US rejects likening Israel’s NGO law to lobbying registry

[Little Tich]

Last edited Thu Jan 7, 2016, 11:05 AM - Edit history (1)

Source: Times of Israel

State Department spokesman says Minister Shaked’s bill endangers ‘free and functioning civil society’

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration has rejected the comparison between an Israeli bill requiring registration of foreign-funded NGOs and US laws registering foreign interest lobbyists.

State Department spokesman John Kirby, asked by JTA on Wednesday about Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked’s op-ed this week likening the two laws, also said the United States had expressed concerns to the Netanyahu government about the measure.

“They’re two different things altogether,” Kirby said, referring to the law approved this week by Israel’s cabinet and the US Foreign Agents Registration Act. Kirby did not specify the differences.

Shaked’s bill would require NGOs that receive a majority of their support from “foreign political entities” to declare that funding and detail it every time they put out a report or speak with a public official. The Foreign Agents Registration Act requires agents who lobby on behalf of foreign governments to register and report their activities.

Read more: http://www.timesofisrael.com/us-rejects-likening-israels-ngo-law-to-lobbying-registry/

----------------------------------------------------------------------


NGO law protects Israel from existential threats, by Ayelet Shaked
Source: Times of Israel, JANUARY 4, 2016

JERUSALEM (JTA) — In 1914, Robert Frost published his poem “Mending Wall,” where he coined the maxim, “Good fences make good neighbors.” Those were the days of World War I, and it was perceived at that time that the best way to safeguard international relations and world peace was to clearly demarcate the physical borders between countries.

Two decades later, around the time of World War II, the concept of sovereignty had changed to include more than merely defending a country’s territory. The understanding that foreign governments were able to have a serious effect on a country’s internal decision-making led the United States to enact the Foreign Agents Registration Act in 1938, which requires non-diplomats representing foreign interests to register with the U.S. Department of Justice.

The act underwent a series of amendments during the 1960s, but the foundations upon which it was based and the justifications that formed its basis have not changed. A strong democracy cannot suffice itself with defending its physical borders alone, since threats to sovereignty are not always confined solely to tanks invading fields and cities. Sometimes the real threat lies in the interference in another country’s internal affairs. This is precisely the sort of interference that the 1945 U.N. Charter sought to confront.

A hundred years after Frost published his poem, there are about 2,000 lobbyists registered in the United States who represent the interests of “foreign political entities” and receive funding from them. The United States understood in time the importance of this identification of the foreign interests on behalf of whom the various organizations operate.

The Government Transparency Law that I am currently promoting is as its name says. It seeks to create transparency and clarity in relation to the parties financing Israeli NGOs who receive more than half of their annual budget directly from a foreign government. In no way does it prevent the activity of those NGOs, nor does it impose any restriction on their activities or forms of expression. In fact, the requirements it stipulates are much less stringent than those imposed by the United States upon similar types of activity under the Foreign Agents Registration Act.

Read more: http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/ngo-law-protects-israel-from-existential-threats/


Note: Double feature.

[geek tragedy]

1. The United States isn't Israel, thankfully nt

[King_David]

6. Really ? Seems both countries have the same problem

Alleged Cop Shooter Pledged Allegiance to ISIS, Police Say


http://abcnews.go.com/US/man-accused-shooting-philly-cop-confessed-committing-act/story?id=36169588

[geek tragedy]

11. Except for the whole apartheid thing nt

[King_David]

12. Nope , both countries have same problems.....

[geek tragedy]

13. oy. nt

[oberliner]

21. And the whole 100 years of enslaving African-Americans thing

Last edited Tue Jan 12, 2016, 09:49 AM - Edit history (1)

And the continued impact of that despicable history that is still felt today across all of the United States both through institutional and casual racism that permeates our society.

[Israeli]

22. Goes much further back than 100 years oberliner......

You Americans were no better in treating your indigenous population then... as we are now .

