Another Muslim who can't stand that Israel exists
Poor Jos
Amnesty demands Israel 'immediately' lift Gaza blockade
- Thread starter SherriMunnerlyn
- Start date
Another Muslim who can't stand that Israel exists
Poor Jos
Sweet_Caroline
Gold Member
- Jun 15, 2013
- 4,174
- 824
- 155
Yes, and everyone who is backed into a corner on here mentions that. So thank you for admitting you have no leg to stand on. Game over.
Sweet_Caroline
Gold Member
- Jun 15, 2013
- 4,174
- 824
- 155
Another Muslim who can't stand that Israel exists
Poor Jos
You have to feel an ounce of pity for them, as it must be awful being on the losing side when there is so much in favor of Israel and so much support against all the lies, hate and bias in the media.
IlarMeilyr
Liability Reincarnate!
Which is ?
Alfie HAS no point.
Jos is far too much of a dim-wit to notice that fact.
Interesting how you left out the words , Larry Derfner asserted that before you copy pasted your first paragraph lol ! All you did was give some guys opinion.
Nice fail Jos
Shmeckle breath misses the point
Which is ?
Alfie HAS no point.
Jos is far too much of a dim-wit to notice that fact.
Which is why they make a great team together
You have to feel an ounce of pity for them, as it must be awful being on the losing side when there is so much in favor of Israel and so much support against all the lies, hate and bias in the media.
I agree, we should all have pity for them
Sweet_Caroline
Gold Member
- Jun 15, 2013
- 4,174
- 824
- 155
Alfie and Jos are our entertainment this afternoon folks. Take a seat and laugh at their ineptitude.
Alfalfa
Rookie
- Sep 6, 2013
- 3,406
- 28
- 0
- Banned
- #210
Objectives[edit]
NGO Monitor states that its mission is to "end the practice used by certain self-declared 'humanitarian NGOs' of exploiting the label 'universal human rights values' to promote politically and ideologically motivated agendas".[1] A number of academics have written that NGO Monitor's aims and activities are political in nature.[12][13][14]
Michael Edwards lists NGO Monitor among a group of organisations who use deficiencies in NGO accountability as a pretext for politically motivated attacks to silence views with which they disagree. Edwards states that they "single out liberal or progressive groups for criticism while ignoring the same problems, if that is what they are, among NGOs allied with conservative views".[12] According to Joel Peters, NGO Monitor's activities include "high profile campaigns with the aim of delegitimizing the activities of Israeli civil society and human rights organisations, especially those advocating the rights of Arab citizens of Israel and/or address the question of violations of human rights in the Occupied Territories",[14] to which NGO Monitor responded by saying, "Our aims and objectives (holding political advocacy NGOs accountable, providing checks and balances, researching and publishing on these issues) are clearly spelled out."[15]
According to Naomi Chazan, NGO Monitor is closely linked to a "tightly knit, coordinated set of associations" whose goal is to undermine liberal voices in Israel and entrench a negative image of them by means of having "continuously hammered away at their key message—in this instance, the abject disloyalty of certain civil society organizations and their funders and their collusion with Israel's most nefarious external detractors". Chazan states the aim is that "by reinforcing this mantra by every available means, innuendo could be transformed into fact".[13]
NGO Monitor states that its mission is to "end the practice used by certain self-declared 'humanitarian NGOs' of exploiting the label 'universal human rights values' to promote politically and ideologically motivated agendas".[1] A number of academics have written that NGO Monitor's aims and activities are political in nature.[12][13][14]
Michael Edwards lists NGO Monitor among a group of organisations who use deficiencies in NGO accountability as a pretext for politically motivated attacks to silence views with which they disagree. Edwards states that they "single out liberal or progressive groups for criticism while ignoring the same problems, if that is what they are, among NGOs allied with conservative views".[12] According to Joel Peters, NGO Monitor's activities include "high profile campaigns with the aim of delegitimizing the activities of Israeli civil society and human rights organisations, especially those advocating the rights of Arab citizens of Israel and/or address the question of violations of human rights in the Occupied Territories",[14] to which NGO Monitor responded by saying, "Our aims and objectives (holding political advocacy NGOs accountable, providing checks and balances, researching and publishing on these issues) are clearly spelled out."[15]
According to Naomi Chazan, NGO Monitor is closely linked to a "tightly knit, coordinated set of associations" whose goal is to undermine liberal voices in Israel and entrench a negative image of them by means of having "continuously hammered away at their key message—in this instance, the abject disloyalty of certain civil society organizations and their funders and their collusion with Israel's most nefarious external detractors". Chazan states the aim is that "by reinforcing this mantra by every available means, innuendo could be transformed into fact".[13]
Jos
Rookie
- Feb 6, 2010
- 7,412
- 757
- 0
- Banned
- #211
Interesting how you left out the words , Larry Derfner asserted that before you copy pasted your first paragraph lol ! All you did was give some guys opinion.
