By Ted Belman
I recently posted my article Who is being undemocratic? The Left or the Right?
-
The government is proposing legislation that applies to “political NGO’s”. The bill’s explanatory notes state explicitly that it is intended to deal with “organizations acting in the guise of human rights organizations that seek to influence the political discourse, character and policies of the State of Israel.”
The Bill would ban “political” non-governmental organizations from receiving donations of over NIS 20,000 from foreign governments or international organizations.
I went on to argue that controlling outside money in this way supports democracy rather than undermines it.
Today I started a conversation with a former Israeli ambassador whom I knew and knew to be on the left. We got to talking about this legislation and he argued that any restrictions on foreign funds should also restrict Jewish billionaires (Adelson) who buy a paper, Israel Hayom, in order to advance a right wing agenda or other wealthy individuals who support taking back Judea & Samaria. He couldn’t see the difference. I suggested that the left is subversive to the national will whereas the right isn’t. But that really depends on perspective. Both extreme left and extreme right are outside the mainstream. Even for those of us who discern a difference, what is the difference between the EU countries who support a left wing agenda and say, Soros , who could easily pick up the tab, and support a similar agenda.
However is the government going to draft this legislation that meets the requirements of law. How is it going to draw the line between what is kosher and what isn’t?
I got to thinking that maybe Israel should be focussed, not on who is doing the financing, but rather on what activities should be outlawed?
When I argue the left is subversive, I mean in general. I am not saying that the Left should be running afoul of Israeli law that defines what is or is not Kosher. If such a law exists charge them. If there is nothing to charge them with, what right do we have to take away their financing. Perhaps the government should be drafting a law that prescribes their activities rather than to focus on taking away their financial support for doing something legal.
I raise these issues because I would like us to discuss this issue. Perhaps the lawyers among us might suggest the wording of such legislation.
This is a real problem. The question is how best to deal with it.
Ted, I was not speaking of a specific national interest principle or a collection of very narrow principles that are given expression to by specific government policies. I was speaking of a very general and broad statement of principles that fairly defined the ambit of national interest. For instance, it is not in the national interest to reveal state secrets or to act in a manner that causes harm to the state, such as being involved in organizing an insurrection that impacts the social order.
Another example that could come under the category of harm to national interests is the BDS movement that is endorsed expressly or implicitly by at least a few NGO’s operating in Israel.
On the specific issue of whether to expand or not to expand settlements, public debate as to what is in the national interest is healthy. It would be against national interests to foreclose discussion on that specific issue you have raised.
Re: Freedom of Information – I am not familiar with the law in this regard, save that in Canada and the States, such freedom for the public to know, is not unrestricted. Information sought that bears on issues of national security for instance are usually here denied because it would or might compromise national security. I imagine Israel’s equivilent statute has similar caveats that limit the publics right to freedom of information.
Re: building activity disclosure – I am not familiar enough with the fine and delicate points as it may relate to goverment policy and protection of national interest. I am mindful however of some public housing functionary disclosing that Israel was planning to build about 1,200 housing units or so while Joe Biden was in town and Obama went ballistic. Secreting those plans may well have been in the national interest at that specific time, given where discussions with the Obama administration were at. That is perhaps one example of where the GOI’s intentions that are not to be put into effect for some years, could by that revelation harm Israel’s relations with her friends or her strategic negotiations with Palestinians or strategic image public relations efforts.
On this point, it is not for me to do anything but guess at what might be feasible. You really need to discuss this point with people in the know and by that I mean MK’s who would have a much better handle on the issue.
RE: NGO’s – The U.S. has a foreign agents act that requires people or organizations that are funded by and represent foreign interests regardless that they might have some figurehead American executives. Such foreign agents are subject to certain governmental scrutiny and thus a certain measure of control.
You are right of course that the issue is difficult.
I was just trying to provide a method by which the problem could be approached to arrive at a solution, likely not the best solution which I expect there is none, but at least a workable solution from which Israel derives some benefit.
There are a series of postings from “able” which have been sent to me by e-mail that do not appear when I link to the site. This is in response to them:
Early in my career I was responsible for the military suitability evaluations for mentally ill military personnel who were assigned to the neuropsychiatric detention facility at Fort Houston Texas. Later I was deeply enmeshed in the Islamic community having taught,, advised, and mentored nearly 1000 graduate students from throughout the Islamic world in public health and engineering.
Able encompasses the worst of both worlds.
Bill . Your comment advances the discussion considerably. You start out by requiring the “national interest” to be defined. There is a sizable minority of Israelis who believe building settlements is not in the national interest. Would it not be clearly censorship to outlaw any one who expresses this point of view. I don’t think Israel wants to so define the national interest. The Left argues that a free discussion is in the national interest and censorship is not.