[shira]

25. The US has also killed 100's of thousands in foreign wars.....

....thousands of miles from our mainland.

But apparently no biggie when compared to bogus Israeli apartheid.

[oberliner]

26. Also the mass genocide and ethic cleansing of Native Americans

Anyone who is not Native American is living on land that was stolen from someone else who was forcibly removed from said land and/or killed - with no movement afoot to return said land to its original inhabitants (and/or their descendants).

[azurnoir]

27. yep I guess Israel's actions today are much like those of the US in the 19th century and before

sets a bar it does

[shira]

29. It's not remotely close. The reverse is true as the Palestinian population grows exponentially....

Israel is very bad at genocide.

[Israeli]

30. It is not "bogus" shira ....nt .

[shira]

32. Sure it is, just like bogus allegations of Israeli genocide. Those hurling the accusations....

....know full well how bogus the Apartheid charge is.

[Israeli]

33. Nope .....it isnt ....

Yes, There is Apartheid in Israel

by SHULAMIT ALONI

JANUARY 8, 2007

http://www.counterpunch.org/2007/01/08/yes-there-is-apartheid-in-israel/

[shira]

35. Sure it is. "Jews only Roads". No such thing, but you quote Aloni nonetheless - why? n/t

[Israeli]

36. Unlike you I loved her shira ....

....and everything she stood for .....which is why I voted Meretz and continue to do so .

Why do you say you would vote Meretz if you could ??????

And she was quoting this .... "Why?" I asked the soldier. "It’s an order–this is a Jews-only road", he replied. I inquired as to where was the sign indicating this fact and instructing [other] drivers not to use it. His answer was nothing short of amazing. "It is his responsibility to know it, and besides, what do you want us to do, put up a sign here and let some antisemitic reporter or journalist take a photo so he that can show the world that Apartheid exists here?"

Any reason you are avoiding here :
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1134123309

Or do you think you know better than we do ????

[shira]

37. But you know there are no "Jew Only Roads". That's a lie, correct?

And that's Aloni's BIG proof there is Apartheid. She mentions, not quotes, Jew Only Roads beneath that quote.

Please.

Like I said, those hurling the accusation know it's a bullshit charge.

Tell me, why is it so important that these lies are broadcast to the world? I want to know.

[Israeli]

38. I seriously doubt that .....

...." the world " has ever heard of Shulamit Aloni and Ronit Matalon shira or gives a damn .
However ....what ever either of them have to say or said ....were not lies .

[shira]

39. Take for example these "Jew Only Roads". That's an outright lie.

Doesn't matter whether Aloni says it or not because other BDS'ers, post-Zionists, and anti-Zionists repeat this lie all the time - and their audience isn't Israelis, it's foreigners or English speaking people, not those who speak hebrew.

Why? What's the motivation for broadcasting these lies?

[azurnoir]

40. okay then Israeli only roads is that better? Odd that someone who seems to like to switch off

between Israeli and Jew would take so much issue with this

That said, in theory a Palestinian with Israeli citizenship could also drive those roads too, however they could also expect to be stopped by Israeli security, have their ID's checked, be questioned about just why they were there who they were seeing what they talked about ect, have the actual ownership of their vehicle questioned and checked and quite possibly detained while all this was going, Israeli settlers not so much

[shira]

41. It makes a huge difference in that article & you know that.

Why the need for anti-Zionists, BDS'ers, post-Zionists, etc... to lie?

If Israel's so bad, there shouldn't be any need for lies.

[azurnoir]

42. but exactly how many Palestinian citizens of Israel are actually driving those roads given the risks

[Israeli]

44. Really ....

......we should stick to Hebrew only ......

Oh you Right wing Americans would love that shira .....then you could broadcast your lies without being challenged .

[shira]

47. You didn't answer - why the lies to an English speaking audience?

Last edited Thu Jan 14, 2016, 07:29 AM - Edit history (1)

Emphasis on lies.

