Tonight, we celebrate an end and a beginning. The end of the year allows us to put our mistakes behind us and the lessons we learned in front of us. We are reminded that we constantly have an opportunity to do better, and we make resolutions in the hope that our lives and our characters will improve.
According to this article in Forward, NGOs in Israel need to do a similar sort of reckoning. There is so much more to an organization than meets the eye. A group’s agenda, rhetoric, and sources of funding ought to be transparent so that potential donors can make educated decisions about which groups to support. However, transparency may not be in the best interest of every NGO. Attracting support can be easier for particularly controversial groups by clouding or watering-down their central goals. J-Street, for instance, has built a grassroots organization on the vague principle of “pro-Israel, pro-peace,” whatever that means.
It would seem, then, that a regulatory or monitoring agency for these NGOs would be useful. NGO Monitor almost certainly has its own agenda, and as a result, the organization has trouble with credibility. From a donor’s perspective, it would be excellent to have a resource for objectively comparing the aims and methods of various NGOs.
At some point, however, we have to realize that such an organization is merely a castle in the sky. On complex issues like the conflict in Israel, we cannot break through the human filter; inevitably, there are some groups one will find abhorrent, while others will speak to one’s values. An infinite number of layers of analysis may make the situation clearer, but then again, warring ideologies may seek to “win” the argument by confusing the debate.
If more and more agencies cannot solve the problem, then we need to start talking about the concept of donor responsibility. We find it very easy to look at an organization and say, “I like that,” or, “You suck!” Quite a few grassroots organizations have built their membership based on the former reaction: you stop someone on the street, tell them how amazing your work is, and convince them to donate on the spot. On certain, less-partisan issues like environmental or consumer protection, this can be an excellent strategy. Doing this, however, gives donors a very limited opportunity to understand the group they’re joining.
On an issue as divisive and complex as Israel-Palestine, poorly-researched decisions could lead to misinformed donations. If you believe that foreign intervention into Israeli national politics is bad, you should avoid donating to groups who receive support and power from Europe. However, you have to scratch at least a little bit below the surface to find the information to make an intelligent decision. This takes time, patience, and dedication.
So, as we watch 2009 slip into our history books, let us pledge to be smart about the organizations to which we donate. May 2010 be the year that we actually solve as many of our lingering problems as we can.
Categories: 
Interesting thoughts Joel. I wish there were some objective way to look at each of these groups, but too often they, like J-Street, hide under the guise of something everyone wants, like peace, to put money into causes that are the opposite of what was advertised.
The only way I am comfortable giving is to really, really know the organization. I know exactly what AIPAC stands for, I know exactly what the JNF does, and I know what Nefesh B’ Nefesh uses its money for. J-Street is a little more mysterious.
It seems that “do your homework” is the moral of the story here.
Oh yeah, and I hate Greenpeace and Amnesty International, just for the record. But I do love the environment and social justice.
One of the reasons AIPAC and JNF do so well is that they’re transparent and explicit about what they do. AIPAC is certainly a controversial group, but there’s really no “big secret” to be discovered. They lobby for something simple–a good US-Israel relationship–and they do it well. J-Street, by comparison, looks like a huge mess.
Thanks for the note about hating GP, as well. As an employee of their chief fund-raising and lobbying rival, I have some words about them, too. We’ll leave that for another day.