I think there’s a lot of merit to this. Israel has, without question, done a lot that deserves criticism. But there are organizations that seem obsessively, ideologically focused on Israel, and if you dig further, some of them seem to believe that Israel is inherently illegitimate as a state. Consider Francesca Albanese’s recent comment that Israel essentially has no right to self-defense. That isn’t a crank view in these spaces. I think this does a lot to harm the credibility of international NGOs among Israelis.
That Amnesty UK video on the anniversary of October 7 was another good example. It was completely one-sided and left the impression that only the complete abolition of Israel as a state would satisfy some of these people.
city-of-stars on
Anyone who parrots the “since 1948” rhetoric can be ignored. It’s a deliberate effort at revisionist history, at attempt to erase the Jewish presence in Palestine dating back to the 19th century and the start of Russian pogroms in the Pale of Settlement, and the repeated Arab efforts to erase that presence through [massacres](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Hebron_massacre) and [terrorist attacks](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Hand_(Mandatory_Palestine)).
patronsaintofdice on
It’s good to see incidents like the ones in the article catalogued, even if it’s not a surprise to anyone who has followed these orgs for a while.
The ideological capture has been there for a long time, though it’s obviously metastasized since 10/7.
cvelz on
It’s not just an NGO thing. There’s a wider shift in opinions from people all over the world as a result of Israel’s actions over the past few years. Even in the US, less than half are sympathetic towards Israelis in the context of this conflict: https://news.gallup.com/poll/657404/less-half-sympathetic-toward-israelis.aspx
Many people who were apathetic, impartial, or had no idea now have opinions. People who cared have only strengthened their opinions or become more militant.
The reality is that Israel is currently led by someone wanted by the ICC for war crimes, the state supports/is in the process of land annexation in multiple nations (Syria, Lebanon, Palestine), and “rule based order” is frozen because the world’s superpower is blocking and sanctioning organizations like the ICC for investigating crimes: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/imposing-sanctions-on-the-international-criminal-court/
MasterRazz on
The fundamental problem is that nobody can offer Israel a security guarantee they believe.
Their neighbors support the Palestinians and always have, whether genuinely or for cynical reasons.
The UN’s bias against Israel is well documented, and even without that, they were tasked with enforcing Resolution 1701 to prevent armed conflict between Lebanon and Israel, which failed when Hezbollah violated the terms of the agreement and the UN failed to respond (and moreover, tried to prevent Israel from retaliating).
If you look into the actions of NGOs such as Amensty International, Red Cross/Red Crescent, and MSF, you can see clear patterns of anti-Israel bias even prior to the current war.
If the goal is to integrate Israel into the “rules based order”, then the powers that be would have to make the case that Israel would be fairly treated under those rules, and there’s just never been any indication that would happen. And every time there was an opportunity to start changing opinions of Israelis (Such as the UN respecting the resolutions in Lebanon), the international order has completely failed.
The only way to bring Israel to the table is likely a period of favourable treatment to get their guard down and then equitable treatment following, but the chance of that happening is -1000%, so instead Israel is going to act unilaterally in its own interests and that’s going to continue even if Netanyahu is replaced because if the polling is any indication, it won’t be a peacenik that follows him.
fljared on
“Human rights organizations are correct that the American invasion of Afghanistan has involved thousands of innocent civilians deaths, and has involved known torture sites like Abu Gharib, but they ignore that the US was badly scarred by 9/11”
IllustriousLaugh4883 on
The purpose of this article, to cast doubt on humanitarian organisations reporting on mass ethnic cleansing and genocide, is bad enough. But it funnily exhibits a kind of bias that I’d like to point out:
>Israel responded with a relentless, at times brutal, invasion of Gaza, in which many thousands of Palestinian civilians, including children, **were killed**.
Notice the difference in the language. Hamas *slaughters* civilians. Gazans *are killed*. By whom? I’m not too sure.
There is a bias in this conflict, a bias within governments, bureaucracies and news organisations. But that bias is for Israel, not against it.