And their reports are primarily in English, not aimed at the Israeli populace in order to affect change. Probably because if they were in hebrew, they'd be easily refuted. English speaking foreign audiences craving news about Jews being "bad" don't question anything they report, like Israelis would.

[Israeli]

48. I answered you yesterday shira .....

....they are not lies .

" And their reports are primarily in English, not aimed at the Israeli populace in order to affect change. Probably because if they were in hebrew, they'd be easily refuted. "

Really ....

Would you like to give me some examples ????

As far as I know all of our web sites are in Hebrew/Arabic and English ........some even add French

http://www.acri.org.il/he/

http://www.btselem.org/hebrew

http://zope.gush-shalom.org/index_he.html

http://www.machsomwatch.org/

http://www.ir-amim.org.il/eng/

http://www.hamoked.org.il/home.aspx

http://www.peacenow.org.il/site/he/homepage.asp

http://www.phr.org.il/

http://rhr.org.il/heb/

http://zochrot.org/he

[shira]

49. So it's not a lie that there are Jew-Only-Roads. This is why the Israeli Left is dead.

This is also why the Regressive Left isn't taken seriously.

[Israeli]

50. What .....

.....no examples !!! ??? .....

Oops I forgot Israel Social TV......also in Hebrew and English .


http://tv.social.org.il/en/apartheid-hw-443

As of 2002, Palestinians were restricted from Highway 443. Every day, the road is being used by some 40,000 Israeli citizens, most of whom are not settlers, but rather Jerusalem-Tel Aviv commuters, who may not even be aware of the fact that they are driving through occupied territories, on a road on which Palestinians are not allowed (an Apartheid highway). The road is bounded by security walls, decorated with picturesque landscape paintings, which block the actual view of the Palestinian villages that were damaged by the Highway. Language: Hebrew Subtitles: English

[shira]

52. Your deflections are weak. Jew-Only-Roads is a lie, Apartheid claim is bogus - you know that. n/t

[Israeli]

54. nope ......it is not a lie shira ....

maybe somebody should tell our soldiers to stop being so honest ....

[shira]

55. That's Hebron right? Do you think people here know how the Jews live there?

Yeah, they're nuts for being there - but they live within a tiny fortress like area.

[Israeli]

56. Yup its Hebron shira ....

" Do you think people here know how the Jews live there? "

I have no idea how the people where you live view Hebron shira .

[shira]

9. There's practically no difference whatsoever between the 2 laws in the US & Israel. n/t

[Little Tich]

15. I think your assertion is groundless without an example to prove it.

My assertion that the laws are in no way similar is based on the fact that none of the NGOs that are targeted by the ISraeli NGO law would be targeted by the US FARA. Your assertion is that both laws are similar in scope and intent, but you have no example whatsoever to prove that. If you could find an organization in the US that's registered under the FARA that would be subject to the Israeli NGO law as well, you actually might have something to argue with.

Until then - me right, you wrong...

[shira]

17. B'tselem is targeted by the NGO law & they support & defend Ezra Nawi....

In fact, there are no BDS affiliated NGO's funded by the EU who will condemn Ezra Nawi. They all defend Nawi turning in Palestinians. Read the latest Amira Hass and Gideon Levy. Read +972's defenses.

Here's Ezra Nawi (with English subtitles):
https://www.facebook.com/StandWithUs/videos/10153415555057689/

What do you think about these "Righteous and Moral" Leftist NGO's now? My answer is they're Regressive Left - basically far Rightwing organizations aligned with the fascists of Hamas and the PA.

Do you find Ezra Nawi's actions abominable? Oh, and note that the foreign press hasn't reported this yet - despite this being a HUGE story in Israel. Wonder why? Think about it.

[Little Tich]

19. Without being too snarkastic,

is there any actual example under the US FARA that would be subject to the Israeli NGO law and / or vice versa that could prove your point?

But frankly, what did this Ezra Nawi bloke do that was so horrible and immoral? He did try to grass on someone who wasn't subject to PA law, so what did he do that was actually immoral?