Nice fail Jos
Interesting how you left out..In a 2009 opinion column he writes for The Jerusalem Post,
NGO Monitor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Alfalfa
Rookie
- Sep 6, 2013
- 3,406
- 28
- 0
- Banned
- #212
According to a February 2012 article written by Uri Blau in Haaretz, his examination of NGO Monitor's finances revealed that "the organization sought to block the publication of one contributor and to get hundreds of thousands of Shekels from anonymous sources".[20] The donations in question were from the Jewish Agency for Israel and Matan, and originated with unnamed donors from outside Israel. In the same article, Jason Edelstein, NGO Monitor's communications director, is quoted as saying "all of our financial information is fully disclosed with the Registrar for Non-Profits as required by law".[20]
Not in such compelling, intellectual terms.
But then again, compelling or intellectual never defines your posts.
Alfalfa
Rookie
- Sep 6, 2013
- 3,406
- 28
- 0
- Banned
- #214
Rashid Khalidi describes NGO Monitor as an organisation that opposes legal means against Israel while at the same time being a proponent of the use of legal means against those who criticise Israel.[29] Sabine Lang writes that NGO Monitor has focused on the use of legal means to limit funding to NGOs.[30]
Sweet_Caroline
Gold Member
- Jun 15, 2013
- 4,174
- 824
- 155
Oh stop faffing about. Do you really understand what you post?
Alfalfa
Rookie
- Sep 6, 2013
- 3,406
- 28
- 0
- Banned
- #216
Criticisms of NGOs[edit]
The organization formerly criticized the Ford Foundation for funding the 2001 World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, which took place in Durban, South Africa.[35] The Ford Foundation has modified its policies regarding funding of NGOs.[36] It also has taken exception to such accusations and says its involvement in the Palestinian territories reflects its belief that a just solution to the conflict is vitally important to the region and the peoples directly affected and that it also funds groups such as the New Israel Fund.[37]
NGO Monitor also criticized B'Tselem, "The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories".[38]
NGO Monitor has criticized the New Israel Fund, which states that its primary objective is "to strengthen Israel's democracy".[39] Larry Garber, then executive director of the New Israel Fund, and Eliezer Ya'ari, then NIF's Israel director and a retired Israeli air force major,[40] wrote in an op-ed in The Jerusalem Post that if Israel were to accept the premises of Gerald Steinberg, the director of NGO Monitor, then "Israel's credibility—and, more important, the nation's morality—will suffer."[41]
With the stated aim of encouraging critical debate on the role of NGOs in the Middle East conflict, NGO Monitor held a 2006 conference in Jerusalem with 21 humanitarian aid groups in attendance. A panel discussed the pros and cons of NGOs dealing with Hamas.[42][43] NGOs such as Amnesty International, B'Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights were invited to speak but declined.[42] Amnesty International said the conference did "not give a balanced ground for open and fair dialogue" while another human rights group accused NGO Monitor of "partiality".[43]
The organization formerly criticized the Ford Foundation for funding the 2001 World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, which took place in Durban, South Africa.[35] The Ford Foundation has modified its policies regarding funding of NGOs.[36] It also has taken exception to such accusations and says its involvement in the Palestinian territories reflects its belief that a just solution to the conflict is vitally important to the region and the peoples directly affected and that it also funds groups such as the New Israel Fund.[37]
NGO Monitor also criticized B'Tselem, "The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories".[38]
NGO Monitor has criticized the New Israel Fund, which states that its primary objective is "to strengthen Israel's democracy".[39] Larry Garber, then executive director of the New Israel Fund, and Eliezer Ya'ari, then NIF's Israel director and a retired Israeli air force major,[40] wrote in an op-ed in The Jerusalem Post that if Israel were to accept the premises of Gerald Steinberg, the director of NGO Monitor, then "Israel's credibility—and, more important, the nation's morality—will suffer."[41]