9 Comments
I fear the people who need to read this the most will dismiss it outright, but it’s a really good article that people should read
https://archive.md/C8PDS
I think there’s a lot of merit to this. Israel has, without question, done a lot that deserves criticism. But there are organizations that seem obsessively, ideologically focused on Israel, and if you dig further, some of them seem to believe that Israel is inherently illegitimate as a state. Consider Francesca Albanese’s recent comment that Israel essentially has no right to self-defense. That isn’t a crank view in these spaces. I think this does a lot to harm the credibility of international NGOs among Israelis.
That Amnesty UK video on the anniversary of October 7 was another good example. It was completely one-sided and left the impression that only the complete abolition of Israel as a state would satisfy some of these people.
Anyone who parrots the “since 1948” rhetoric can be ignored. It’s a deliberate effort at revisionist history, at attempt to erase the Jewish presence in Palestine dating back to the 19th century and the start of Russian pogroms in the Pale of Settlement, and the repeated Arab efforts to erase that presence through [massacres](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Hebron_massacre) and [terrorist attacks](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Hand_(Mandatory_Palestine)).
It’s good to see incidents like the ones in the article catalogued, even if it’s not a surprise to anyone who has followed these orgs for a while.
The ideological capture has been there for a long time, though it’s obviously metastasized since 10/7.
It’s not just an NGO thing. There’s a wider shift in opinions from people all over the world as a result of Israel’s actions over the past few years. Even in the US, less than half are sympathetic towards Israelis in the context of this conflict: https://news.gallup.com/poll/657404/less-half-sympathetic-toward-israelis.aspx
Many people who were apathetic, impartial, or had no idea now have opinions. People who cared have only strengthened their opinions or become more militant.
The reality is that Israel is currently led by someone wanted by the ICC for war crimes, the state supports/is in the process of land annexation in multiple nations (Syria, Lebanon, Palestine), and “rule based order” is frozen because the world’s superpower is blocking and sanctioning organizations like the ICC for investigating crimes: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/imposing-sanctions-on-the-international-criminal-court/
The fundamental problem is that nobody can offer Israel a security guarantee they believe.
Their neighbors support the Palestinians and always have, whether genuinely or for cynical reasons.
The UN’s bias against Israel is well documented, and even without that, they were tasked with enforcing Resolution 1701 to prevent armed conflict between Lebanon and Israel, which failed when Hezbollah violated the terms of the agreement and the UN failed to respond (and moreover, tried to prevent Israel from retaliating).
If you look into the actions of NGOs such as Amensty International, Red Cross/Red Crescent, and MSF, you can see clear patterns of anti-Israel bias even prior to the current war.
If the goal is to integrate Israel into the “rules based order”, then the powers that be would have to make the case that Israel would be fairly treated under those rules, and there’s just never been any indication that would happen. And every time there was an opportunity to start changing opinions of Israelis (Such as the UN respecting the resolutions in Lebanon), the international order has completely failed.
The only way to bring Israel to the table is likely a period of favourable treatment to get their guard down and then equitable treatment following, but the chance of that happening is -1000%, so instead Israel is going to act unilaterally in its own interests and that’s going to continue even if Netanyahu is replaced because if the polling is any indication, it won’t be a peacenik that follows him.
“Human rights organizations are correct that the American invasion of Afghanistan has involved thousands of innocent civilians deaths, and has involved known torture sites like Abu Gharib, but they ignore that the US was badly scarred by 9/11”
The purpose of this article, to cast doubt on humanitarian organisations reporting on mass ethnic cleansing and genocide, is bad enough. But it funnily exhibits a kind of bias that I’d like to point out:
>
Hamas and Islamic Jihad fighters viciously attacked Israel, **slaughtering** civilians before retreating back into Gaza, where they gathered their armaments and hid in tunnels, [using the dense civilian population aboveground as human shields](https://archive.ph/o/C8PDS/https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/30/human-shield-israel-claim-hamas-command-centre-under-hospital-palestinian-civilian-gaza-city). Hospitals, schools, and universities—all became hiding spots for Hamas militants.
>Israel responded with a relentless, at times brutal, invasion of Gaza, in which many thousands of Palestinian civilians, including children, **were killed**.
Notice the difference in the language. Hamas *slaughters* civilians. Gazans *are killed*. By whom? I’m not too sure.
There is a bias in this conflict, a bias within governments, bureaucracies and news organisations. But that bias is for Israel, not against it.