[shira]

20. Let's put it this way...

Would you find it disturbing if - for example - Iran was found to be mostly funding an NGO within Israel that claims to advocate for Palestinian human rights?

The FARA act is far harsher than anything Israel is proposing:

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.

And here's why Israel's NGO law is required...

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.”

http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/us-criticizes-proposed-israeli-transparency-law-seeks-to-falsely-present-us-law-as-less-harsh/2016/01/11/2/

Just that latest 30,000 Euro contribution proves in itself how UNDEMOCRATIC these monetary contributions are. They wield power trying to influence Israeli politics against the wishes of most Israelis - who are overwhelmingly against these BDS affiliated groups - groups that are not accountable to voters.

============================

As to Ezra Nawi, he bragged about turning in Palestinians who were tortured and killed. He admitted he had done this in the past. What he did is criminal.

You don't find that problematic?

[Little Tich]

43. The US Embassy in Israel has issued a clarification explaining the difference between FARA and the

Israeli NGO law:

Embassy of the United States, Tel Aviv, January 11, 2016

Information on the U.S. Foreign Agents Registration Act

In the interest of clarifying understandings of relevant U.S. law, the U.S. Embassy offers the following information on the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), and notes where this U.S. law differs from the draft Israeli NGO law in certain respects.

As a general matter, U.S. law imposes no limits, restrictions, or transparency requirements on the receipt of foreign funding by NGOs operating in the United States, other than those generally applicable to all Americans.

In contrast, the draft Israeli law would target NGOs simply because they are funded principally by foreign government entities. That is not how the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) works. FARA requires individuals or organizations to register as foreign agents only if they engage in certain specified activities at the order, request, or under the direction or control, of a foreign principal – not simply by receiving contributions from such an entity. As a result, it does not create the chilling effect on NGO activities that we are concerned about in reviewing the draft Israeli NGO law.

Source: http://israel.usembassy.gov/press11012016c.html

[shira]

46. "...foreign agents only if they engage in certain specified activities at the order, request...

....or under the direction or control of a foreign principal".

EUROPE TO BREAKING THE SILENCE: BRING US AS MANY INCRIMINATING TESTIMONIES AS POSSIBLE

...Contrary to BtS’ claim that “the contents and opinions in this booklet do not express the position of the funders,” NGO Monitor research reveals that a number of funders made their grants conditional on the NGO obtaining a minimum number of negative “testimonies.” This contradicts BtS’ declarations and thus turns it into an organization that represents its foreign donors’ interest, severely damaging the NGO’s reliability and its ability to analyze complicated combat situations.

A screenshot of a document from 2009 (obtained from the Israeli Registrar of Non-Profits) shows how the British Embassy in Tel Aviv, the Dutch church-based aid organization ICCO (primarily funded by the Dutch government), and Oxfam Great Britain (funded by the British government) required Breaking the Silence to obtain negative testimonies (full translation available from NGO Monitor):

http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/europe_to_breaking_the_silence_bring_us_as_many_incriminating_testimonies_as_possible

Oxfam: the company [BtS] signed an agreement with Oxfam, a British organization, to conduct interviews with “as many” soldiers as possible who will testify regarding [Israeli] “immoral actions” that violate human rights. In 2009, the British organization donated 74,595 NIS to the organization.

ICCO: the agreement obligates the company to interview at least 90 soldiers a year, to prepare testimonies of female soldiers, document everything that is happening in Hebron and publish an “encyclopedia of the occupation”. The company received 42, 000 euros from the organization in 2009. The agreement is signed by both parties.

British Embassy: In this case as well, the donation is aimed at documenting and interviewing soldiers talking about the territories. The British embassy donated 271,891 NIS to the company in 2009.

Realize that's like someone funding the ADL and demanding they find at least 90 testimonies related to incidents of anti-semitism.

