Report: NGOs Behind Amnesty Int’l ‘Israeli Apartheid’ Report Received over $100 Million from Foreign Governments

By  Jewish Press News Desk February 6, 2022

Seventy-seven percent of the NGOs cited in Amnesty International’s damning report against Israel (Israel’s Apartheid Against Palestinians) were Israeli organizations that received a total of $105,209,347 (NIS 337,553,677) from foreign governments since 2012, Im Tirtzu reported on Sunday.

According to Im Tirtzu, Amnesty International’s report accusing Israel of being an apartheid state was heavily based on information provided by “radical anti-Zionist” Israeli NGOs.

Throughout the 280-page report, 26 NGOs (16 of them Israeli) were cited 597 times out of the total 1559 citations in the report.

Of the 597 citations, 461 (77%) came from controversial Israeli NGOs that receive extensive funding from foreign governments.

The most cited Israeli NGO was B’Tselem (98 citations), which itself published a report last year accusing Israel of being an apartheid state, followed by Adalah (83), Ir Amim (44), and HaMoked (41).

The most cited non-Israeli NGOs were Al-Haq (34 citations), which was designated as a terrorist group by Israel in October 2021; Human Rights Watch (34); Norwegian Refugee Council (23); and Al Mezan (12). Addameer, which like Al-Haq was designated as a terror group by Israel, was cited 10 times.

Since 2012, the largest anti-Israel recipient of foreign government funding is B’Tselem with $19,432,237 (NIS 62,346,393), followed by Yesh Din with $15,201,109 (NIS 48,771,240), HaMoked with $11,981,150 (NIS 38,440,323), and Gisha with $10,287,840 (NIS 33,007,507).

“Amnesty’s report is merely another anti-Israel hit job made possible by foreign governments who employ radical anti-Zionist Israeli NGOs to spearhead their attack on Israel,” said Im Tirtzu CEO Matan Peleg.

“Israeli decision-makers must understand that the phenomenon of massive foreign government funding is a real threat to Israel’s continued existence,” Peleg added. “No other country would be willing to allow foreign government-funded organizations to operate with impunity in its territory while slandering and calling to prosecute its soldiers, promoting international pressure against it, calling to boycott its products, and providing legal defense to terrorists and their families.”

<
>
<
>
<
>
<
>

February 6, 2022 | 4 Comments »

Leave a Reply

4 Comments / 4 Comments

  1. I’m a born citizen of the United States, and a naturalized citizen of South Africa.

    Superficially, they seem like very different places. But under the hood, there are some striking similarities. Being in Cape Town for the last week reminds me of that.

    Thanks to COVID, my last visit was two and a half years ago. I’ve been reacclimatizing.

    I close the driveway gate as soon as I pull in to prevent somebody from following me in.

    If I come to a red light late at night, I keep going to thwart potential hijackers.

    I keep a wad of low-value bank notes in the glove box to tip so-called “car guards,” so they won’t scratch the paintwork if I don’t.

    And the politics … well, let’s just say it’s not just the weather getting hot at this end of the world right now.

    South Africa is drop-dead gorgeous. Its people are the salt of the earth. But it is one of the most unequal societies in the world, which makes it a challenging place to live … to put it mildly.

    This is from financial advisor and securities broker Ted Bauman’s blog on his web site, Banyan Hill Publishing. What is significant about Bauman’s observations from his recent visit to his second home in South Africa is that the people who constantly accuse Israel of being an “apartheid state” have absolutely no concern for the welfare of the black people of South Africa, who once actually did suffer discrimination under an all-white government’s “apartheid” The terrible conditions in South Africa, and the terrible suffering of its people there now, thirty years after “apartheid” was abolished doesn’t interest them at all. Their original denunciations of “apartheid” ( a phrase only used briefly by the South Africa’s white government to describe its policies in 1948 and quickly abandoned, but which became a permanent part of the “international community’s” and international media’s anti-South African lexicon) was only virtue-signaling, and did not mean that they really cared about the suffering of South Africa’s non-white communities.