With the stated aim of encouraging critical debate on the role of NGOs in the Middle East conflict, NGO Monitor held a 2006 conference in Jerusalem with 21 humanitarian aid groups in attendance. A panel discussed the pros and cons of NGOs dealing with Hamas.[42][43] NGOs such as Amnesty International, B'Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights were invited to speak but declined.[42] Amnesty International said the conference did "not give a balanced ground for open and fair dialogue" while another human rights group accused NGO Monitor of "partiality".[43]
Alfalfa
Rookie
- Sep 6, 2013
- 3,406
- 28
- 0
- Banned
- #217
Criticism[edit]
Yehudit Karp, a member of the International Council of the New Israel Fund and a former deputy attorney general of Israel, said that NGO Monitor has released information "it knew to be wrong, along with some manipulative interpretation".[49]
The New Israel Fund said in May 2011 that NGO Monitor "knowingly published false information in its newsletter", regarding the NIF funding of Coalition of Women for Peace (CWP). NIF stated that NGO Monitor's director was provided the correct information verbally in advance.[50] NGO Monitor responded that its report was based on NIF grant information, which is public.[51] NIF's rejoinder stated that its public records lag the end of the reporting year by several months, but reiterated that updated information was provided to NGO Monitor verbally. NIF also stated that it asked CWP to remove mention of NIF's name from the CWP website.[52]
In July 2009, HRW issued a statement saying, "NGO Monitor ... conducts no field investigations and condemns anyone who criticizes Israel".[53]
Uriel Heilman, a managing editor for the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA) and a senior reporter for The Jerusalem Post, wrote in an online opinion column that there were a "couple of disingenuous (read: inaccurate) elements" in the May 2009 digest of NGO Monitor. Heilman rhetorically asked whether the situation itself was "enough for Steinberg and NGO Monitor's followers without Steinberg having to stretch the truth?" Gerald Steinberg, head of NGO Monitor, later conceded the phrasing was confusing and revised the statement.[54]
Kathleen Peratis, a member of the board of Human Rights Watch, called into question the research methodology underlying an op-ed by NGO Monitor's Steinberg for not saying specifically where or when HRW statements have been unverifiable.[55] In 2006, she criticized NGO Monitor for accusations against Human Right Watch and its "executive director, whose father fled Nazi Germany". Peratis took issue with an op-ed by NGO Monitor's Gerald Steinberg titled "Ken Roth's Blood Libel",[56] and argues those like NGO Monitor "who want selective exemption of Israel from the rules of war" may not "have faced the implications of getting what they wish for".[57]
In 2009 David Newman criticized NGO Monitor for concentrating "almost entirely with a critique of peace-related NGOs and especially those which focus on human rights, as though there were no other NGOs to examine". He said that NGO Monitor, which he describes as a right-wing organization, had consistently refused requests to investigate the activities and funding of right-wing NGOs, many of which, Newman said, were facilitating illegal activity in the West Bank.[58] In response, NGO Monitor wrote that it is "an independent research organization, providing detailed, systematic, and source-based analysis and publications regarding the activities of NGOs in the Arab-Israeli conflict. The ideological label employed by Newman, 'right wing', is neither accurate nor relevant".[59] Newman also criticized NGO Monitor again in 2009, as well as in 2010 and 2012.[60][61]
In January 2010, thirteen Israeli human rights organizations released a common statement describing NGO Monitor and Im Tirtzu as "extremist", and criticised an "unbridled and incendiary attack" by them against human rights groups.[62]
Yehudit Karp, a member of the International Council of the New Israel Fund and a former deputy attorney general of Israel, said that NGO Monitor has released information "it knew to be wrong, along with some manipulative interpretation".[49]
The New Israel Fund said in May 2011 that NGO Monitor "knowingly published false information in its newsletter", regarding the NIF funding of Coalition of Women for Peace (CWP). NIF stated that NGO Monitor's director was provided the correct information verbally in advance.[50] NGO Monitor responded that its report was based on NIF grant information, which is public.[51] NIF's rejoinder stated that its public records lag the end of the reporting year by several months, but reiterated that updated information was provided to NGO Monitor verbally. NIF also stated that it asked CWP to remove mention of NIF's name from the CWP website.[52]