Besides - the US law is far more harsh in its penalties than the Israeli one - like prison time - which makes it far worse than Israel's.

[Little Tich]

51. First of all, NGO Monitor is clutching at straws if that's all the dirt they can find on BtS.

The document, if it's properly translated, simply details what's to be investigated. There's nothing that furthers the interests of the donors, it's only about human rights and furthering openness in the democratic discourse. NGO Monitor is trying to make it looks as if the promotion of human rights is something suspect. fortunately, Israel isn't Russia.

Secondly, this kind of activity wouldn't even remotely fall under FARA. To quote the US embassy: "FARA requires individuals or organizations to register as foreign agents only if they engage in certain specified activities at the order, request, or under the direction or control, of a foreign principal – not simply by receiving contributions from such an entity." You an also look at the FARA Act at the US Department of Justice for more info: http://www.fara.gov/indx-act.html

Thirdly, the Israeli NGO law goes after foreign government funding and is directed squarely at a certain segment of the political spectrum. FARA has nothing to do whatsover with the funding. In fact, none of the organizations targeted by the Israeli NGO law would be targeted by by FARA.

I feel as if I'm repeating myself, and if you can't produce a reality based argument, I see no point in continuing this discussion...

[shira]

53. That's all the dirt needed - foreign donations are based on # of negative testimonies.....

That's exactly FARA, yet FARA puts people in jail for violations, while Israel fines no more than $4000.

[shira]

34. The US FARA act is extremely harsh in comparison to the Israeli proposal....

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.

http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/us-criticizes-proposed-israeli-transparency-law-seeks-to-falsely-present-us-law-as-less-harsh/2016/01/11/0/

[azurnoir]

2. Israel's law sounds closer to the warnings on a pack of cigarettes that it does the US law

[shira]

3. Kirby didn't explain why Israel's proposed law is worse than America's.

Israel's law doesn't stop any NGO from doing what they are currently doing now. They only have to declare who they're being funded by.

If this call for transparency is so terrible, then so is labeling products from settlements. Can't have it both ways.

[Little Tich]

4. Since when has Ayelet Shaked ever done anything to further justice in Israel?

If it was about transparency I would have nothing against the NGO law, but it seems to be politically motivated only. Why only disclose state funding and not private funding? Why shouldn't Im Tirtzu, NGO-Monitor, Regavim, Hebron Fund and Lehava have to disclose their foreign donors just because they're not funded by foreign states? If these "NGOs" are funded by deranged American billionaires, I would like to know.

The Foreign Agents Registration Act in the US is in no way similar to the proposed Israeli NGO Law. Most of the organizations that would be subject to the proposed NGO law wouldn't be so if there was an Israeli version of the Foreign Agents Registration Act instead. It's all about whether those NGO are agents representing the interests of foreign powers or not, not about the funding itself. If you can find any similarities between the Israeli NGO Law and the Foreign Agents Registration Act, pray tell...

Wikipedia: Foreign Agents Registration Act
(snip)
Scope of the Act

The act requires people and organizations that are under foreign control ("agents of a foreign principal&quot to register with the Department of Justice when acting in any capacity, even if only indirectly controlled, on behalf of a foreign principal. It also requires periodic disclosure of all activities and finances. The Act covers political activities, public relations counsel, publicity agents, information-service employees, political consultants, fundraisers or those who represent the foreign power before any agency or official of the United States government. It does not include news or press services not owned by the foreign principal.

Examples of organizations lobbying on behalf of foreign governments are DLA Piper, Dickens & Madson Canada, Invest Northern Ireland, Japan National Tourism Organization and Netherlands Board of Tourism and Conventions, Ketchum Inc..

(end snip)

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Agents_Registration_Act

[azurnoir]

5. Thank you for the additional information

[Little Tich]

7. You're welcome. Writing things down and posting them helps me understand things better. n/t

[shira]

8. Israel's proposed law is almost identical to America's

Both require transparency due to foreign interests.

Neither the US or Israel currently call for such transparency WRT private donors.

