yehuda Weinstein, wrote that limiting the law to foreign government funding and excluding private foreign funding is discriminatory. It “raises concern of harming the equality principle,” Weinstein wrote then to Prime Minister Netanyahu.

We Say:Israel’s 2016 NGO law is nothing like FARA.

First, FARA applies to all foreign funding – governmental and private – of U.S. persons or organizations, ensuring transparency about any foreign donor’s efforts to sway U.S. policy. In contrast, Israel’s 2016 NGO law applies only to funding from foreign governments – funding that is already transparent under a law passed by the Knesset in 2011. According to that law, non-profit organizations receiving funding from foreign governments must disclose all such funding in their quarterly reports to the government’s registrar and must post this information publicly.

Second, FARA makes no presumption that simply by receiving foreign funding, an American NGO ipso facto is a foreign agent and must register and report as such. FARA applies only in cases where the recipient of the foreign funding is actually acting as an agent of the foreign donor. Indeed, the phrase “in the interests of such foreign principal” appears eight times in the statute. In contrast, under Israel’s 2016 NGO law, merely receiving major funding from a foreign government automatically brands any Israeli NGO a foreign agent.

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has also tried to argue the 2016 NGO law is no different from U.S. laws governing witnesses testifying before Congress. As with the comparison to FARA, this is false. There are no “laws” governing such matters; there are House rules and Senate rules, adopted by the respective bodies to govern procedural matters within each body. House rules* do require individuals testifying before any committee to disclose foreign government funding relevant to the issues on which they are testifying.

*Text of these rules are here, see XI(2)(g)(5)(A); Senate rules include no such requirement.

We Say:The NGOs targeted and demonized under Israel’s 2016 NGO law are not agents of foreign governments. They are Israeli-founded and Israeli-run organizations, many of which have existed for decades. They have with well-established agendas and programs defined by their own missions and goals, not by the interests of their foreign donors.

The notion that accepting foreign government funding transforms these Israeli-founded, Israeli-led, Israeli-staffed NGOs into agents of a foreign government’s agenda is absurd. It is akin to suggesting that if, hypothetically, France were to give funding to Planned Parenthood to carry on with its decades-old mission, Planned Parenthood would suddenly become an agent of the EU (and be forced to register as such under FARA). Israel’s Navy receives submarines from the government of Germany. This does not make Israeli officers – or the IDF – an agent of Germany. Equally absurd is arguing that Peace Now – established in 1978 by a group of 348 Israeli reserve officers and soldiers, and which has been challenging Israel’s settlement enterprise ever since – serves interests that are not genuinely Israeli but rather are implanted by foreign governments.

The irony about trying to portray these groups as “foreign agents” is that Jews around the world have throughout history been at the forefront of defending core values like human rights and democracy. The even greater irony is that for decades, Israelis from across the political spectrum, including the right wing, have pointed to Israel’s vibrant civil society as proof that Israel is a healthy democracy.

As for the actions and positions of these targeted groups, make no mistake: These Israeli organizations represent and serve Israel’s true interests, both at home and abroad. Israeli human rights organizations serve as watchdogs for the benefit of Israeli society. Israeli civil rights groups are guardians of Israeli democracy. Israeli peace organizations advance peace for the benefit of Israel. The fact that these goals do not correspond with a given Israeli government’s agenda does not mean that these NGOs are illegitimate. Like any healthy democracy, Israel needs strong civil society groups that advance human rights, civil rights, peace and equality, particularly at times of heightened terrorism and threat, when such important values don’t enjoy the kind of popular backing that they deserve.

We Say: A key attribute of democracy is “rule of law”; a conspicuous feature of authoritarian societies is “rule by law” and “tyranny of the majority.” In the first case, laws apply equally for everyone and protect everyone’s rights equally, regardless of whether they support the government in power. In the second case, laws are manufactured to promote the interests and the views of those in power, at the expense of the rights of those who are not. The 2016 NGO law is a textbook example of the latter case, exemplifying an anti-democratic move – by a democratically-elected government – to pass laws designed to quash political dissent and opposition. It is part of a wave of efforts taking place under governments led by Benjamin Netanyahu to silence progressive Israeli organizations, to intimidate them, to demean and degrade them, and to diminish their influence. Clearly, the objective – of the 2016 NGO Transparency law and similar efforts – is to enhance the hegemony of the government’s narrative by silencing dissent – an objective that in its very essence is anti-democratic.

We Say:Israel’s 2016 NGO law is dangerous because it is intended to harm organizations that do critically important work in the service of Israeli society, Israel’s national security, and Israel’s ethical, moral standing. Indeed, this law seeks to undermine the institutions that form the bedrock of Israel’s democracy. Unless it is overturned by the courts, this law will harm not only the NGOs that it targets, and not only their important goals, but also Israel’s international image and reputation. It will put Israel on the list of notorious, anti-democratic regimes that limit the freedom of their countries’ civil societies, inviting even more of the international pressure that the bill allegedly wants to prevent.

We Say:In a free, healthy real estate market, anyone should be allowed to bid on and purchase property, irrespective of their religion, ethnic background, or the like. But East Jerusalem is not a free, healthy real estate market. To the extent that a real estate market exists in East Jerusalem, and especially within the volcanic core of the city – those areas targeted by settlers, i.e. the Old City and its environs – it exists for all intents and purposes solely to facilitate the transfer of property from Palestinians to Israelis.