Gerald Steinberg of Bar Ilan University has has an outstanding (and lengthy) new article in the Middle East Quarterly that traces the development of NGOs toward their current anti-Israel concensus. The larger NGOs – Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, ICJ – began by ‘protecting the rights of individuals in repressive systems.’
But over the last decade, NGOs have expanded their agendas dramatically, going far beyond campaigning against the violation of individual rights. The leaders of these organizations have been able to parlay the platforms and the massive resources at their disposal, to influence “high politics” on behalf of those they cast as the weak and oppressed…In the process, they have taken sides in international disputes. Nowhere has that been more evident than in the case of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
The NGOs claim to follow a ‘higher authority’ beyond parochial state interests, but Steinberg notes:
However, in the highly ideological world of NGOs, each organization has clear interests, biases, and agendas. In the NGO community, definitions of key terms, such as “victims” or “violations of international law,” have never been based on consistent, objective, and verifiable criteria. Instead they reflect the entirely subjective political and ideological preferences of their leaders, contributors, and financiers.
The article documents four case studies: the 2001 Durban Conference; the 2002 Palestinian attacks and Israeli responses (Jenin and Defensive Shield); the campaign against Israel’s separation barrier; and the adoption of the Palestinian narrative in support of refugee claims.
