NGO Malpractice

political parties.” 3 In addition, Blitt demonstrates
that NGOs that deal with human rights elicit
“instinctive support amongst the general
public.” 4
NGOs often use a lexicon formulated from
international human rights documents adopted
in the years following World War II, such as the
UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Even when advocating a specific, localized,
and controversial campaign, NGOs are able to
present it as important, urgent, and a violation
of consensus norms and mainstream moral
positions. By such means, opposition to the
NGOs’ private and at times radical agenda
becomes a rejection of modern civility and
ethics.
An added degree of credibility is granted to
providers of medical assistance and relief –
stemming from popular notions of morally
objective doctors who diagnose problems with
wisdom and expertise – exacerbating the general
“halo effect.” As a result of this “double halo
effect,” medical NGOs are rarely challenged on
their organizational biases or questioned about
the accuracy of their fact-finding.
The “halo effect” also compensates for the lack
of expertise in the military, legal, and diplomatic
spheres where NGOs often campaign. Aware of
the esteem in which they are held, organizations
promote highly distorted narratives and
unverifiable statements. NGO claims that could
be easily verified (or disproven) by the media are
published without scrutiny. Moreover, officials
of medical NGOs are invited to opine in even the
most reputable news media on subjects outside
their medical expertise.
They also solicit and receive donations from a
broad range of well-respected institutions, often
as a direct result of the “double halo effect.” As
3 Gerald M. Steinberg, “The Centrality of NGOs in Promoting
Anti-Israel Boycotts and Sanctions,” Jewish Political Studies
Review 21, no. 1–2 (Spring 2009).
4 Robert C. Blitt, “Who Will Watch the Watchdogs?
International Human Rights Nongovernmental Organizations
and the Case for Regulation,” Buffalo Human Rights Law Review
10 (2005): 263.
will be discussed below, the NGOs in this report
– including groups based in Israel, the West
Bank, and Gaza – receive significant funding
from European governments, prominent private
foundations, and United Nations bodies. For
example, over half of Physicians for Human
Rights-Israel’s income from donations in 2011
originated with governments.
The political impact of this NGO network
extends beyond media exposure and fundraising
directly into the political process. NGOs
routinely “use their access to influence agendas,
speak in the proceedings, meet both formally
and informally with the UN officials and
participating diplomats, and submit documents
that are quoted in the final reports.” 5 At the UN
and other multinational bodies, 6 accreditation
allows NGOs to join official forums, network
with diplomats, and affect deliberations. In other
words, accreditation provides non-representative
groups special access to international decision
makers.
Most critically, accreditation allows NGOs
to submit both oral and written “evidence”
to various UN institutions. This “evidence,”
having been uncritically accepted by a UN body,
becomes a matter of record. For example, the
discredited Goldstone Report on the warfare
in Gaza during 2009 quoted a joint report
from Physicians for Human Rights-Israel and
Palestinian Medical Relief Society, 7 which
speculated about “the use of weapons whose
potential long-term impact on individual
5 Ann M. Florini, “Who Does What? Collective Action and
the Changing Nature of Authority,” in Non-State Actors and
Authority in the Global System, ed. Richard A. Higgott, Geoffrey
R.D. Underhill, and Andreas Bieler (London: Routledge, 2004),
199.
6 Steinberg, “The Centrality of NGOs in Promoting Anti-Israel
Boycotts and Sanctions,” 7.
7 Sebastian Van As et al., “Independent Fact-finding Mission
into Violations of Human Rights in the Gaza Strip During
the Period 27.12.2008 – 18.01.2009” (Physicians for Human
Rights –Israel and Palestinian Medical Relief Society,
April 2009), available at http://www.phr.org.il/uploaded/
FullFactFindReport.pdf.
ngo malpractice page 5