    If they did care about black South Africans, then the fact that their present misery is worse than it ever was under “apartheid” would at least get some attention in the MSM and at the United Nations. But the “international community” and the MSM aren’t the least bit interested.

  3. Trump’s endorsement of Friedman’s book:

    My Ambassador to Israel, David Friedman, has written a memoir in which he explains how our foreign policy of “peace through strength” brought about unprecedented support for Israel and once-in-a-lifetime peace agreements between Israel and five Muslim nations (with more to come)—the Abraham Accords. His book is aptly named, Sledgehammer: How Breaking with the Past Brought Peace to the Middle East. Go to http://Sledgehammerbook.com to order your copy and learn more about how American foreign policy is supposed to work—making us stronger, safer, and more prosperous at home and abroad. Congrats to David on a great new book!”

  4. Ambassador Friedman has recently done a couple of interviews which are of significant note.

    The first interview was with JPOST and it covers his tenure as the US Israeli ambassador under Trump. Friedman describes the fact that he owed his appointment to his longstanding relationship with Trump and explained that his own personal commitment to Israel came to be able to wield a great influence on US-Israel policy as Ambassador. He acknowledged the difficult relationship he had with Tillerson, yet refused to allow Tillerson to act as a filter between himself and Trump. He described Tillerson’s failed attempt to derail the moving of the Embassy to Jerusalem, and that the very quick 5 month period between the declaration to move the Embassy and actually moving it, was meant to have been a shot across the bow of the established beurocrats in the State Dept to “get out of our way” and to “get on board”.

    He relates that the only difficult time in the US-Israeli relationship was over shelving the sovereignty plans in preference to the Abraham Accords, but that it “self-corrected fairly quickly”. He reflects that the Trump Peace Plan was something of a “tiger without a tail” as “it was moving in so many directions at the same time” with people trying to manage it to their own ends. He specifically cites that the Trump Peace Plan was not to be a Sovereignty Plan but rather a Peace Plan with a component of sovereignty. He recognized the confusion surrounding the Peace Plan as due to many factors – Covid was just breaking out as the Trump plan and the ongoing political struggle in Israel was very disruptive, as Ashkenazi and Gantz each opposed the Trump Plan as it would give Bibi a “political gift” to carry into the next election – taken all together he states this took on the appearance of the perfect storm. Coinciding with this, he describes how some elements in Israel came to lobby the US Evangelicals to push Trump to shelve the plan.

    As an aside, Friedman states that Israel needs to define what their eastern border is going to look like, as they have the “democratic strength” to do so and should begin to convince others of a decided border. He adds that the current situation of a nonspecific eastern border opens the opportunity for others to define it for them. He also paid tribute to Bibi’s longstanding vision that peace with the Gulf Arab states would come even without making peace with the Pals as well pre-dating his Ambassadorship.

    He specifically speaks to Trump’s outrage against Bibi and Trump’s statement that Bibi ‘does not want peace’. Friedman notes that Trump thought Bibi’s speech regarding the Trump Peace Plan had the appearance of a campaign speech. Friedman notes that he, himself, did not see it as such, but Trump did and that this view was reinforced by detractors of Bibi that depicted Bibi as uninterested in pursuing any peace. Friedman noted quite definitively, however, that the “primary” issue that drew Trump’s ire towards Bibi was really the video congratulating Biden on his election ‘victory’. Friedman notes that Trump recognized the necessity of Israels continued relationship with the US, but that he saw the video as being a little “over the top” in light of their relationship during his term as president.

    There is a good bit more discussed at length in this interview and it is well worth a listen (start at about 12min. mark):
    https://www.podbean.com/media/share/pb-6ddtq-1198c4b?utm_campaign=w_share_ep&utm_medium=dlink&utm_source=w_share

    The second interview was done with The Michael Berry Show and covers the details of foreign policy differences between the Trump administration and the current geopolitical nightmares that have arisen over the past year. Again, a definitely worthwhile interview:
    https://www.iheart.com/podcast/139-the-michael-berry-show-27764850/episode/ambassador-david-friedman-92595677/

    Ambassador Friedman’s book was released today and Trump has endorsed the book.