==========

The fact is that you cannot clearly distinguish between the 2 Acts - demonstrating why one is superior to the other.

What's unique here is that the EU is funding fringe organizations (with budgets now exceeding $1M USD per year). That's unheard of anywhere else, including America. And its these fringe groups whose only purpose is demonization (actually Nazification) of Israel.

If you're for Colonialism, the EU is practicing precisely that with their disproportionate funding of fringe Israeli NGO's.

[shira]

10. To those condemning transparency of EU funded groups like Breaking The Silence.....

Ask yourself why you're really condemning this act. Read below....

A little follow-up (with thanks to Petra Marquardt-Bigman) to yesterday’s vibrant discussion, re: the exploitation of Israel as a kind of moral carnival for people in other countries who would rather not think about themselves too deeply.

It looks like the closest claimant to be the American “Breaking the Silence” right now (minus the foreign government funding, foreign language activities, foreign tours, and press attention) is called “Iraq Veterans Against the War.” If you look at their Facebook page, you’ll see they have just under 40,000 “likes.” If you look at Breaking the Silence’s page in English, you’ll see 205,000 “likes.”

To sum up: An organization operating in a superpower of 320 million people -- with an army more than double the size of Israel’s biggest city, two occupations only recently terminated and not quite resolved, and operations spanning the world and involving hundreds of thousands of casualties – has one-fifth the “likes” of a similar organization from a country that takes up one one-hundredth of one percent of the world’s surface. And these 205,000 "likes" are on a Facebook page in English, which is the language spoken in the former country but not the latter.

Everything’s completely normal. Carry on.

https://www.facebook.com/matti.friedman.1/posts/10156327794825416

The Israeli proposed law is basically no different than the American Law. Now given what you read above, why are you REALLY against it? Answer within the context of this post please.

My theory is the same as what's in the excerpt above. A lot of people (over 205,000 Facebook likes in English for the Israeli NGO BtS) get their rocks off Nazifying Israel.

[Little Tich]

14. First of all, I'm not so sure that "Iraq Veterans Against the War" is a direct US equivalent to

Breaking the Silence.

I don't want to speculate too much about who the people are who "like" BtS other than that the sheer amount of likes means that it's probably a wide variety of people with different reasons for their likes. So, it's not only a handful of forgotten lefties who like BtS. However, I can also say with some amount of certainty, that most of these likes are not from anti-Semites, for the simple reason that I know from experience that actual anti-Semites tend to gravitate towards harder stuff, and the pretty dull and crisp accounts from BTS are definitely not the "Dirlewanger" stories they would want to hear.

But still, why so many likes? Perhaps they're just very good at marketing themselves - to publish their stories in English was obviously a good move. It's also possible that their work strikes a nerve among some people who oppose the occupation and the perceived low moral standards of the IDF. I don't know about the others, but that's why I support BtS.

Finally, I think BtS has somehow picked up a fallen torch, that they are the real voice of the moral conscience of the IDF. BtS is trying to uphold the high ethical standards that they believe should be the essence of the spirit of the IDF.

But to answer your question - No, I don't think the Foreign Agents Registration Act is even remotely similar. They target different types of organizations for different purposes. I truly fail to see how promoting democracy and openness can be targetted as meddling by foreign governments. There's no "nazifying" going on here.

[Israeli]

16. Ambassador Shapiro Tells Minister Shaked: ......

U.S. Concerned by 'NGO Transparency Bill'

Shapiro makes it clear to the justice minister that, in contrast to her assertions, the bill has no similarity whatsoever to any legislation in the United States.

Barak Ravid Jan 11, 2016

United States Ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro has expressed his government’s concerns over potential adverse effects of the "transparency bill" that Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked is pushing through the Knesset in a meeting he held with her Sunday.

The bill would require Israeli NGOs that receive a majority of their funding from foreign governments to be labeled as such when in the Knesset. A senior American official remarked that Shapiro made it clear to Shaked that in contrast to her assertions, the bill has no similarity whatsoever to any legislation in the United States.