In July 2009, HRW issued a statement saying, "NGO Monitor ... conducts no field investigations and condemns anyone who criticizes Israel".[53]
Uriel Heilman, a managing editor for the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA) and a senior reporter for The Jerusalem Post, wrote in an online opinion column that there were a "couple of disingenuous (read: inaccurate) elements" in the May 2009 digest of NGO Monitor. Heilman rhetorically asked whether the situation itself was "enough for Steinberg and NGO Monitor's followers without Steinberg having to stretch the truth?" Gerald Steinberg, head of NGO Monitor, later conceded the phrasing was confusing and revised the statement.[54]
Kathleen Peratis, a member of the board of Human Rights Watch, called into question the research methodology underlying an op-ed by NGO Monitor's Steinberg for not saying specifically where or when HRW statements have been unverifiable.[55] In 2006, she criticized NGO Monitor for accusations against Human Right Watch and its "executive director, whose father fled Nazi Germany". Peratis took issue with an op-ed by NGO Monitor's Gerald Steinberg titled "Ken Roth's Blood Libel",[56] and argues those like NGO Monitor "who want selective exemption of Israel from the rules of war" may not "have faced the implications of getting what they wish for".[57]
In 2009 David Newman criticized NGO Monitor for concentrating "almost entirely with a critique of peace-related NGOs and especially those which focus on human rights, as though there were no other NGOs to examine". He said that NGO Monitor, which he describes as a right-wing organization, had consistently refused requests to investigate the activities and funding of right-wing NGOs, many of which, Newman said, were facilitating illegal activity in the West Bank.[58] In response, NGO Monitor wrote that it is "an independent research organization, providing detailed, systematic, and source-based analysis and publications regarding the activities of NGOs in the Arab-Israeli conflict. The ideological label employed by Newman, 'right wing', is neither accurate nor relevant".[59] Newman also criticized NGO Monitor again in 2009, as well as in 2010 and 2012.[60][61]
In January 2010, thirteen Israeli human rights organizations released a common statement describing NGO Monitor and Im Tirtzu as "extremist", and criticised an "unbridled and incendiary attack" by them against human rights groups.[62]
Interesting how you left out the words , Larry Derfner asserted that before you copy pasted your first paragraph lol ! All you did was give some guys opinion.
Nice fail Jos
Interesting how you left out..In a 2009 opinion column he writes for The Jerusalem Post,
NGO Monitor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So ??
Alfalfa
Rookie
- Sep 6, 2013
- 3,406
- 28
- 0
- Banned
- #220
I've tried to do some research into the funding of NGO but it is a labrynthian maze of contradictions. It appears that over 90% of their funds come from one organization (to the tune of 8 million over the last 4 years) that seems to fold, re-incorporate and change it's name very year. Since financial records only go back 4 years, here are the different names this one, apparently non proft..heheh, org has had.
Center for Jewish Communication Studies
American Friends of NGO
Research + Evaluation = Promoting Organizational Responsibility and Transparency, Inc.
Report.org
I challenge anyone to find ANY substantial information on google about ANY of these orgs. They are ghosts, front operations for right wing, zionist and likud propaganda and ONLY THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG.
How does one donate 8 million dollars to ONE media organization and yet doesn't have ANY FOOTPRINT on the worldwide web?
Center for Jewish Communication Studies
American Friends of NGO
Research + Evaluation = Promoting Organizational Responsibility and Transparency, Inc.
Report.org
I challenge anyone to find ANY substantial information on google about ANY of these orgs. They are ghosts, front operations for right wing, zionist and likud propaganda and ONLY THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG.
How does one donate 8 million dollars to ONE media organization and yet doesn't have ANY FOOTPRINT on the worldwide web?
Last edited:
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
Zone1 St. Patrick’s Day Is Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion...Full stop- Started by NewsVine_Mariyam
- Replies: 3
-
DEFUND THE SUPREME COURT WE CAN LIVE BETTER WITHOUT IT
- Started by merrill
- Replies: 2
-
-
Epstein files - way, way too many coincidences for this not to be anything but bad -Dusti Rhea Duke- Started by frigidweirdo
- Replies: 5
