When Human Rights Organizations have Something to Hide

Transparency.

It’s the backbone of democracy, responsible government and free and open society. It enables all of us to understand a little bit better the driving force behind many of the decisions made that effect our lives.

And yet, more and more so transparency is slowly being purposely eroded in the very institutions in which we need them. In government, and organizations that are supposed to be protecting the rights of individuals, beyond personal bias and politics.

Last week the Israeli Parliament voted into law a bill that will require that Non Governmental Organizations working in Israel and the occupied territories, particularly Human Rights organizations, open up their books and provide transparency into the funding they receive that drives their operations, and all too often, their agenda. This bill was initiated by the Israeli right. And many in the Israeli left and in the international arena are claiming that it is yet further proof of an agenda that is persecuting the left wing.

And while by their very nature, Human Rights organizations are perceived as being left wing (many don't percieve right wing organizations as having an inherent human rights charter), the left in its claims are either confused, or purposely misleading.

Human Rights organizations, as opposed to political parties that may belong to the left or right wing, aren't political organizations, or at least they are not supposed to be political organizations. Yet sadly over the past decade, particularly as it involves the Arab Israeli conflict and that with the Palestinians, we've seen them transformed into such, taking sides in a conflict as opposed to remaining neutral and trying to help the innocent. The UNHRC or UN Human Rights Council for example has repeatedly condemned Israel while barely mentioning the world's worst Human Rights Offenders including Sudan, China, Russia, Iran and more.

Furthermore its been revealed that the literally dozens of Human Rights organizations such as the New Israel Fund that operate in Israel and the occupied territories have been actively compiling data with the express purpose of providing it to the Goldstone commission in an attempt to further persecute Israel, put Israeli soldiers in jail, and rob the State of Israel of the right to protect itself and its civilians.

For example, it was recently revealed that Human Rights Watch actually used its anti-Israel activities to raise money from none other than Saudi Arabia, a regular offender of Human Rights, in which women are oppressed, and Christians and gays are persecuted.

To put that in perspective, imagine a human rights organization working to bring American soldiers to trial that served in Afghanistan, being financed by the Taliban and to some degree subject to their agenda.

There are other organizations in the world that call themselves charities, claiming to be filling the role of human rights organizations. They provide housing to the poor, and food. Build infrastructure, and even give financial assistance to those in need. Two of these organizations are Hezbollah and Hamas. And hand to hand with their charity work, they actively work to harm Israelis. So on the one hand they're "charity organizations," and on the other they have a political agenda.

Some of these human rights organizations that operate in Israel and the occupied territories, while not using weapons, are employing lawfare, or the persecution of Israel through international law, to bring harm to Israelis and harm Israel's ability to protect its citizens. Now I don't mean to say there's an across the board equivalent of physical harm that can be caused by the bullets and missles of Hezbollah and Hamas, with lawfare that actively looks to arrest Israelis in various countries in the world and rob Israel of its right to defend itself in the international community, but indeed the similarities are there.

And to those that claim these organizations are only looking to prosecute Israeli soldiers that have broken international law, the application of international law to only one nation while ignoring the actions of others is inherently biased, and subsequently, an act of persecution and discrimination in itself. Not to mention taking actions out of context is also a form of persecution and discrimination.

Human Rights organizations benefit from what is known as the halo effect which provides an sense of infalibility. The halo effect is "a cognitive bias whereby the perception of one trait is influenced by the perception of another trait of that person or movement." Or in other words because these organizations are doing very important work in trying to protect the human rights of some, people have difficulty believing they can have an agenda or be guilty of acting in unacceptable or discriminitory ways, or have a one sided agenda.

Unfortunately, as we saw with the Gaza Flotilla and the events of the Mavi Marmara, on which a large group of supposed Human Rights activists cut apart the ship and used metal bars, chains and knifes to attack Israeli soldiers that were boarding the ship, in our generation we're all sadly seeing the nature of the Human Rights movement being transformed from one in which they are actively working to for the good of all people, to organizations with political agendas, that show a clear bias, and who all too often see their role as more of a means of achieving political change than providing for the good of the under priviledged and persecuted. And if you don't believe it, just read this piece on the founder of Human Rights Watch.

But the bottom line is that that when Human Rights Organizations feel they have something to hide it should raise a red light to everybody. Since when did these organizations decide that transparency is actually a threat to their operations? And since when did the world decide that transparency is a threat to democracy?

If human rights organizations have something to hide, doesn't that in itself indicate there's something problematic going on behind the scenes. Something they feel will imperil their operations and support? If the Israeli bill demanding transparency does indeed target only left wing organizations, and because they are left wing organizations, then it should be modified to include all organizations. But let's remember, again, that Human Rights Organizations are not political organizations, even if by their nature they are percieved as left wing, and its important to make that distinction. Why? Because it shows that the law being enacted by the Israeli government is not one meant to persecute a political party based on its beliefs, its one meant to bring accountability. Accountability to organizations, that as off late, whether its through wielding knifes and axes, or working actively to deligitimze a sovereign state in international forums, are straying from their raison d'etre, the protection of the innocent, persecuted, and oppressed, irregardless of race, religion or nationality.

The Human Rights movement is at a crossroads, a watershed moment. They have been straying from their true mission which is to work as an organization beyond politics and use their resources to help all, and are morphing into organizations with a political agenda that are deciding that only the rights of some are worth fighting for, while apparently others don't have the same rights.

If these organizations which are operational in Israel truly have the well being of the oppressed and underprivileged at heart, then they should have no problem opening their books and letting the world know where their funding is coming from.

They should also cease and desist from activities that actively work to persecute Israel in international forums. When keeping these things in mind its always important to remember the three principles of examining Israel's actions, the circumstances of these actions, the intent of these actions, and the relativity of these actions against other countries under similar circumstances. Whether that be the actions of American and UN forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, or the treatment of Saudi Arabia and Iran of their minorities. For any judgment of Israel's actions lacking these perspectives are nothing less than discrimination.

Is Israel's new law persecuting the left? Only if you believe Human Rights organizations are political entities (which they shouldn't be) and have the right to hide the interests that define their agenda. And in any case, I have a difficult time accepting that a call for transparency is persecution. I whole heartedly agree that all Non Governmental and Human Rights organizations should be transparent about their donors, funding and operations. And if the new law is not currently worded to reflect this all encompassing view, then it should be modified to do so.

In the meantime, it seems that sadly for the persecuted in the world, Human Rights organizations are losing their halo due to prejudiced actions by organizations as important as the UN Human Rights Council and Human Rights Watch. By taking up one-sided discriminatory political agendas, they risk losing their freedom to operate and fulfilling one of the most important roles on the face of the planet. And those that stand to lose the most are those that need the most help.

I want to thank my friend Dan for bringing this subject up. Its an important one and something that should be discussed by all.