Now all democracies have Freedom of Information Acts and the information thus acquired is closely viewed to identify government warts. So when Btselem goes about putting a spotlight on Israeli construction whether such construction is legal or not, who is to say that it is not their right. How can we define a point at which they have gone beyond the acceptable? They are provided transparency when the government prefers secrecy.
Just as Anat Kamm went beyond her legal rights and was punished according to law, should we not pass a law that prohibits public disclosure of building activity. You know, loose lips, sink ships. Were Israel to attempt to pass such a law, the whole world would go berserk, not that they have any say in the matter.
Perhaps Israel could attempt to restrict foreign NGO’s from Israel. Such NGO’s would be defined as those who receive say 60% of their budget from foreign groups. Such an approach seems less of a minefield but still a very big step.
I guess the reason the government tried to limit the money, shows just how difficult this is to control in a democratic society.
Ted, your point takes the discussion in the right direction by implicitly relating calls for legislation to Israel’s national interest.
There are however, a number of fundamental issues that must first be dealt with.
1. 1st and foremost is that the GOI must define Israel’s national interest, both in terms of domestic national interest and foreign national interests as broad general principles, that still clearly sets out what those national interests are.
2. Next, the component parts of that national interest must be clearly stated and must all be subordinate to the broad and general, but clearly stated prinicples concerning Israel’s national interests.
For instance security interests that relate to securing the nation from domestic and foreign forces, economic interests and social order. All are inter-related, but also subservient to the primary statement of principles of national interest.
3. Democratic nations seek to strike a balance between ensuring national interests are given paramouncy, while at the same time allowing for freedom of speech that often is exercised against the current status quo notions of national interest with a view to re-defining those national interests to reflect the thinking of minority dissident voices.
Democratic nations like Israel thus empower dissident minorities to speak their minds.
There are however, in all democratic nations, limits to freedom of speech that are expressed in various laws that for instance prohibit, hate speech, sedition, insurrection, treason and also involve laws that in other ways relate to and seek to protect social order and the economy. One instance of a limit on freedom of speech in the economic realm are laws designed to protect the public by preventing companies from making false claims regarding the value of their product.
4. Clearly there are tipping points reached where freedom of speech must give way to national interests. The right of freedom of speech is a necessary component part of national interest, but it must in the end be subservient to it.
The component part of freedom of speech, must therefore also be broadly and generally defined, but clearly also made subservient to the broad general supervening national interest principles.
5. Once one has a clear understanding of what is in the national interest and what each of those component parts are, operating independently or in concert, but subservient to the national interest principles, greater clarity can be brought to determing what specific advocacy/actions come within the ambit of national interests and what falls outside that ambit.
The former Israeli Ambassador’s comment you allude to raised a valid point when he
The Ambassador in typical left wing debating style was blowing smoke to distract you and avoid having to deal with what you were arguing.
Since you said no more on your discussion in that regard, it appears you let the Ambassador off the hook by not pressing him to explain precisely what Adelson and other right wing advocates say and do that amount to breaking current laws or why should such right wing advocacy/activism be outlawed.
The left wing does everything it can to avoid being cornered and forced to make their case based on facts, history, logic, reason and law.
The conservative-right must figure out how to get the left wing in the corner with no wiggle room to get out and force them to drop their precious pre-conceived biases, notions and ideological filters.
6. To conclude, by going through the foregoing process, one can then more objectively determine what advocacy/activism, be it from the left or the right that is permissable under principles of freedom of speech and the like which still fall within the broad general, but clear ambit of principles of national interest and what falls outside the scope of those national interests.
it is interesting to note that when banning kach as political party no one on the left mentioned free speech !
communism has killed far more people that fascism or nazism yet it is not banned by wrote .
israel is not yet at peace and the left is seditious .
Ted,
There’s an aspect of law, legislation, whose purpose is to facilitate honest people remaining honest and to keep honest people honest. That aspect of this law can apply here.
NON ISRAELI GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION. Or FFFO, Foreign Funds Financed Organization, NIGO and opposed to NGO.
The former styled organizations are covered in the US for example, under the Foreign Government Agent regulations.
If they clearly identify themselves truthfully, be my guest, pay 45% tax on the funds and proceed.
Nothing in common with investing on a newspaper as Adelson, or the Russian investor in the “ha’aretz”, or the foreign holders in the JP did.
Nonesense to that. The NIGO’s receive FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS and organizations money to subvert the state on behalf of those donors. Some of them receiving up to 84% of the operating budgets.
Simple question…
Has the NIF provided funds to Yehuda & Shomron Jewish Communitty centers?
Their sweet talk perfidy will not be accepted any longer.