Shaked’s bill passed through the Ministerial Committee for Legislation a few weeks ago and is now being debated in the Knesset. The meeting between Shapiro and Shaked followed other meetings the ambassador has had in recent weeks with Foreign Ministry and Prime Minister’s Office officials, in which he informed them that the United States is dissatisfied with this bill.

The ambassadors of Germany, the United Kingdom, France, the Netherlands and the European Union have conveyed similar messages reached Shaked and the PMO.

On Monday, the U.S. embassy issued a highly irregular announcement regarding the Shapiro-Shaked meeting.

“Among the topics discussed was the government’s draft NGO bill, which would require Israeli NGOs who receive a majority of their funding from foreign governments to be labeled as such,” stated the announcement. “Ambassador Shapiro sought more information about the draft legislation from the Minister, and noted the U.S. government’s concerns on the matter.”

The U.S. embassy further stated: “The Ambassador noted that Israel is a strong and vibrant democracy, which gives substantial voice to all points of view and promotes a thriving, transparent civil society.  He reiterated the United States’ view that such a free and functioning civil society is an essential element of a healthy democracy, and that governments must protect free expression and peaceful dissent and create an atmosphere where all voices can be heard.”

A senior U.S, official remarked that one of the goals of the meeting was to respond to claims that Shaked has made in recent weeks that her bill is no different from the American’s foreign agent law. Shapiro told Shaked there is absolutely no similarity between the two.

The U.S. embassy issued an additional statement in which it provided information about the differences between the American law and the justice minister’s bill. It noted that the U.S. law does not put any limitations or additional demands of transparency on NGOs that receive donations from abroad “other than those generally applicable” to all American citizens.

“In contrast, the draft Israeli law would target NGOs simply because they are funded principally by foreign government entities. That is not how the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) works,” the embassy remarked. “FARA requires individuals or organizations to register as foreign agents only if they engage in certain specified activities at the order, request, or under the direction or control, of a foreign principal – not simply by receiving contributions from such an entity.  As a result, it does not create the chilling effect on NGO activities that we are concerned about in reviewing the draft Israeli NGO law.”

Source: http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.696709

[shira]

18. Israeli, see my question in #17 above...

You said Ezra Nawi is wrong for ratting on Palestinians who sell land to Jews. That it's wrong to turn them in to PA authorities who would harm or kill them.

So what are your thoughts on B'tselem, Amira Hass, Gideon Levy, etc... supporting and defending Nawi?

[6chars]

23. Not the US' business

[King_David]

24. And I'm not sure who here exactly is talking for the US

It's probably just some individual with an opinion- may not be official US opinion.

[azurnoir]

28. yep that's what Ayelet Shaked said too

http://www.timesofisrael.com/shaked-tells-us-not-to-worry-about-ngo-bill/

[Israeli]

31. From your link ......

The bill has riled politicians and political activists in Israel and abroad.

“The cabinet decision to approve the twisted NGO bill is a bullet between the eyes for Israel’s standing in the world,” Israeli opposition leader Isaac Herzog (Zionist Union) said last month. “Our enemies are giving a big thank you to the Israeli government, which has put us on the same level with the darkest countries in the world.”

Next KD and shira will be asking ....." I'm not sure who here exactly is talking for Israel "
..." It's probably just some individual with an opinion- may not be official Israeli opinion. "

[Israeli]

45. Israel’s NGO Law Inspired by Non-democratic Regimes, Certainly Not by the U.S.

Ayelet Shaked’s proposed bill is no pale imitation of any U.S. law, as the justice minister has tried to suggest. Instead it transparently supports discrimination against human rights activism in Israel.

