Photo Credit: screen capture state.gov
U.S. State Dept. Spokesperson John Kirby checking his briefing book. Jan. 6, 2016

“A network of about 30 groups claiming to promote human rights and peace have received large grants from the European Union and individual governments,” Steinberg explained.

“The scale of this funding, with annual budgets upwards of $1 million, as well as the extreme secrecy and impact, are unique; there are no parallels in relations between democracies,” Steinberg continued. While there are a few EU-funded U.S.-based groups that oppose, for example, the death penalty,” Steinberg continued, “Israeli NGOs are specifically and intentionally targeted.

Advertisement

“Imagine the response if Europe were to provide $2 billion–the per capita equivalent–to fringe American NGOs focusing on controversial issues, such as abortion or immigration,” is what Steinberg reasonably asks to draw a comparison — and then insisted that they be allowed to pour that kind of money into U.S. political debates without even disclosing what they were doing.

US SEEKS TO DISTINGUISH US LAW FROM ISRAELI LAW

On Monday, Jan. 11, the U.S. Ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro met with Ayelet Shaked to discuss the Transparency bill. Following that meeting the Embassy issued a statement which provided the same vague concern that in a free and functioning civil society such as Israel,”governments must protect free expression and peaceful dissent and create an atmosphere where all voices can be heard.”

The U.S. Embassy also released a statement in which it characterized the differences between FARA and Israel’s proposed Transparency Law.

The statement attempts to draw a sharp distinction between what the U.S. law covers as opposed to Israel’s proposed law, and suggests that the U.S. law “does not focus on funding by foreign governments, it instead focuses on activities engaged in ‘at the order, request or under the direction or control of a foreign principal,’ rather than funding,” which is what Israel’s law focuses on.

But to pretend that such a distinction is meaningful is to ignore the bald ambiguity of “under the direction or control of a foreign principal.”  Of course the foreign governments are giving the money to these non-profit organizations in order to further their own positions.  It’s at best naive, bordering on ridiculous, to suggest that could not or does not constitute “direction or control.”

Why the U.S. casts Israel’s proposed law as possibly “creat[ing] the chilling effect on NGO activities that we are concerned about” is difficult to fathom, given the only requirement is that the funding source be identified, and even then only if it constitutes more than 50 percent of the entity’s entire budget. Chilling? Hardly.

U.S. LAW HAS CRIMINAL PENALTIES, EXTENSIVE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS AND VAGUE STANDARDS

The U.S. law, and this is something the U.S. Embassy failed to point out, differs in that it contains criminal sanctions: up to five years in prison and/or $10,000 for violations. The U.S. law also imposes exacting and onerous reporting requirements. Finally, the test for whether the Israeli law will apply is a simple test of arithmetic — more than 50% or less  — so no ambiguity clouds anyone’s judgment or creates uncertainty about  liability. The U.S. law, by contrast, uses ambiguous words and tests which are far more likely to lead to over-broad applications and chilling of speech than does the straightforward Israeli proposal’s standard.

Perhaps an excellent illustration of how the simple funding threshold is useful and designed precisely to address the sole motivating issue is the recent revelation that the European Union’s European Foundation for Democracy provided 30,000 Euros to the Israeli leftist non-governmental organization B’tselem to lobby against the proposed Transparency law.

As NGO-Monitor spokesman Aaron Kalman pointed out, that grant which was “openly aiming at influencing Israeli legislation, again highlights the infringement on sovereignty and the manipulative intent of European government funding in the context of Israeli democracy.”

Advertisement

14 COMMENTS

  1. The US has the right to decide, amend comment or criticize Israeli laws, as Israel does when it comes to U.S laws…. the only reason U.S has issues with Israel’s Transparency Laws is due to the alarmingly high rate of NGO’s funding in the U.S from unnamed sources mostly foreign entities outside the U.S and self-serving private interests groups from within

  2. The US has the right to decide, amend comment or criticize Israeli laws, same way as Israel does when it comes to U.S laws…. the only reason U.S has issues with Israel's Transparency Laws is due to the alarmingly high rate of NGO's funding in the U.S from unnamed sources mostly foreign entities outside the U.S and self-serving private interests groups from within

  3. outrageous ! why is it that the disclosure of the donours financing 50% or plus of a NGO activity is threating Obama’s admiinistration? This kind of disclosure is normal in any democracy whether the US ot the EU. And 50% financing means control in every activity involving foreign governments….. What an hypocrital stance is taken by Shapiro the US Ambassadeur? By the way, why should Israel explain to the US Ambassadeur a clearly internal measure? We are still in the model of the banana republic…Besides the fact that the account of transparency in the US Law is absolutely false…. FARA, the Foreign Agents Registration Act.” requires not only registering with the Department of Justice and reporting on activities and financies …under the risk of prison !

  4. The US has a long record of foreign intervention especially in the middle east & israel. The US administration is concerned that the Israeli Transparency Law will expose the administration's interventionist funding. Many accused the Obama Admin, for instance, of funding efforts to oust Bibi in the last election. And although the State Department is public about its goal of dividing Israel and resting control of Jerusalem away from Jewish sovereinty, many in the US public dont realize this. All of these efforts will be exposed more fully if the Transparency Law is implemented and is the reason behind the US Administration's hostility.

  5. Of Course they would be against it, these World Powers don't want to get caught. No one will defend Israel but Israel, any country can say it is an Ally and be the biggest Enemy. Israel can not trust any Country, because of it's history with World Powers and the Countries Programming throughout time.

Comments are closed.

Loading Facebook Comments ...