I would think that if a non governmental organization is funded by a government, then it is a government organization or lobbyist if you will, and cannot hide behind it’s supposed human right status and should be treated like any other hostile power.
But where Israel is concerned everything goes, any lie, any half truth, any deliberate misinterpretation of law, and nugatory or thin argument, like the one about Adelson.
I am pretty sure that there is no Adelson country or state, but there is sure a Finland or France or Sweden and if they wish to fund groups hostile to Israel or the Jewish People, then they must face financial restrictions. Indeed, most people would consider a state funding activities hostile to another state to be committing an act of war! But of course our Left wing Ambassador would never recognize that!
But that same Ambassador is just airing his own shallow thinking by comparing foreign governments with Sheldon Adelson. Adelson as an individual can donate any money he wants to anyone he wants, even if he wants to give money to organizations antagonistic towards Israel like Peace Now or supportive of Israel like the paper Israel Today.
This is partly why the Israeli Left is in decline, they are puerile, shallow, and so anti Israel that even Israelis who might want to support them are disgusted by their scurrilous tactics and their meanness.
Worthy contribution. Welcome to Israpundit.
I believe Israel has passed a transparency law, but it isn’t enough, but it is a start. On the other hand freedom of speech allows them to do what they are doing. If we were to limit freedom of speech how would we draft a law that defines its limits. Perhaps it defies definition. Perhaps that’s why the ban on funding from certain sources was the only option available. The second law attempts to solve the problem through prohibitive taxes. In both these laws, the problem is to define what donor types are unacceptable.
I remember when Canada was attempting to criminalize public obscenity she decided to allow it to vary by community. Each community would provide its own standard depending on its values. But still it was no easy task to define “obscenity”. One Judge begged the issue and said I recognize obscenity when I see it. In other words, I can’t define it but I can recognize it.
When the United States financed several Iraqi newspapers, the American left raised hell about it even though political financing of newspapers is very common in Iraq and throughout the world.
The sin is foreign influence in the internal Israeli affairs of Israel.
Ted, you are looking for wording. Possibly (as some of you readers have suggested) the American laws can serve as a model.
Previously, I was upset when Clinton dispatched his political staff to oppose Netanyahu.
Transparency is essential. In political advertising in the United States the source of the the advertisement (on television, in mailers, etc.) is identified. The list of political contributors, for the most part, is public.
I have no specific suggestions but I can confirm that i Breaking the Silence, B’tselem etc. are the sources of much anguish for Israel. George Soros, when he funds anything( as he did along with the Ford foundation ) such as the recent economic demonstrations or any other big donor( whether foreign or Israeli )should be identified. As should the ownership of newspapers, magazines, etc.
Billionaires are diverse, they are not a problem. Perhaps if there was a one sided bias in their activities, one would need to address that issue. Thankfully, for every Soros, or moronic Ted Turner there is an Irving Moskowitz, thank God, or a Koch or an Adelson. The public at large, including wealthy people, yes they too, can take care very well and produce balanced opinions and initiatives.
This is not a legal issue. It is a matter of content, of concepts. The legal situation though needs to adapt to contest with this matter.
Governments must be restricted. Their role is to serve the people not manipulate them. The nation state is so much more powerful compared with its “subjects”, and it needs to be curtailed. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts even more.
And knowledge is power. That is why governments have no role posing as “concerned citizens”, or illicitly funding parties in their own countries. We object to government encroaching on its own citizens. We put in checks and balances against the leviathan state. Freedom from Serfdom, that defines us as a democratic society.
Why then, suddenly, when a government acts in a foreign setting, should that be any different from a domestic situation. Why then are Israelis screaming it is undemocratic to set restrictions against foreign states and governments interfering with Israeli opinion? Why was there an outcry when the Knesset attempted to have so-called NGOs reveal their foreign funding sources. Was it not a leftist who claimed that sunlight is the best disinfectant?
The case of foreign government’s involvement in Israel is extremely perfidious. As a rule, it is always leftist driven. That should give anyone enough to think about. Even to a freedom loving socialist. Does it not make you pause that it is always left driven? It is furthermore, disgusting as foreign government manipulation of public opinion involves large wealthy economies trying to lean on a small nation with 6 million Jews in siege against 1 billion Arabs. And it tends to be motivated by anti-Semitism and totally corrupted by Arab oil, with no ethics whatsoever. It is abhorrently disguised as spontaneous “grassroots” “non-government” activities. As if it was noble. NGO that word turns your stomach, does it not?
They exist because of laws intended to suppport real charities. things like tax exempt or exempt from rules governing legitimate businesses and individuals. These laws are the problem. Let an NGO exist and operate in the real world with the same limitations and regulations we all have. Then I don’t really care what they do. If they break the law they face the same punishments as any of us do.