Foreign donations, foreign interests

The new law requiring Israeli nongovernmental organizations to disclose the nature and scope of any foreign donations they receive is far from perfect, but a closer look reveals its advantages outweigh its disadvantages.

Despite the criticism and controversy, this law is justified, as it tries to deal with the disturbing trend of foreign intervention in internal Israeli politics. Intervention of this kind is unacceptable, mainly because none of the countries sponsoring these NGOs is dealing with the same complex reality that Israel is.

One would expect these governments to show some consideration, some humility, when trying to weigh in on Israeli politics. Outside criticism is legitimate and acceptable as part of the diplomatic game, but actively funding opposition entities is simply not done.

This law is also justified because it promotes transparent business practices in the nonprofit sector. Current legislation demands that NGOs submit quarterly and annual financial reports, but those are filed only with the Associations Registrar. When it comes to organizations operating in the public sphere in Israel with the clear intention of influencing public opinion and policy, seeking to apply full transparency is reasonable. After all, sunlight is the best disinfectant, and it is imperative the public knows if and when an NGO represents the foreign interests of its sponsors.

This legislation is important because it seeks to send a clear message that such intervention is inherently wrong. However, while the law aims to deal with the growing trends of foreign donations, it is doubtful it will be able to truly curtail it. Therefore, it is best to tackle the issue on the state level: government pressure on these NGOs' foreign sponsors, including paying back in kind -- Israeli donations to opposition groups in those countries -- may be the best way to go.

The original bill sought to have activists working with NGOs that are backed by foreign donors carry special ID badges when they lobby in the Knesset. This demand was excluded from the final language of the bill, as it would have lent itself to further provocation. The damage to Israel's image over this potential "labeling" would have been far greater than any damage inflicted by these NGOs' work, and MKs drafting the bill did well to recognize the danger.

The law, however, fails to demand similar transparency for foreign donations made by private individuals. The public has the right to know who is funding organizations dealing with public policy issues and to the benefit of what interests, regardless of whether the backing comes from foreign governments, groups, or private individuals.

The lack of transparency regarding foreign donations by private individuals breeds the perception that lawmakers are far more interested in ramming the opposition than they are in cementing transparency. This undermines both the law itself and its public perception, and it also plays into the sense of persecution felt by some in the public. In this sense, had the law demanded transparency across the board, it would have made the bitter pill much easier to swallow.

While I respect those opposing the law, I have no respect for the slanderous remarks by Opposition Leader Isaac Herzog (Zionist Union), who had the gall to call in a "fascist law." Seeking to rehabilitate his image after May's coalition negotiations fiasco, Herzog has no qualms about seriously undermining his party, Israeli politics as a whole, and his own credibility.

Coincidently, one day after the controversial NGO bill passed, a grave report by the U.S. Senate was published, indicating that American funds found their way to the "V15 -- Victory 2015" campaign launched ahead of the 2015 general elections with the intention of unseating Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. These are serious findings, suggesting a blatant attempt to intervene in the election process in another country. However, as long as the funding made it way only to OneVoice, the NGO behind V15, the funding was seemingly legitimate.

But that right there is where the donor nations have it wrong, or perhaps all those involved are simply pretending innocence. Alleging the NGOs in question are mere human rights groups and therefore foreign funding is legitimate and cannot be questioned is completely detached from reality. These are organizations with a clear political agenda that seek to weigh in on high profile issues that have the power to decide elections. The Israeli elections are an internal, democratic process, and our democratic friends should learn to respect that.

טעינו? נתקן! אם מצאתם טעות בכתבה, נשמח שתשתפו אותנו