Frances Raday Jan 13, 2016

The proposed Transparency Law is creating unwelcome transparency for Minister Ayelet Shaked and the Israeli government that approved it. The so-called transparency, which the proposers sought, was to “expose” NGOs that receive a majority of their support from “foreign political entities” by requiring them to detail their foreign “political” funding every time they put out a report and to wear a tag when they speak with a public official. Failure to do so would result in a NIS 29,000 fine.

The unwelcome transparency is the condemnation by international media and the U.S. administration of the undemocratic nature of Israel’s government initiatives. The proposed law was condemned by the Washington Post as “the kind of tactic that Russia and China have employed to squelch dissent, and … not in keeping with Israel’s core values as a democratic state”.

Minister Shaked, in response, asserted that the requirements her bill stipulates are "much less stringent than those imposed by the United States upon similar types of activity." However, her comparison was rejected out of hand by U.S. State Department spokesman John Kirby. U.S. Ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro also made an unusually high-profile rejection of the comparison noting U.S. law does not “create the chilling effect on NGO activities that we are concerned about in reviewing the draft Israeli NGO law.”

Where does the truth lie?

The U.S. Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) requires any person or organization that is an “agent of a foreign principal” to register with the Justice Department, disclose the foreign principal and under certain circumstances to make periodic public disclosure of their relationship with the foreign principal. With a little knowledge, it becomes clear that the U.S. legislation does not in practice impact NGOs at all. FARA’s registration requirement is not triggered by mere receipt of foreign funds, rather it is triggered by an organization being controlled and directed by a foreign entity. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, “not a single one of these [civil society organization (“CSOs”)] has been required to register under FARA, despite receiving millions of dollars in foreign funding.”

Unlike the Shaked version, FARA is actually directed against those recipients of foreign funding who, as agents of a foreign principal, seek economic or electoral gains. The foreign principals can include governments, political parties, a person or organization outside the United States, and any entity having its principal place of business in a foreign country. In the opinion posted by the Concord Center for Integration of international law in Israel, it was emphasized that if the aim of the proposed legislation is truly transparency, it must cover funding by business or financial supporters of all public and political activities and not only foreign government funding which is, in effect, exclusively, for NGO human rights activities.

No: the Israeli proposal is not a pale imitation of any U.S. law. Rather it fits well into the developing restraints imposed on NGO activities by a series of non-democratic or non-OECD countries, whom Minister Shaked did not cite. Middle East and North African countries have been introducing requirements for prior approval of foreign contributions. Russia and the Ukraine have opted for stigmatization of international funding for NGOs by labelling them foreign agents and in Russia donations will not be tax exempt unless the NGO is on a list approved by the government. Other countries impose burdensome registration or reporting requirements. There are no new ideas in the plethora of restrictive measures which the current Israeli government has considered or is considering. But they do not come from North America or Western Europe which is where the government claims Israel should be counted as a fully democratic modern state.

As we detailed in our opinion, international human right norms protect cross-border funding for NGOs. The United Nations Declaration on Human Rights Defenders clearly states that access to resources is a self-standing right, based on freedom of association and freedom of expression: “Everyone has the right, individually and in association with others, to solicit, receive and utilize resources for the express purpose of promoting and protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms through peaceful means….”. According to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, this right specifically encompasses the receipt of funds from abroad and states must ensure that they do not discriminatorily impose restrictions on potential sources of funding.

Shaked’s proposed law discriminates against NGOs as compared with other public or political protagonists who seek economic or electoral gain and who have free access to foreign funding. And it discriminates against foreign government funding compared with funding by foreign businesses or financial interests. This discrimination is transparent. It reveals that the real purpose of the government is not transparency, which exists already under the existing registration and reporting requirements for NGOs, but is an intention to restrict and reduce human rights activism in Israel.

Frances Raday is the president of the Concord Research Center for Integration of International Law in Israel, The Haim Striks School of Law, College of Management; Professor of Law, Emerita, Hebrew  University; Honorary Professor, University College, London; and Special Rapporteur, UN Human Rights Council, Expert Group on Discrimination against Women.


Source: http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.697204