Introduction

Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik German Institute for International and Security Affairs Comment

The Rise of “Bad Civil Society” in Israel WP

Nationalist Civil Society Organizations and the Politics of Delegitimization S Amal Jamal

Civil society in Israel has been undergoing a growing conflict that mirrors broader trends taking place in Israeli society, namely the conflict between the rising conserva- tive nationalist social forces and the dwindling liberal and humanist camp represented by human rights organizations (HROs). There has been a clear rise in the power of con- servative nationalist civil society organizations (CSOs), which receive firm support from politicians who have influential positions in the Israeli government. These organizations have been leading aggressive political and media campaigns against HROs, especially those involved in defending the rights of Palestinians living under Israeli occupation in the West Bank and under siege in the Gaza Strip. The conservative nationalist CSOs accuse HROs of being anti-patriotic and cooperating with the enemies of society and the state. They utilize three strategies to promote their agenda. The first is delegitimiz- ing HROs through naming and shaming tactics. They lead well-orchestrated political and media campaigns that associate HROs with terrorist organizations. The second is silencing HROs by shaming the institutions – educational, cultural, and media – that invite the former to speak to their audiences. The third strategy is cutting off the sources of funding for HROs through lobbying activities in donor countries and putting pres- sure on governments to stop their funding of the former.

Any observer of the Israeli political scene cratic procedures to silence and delegiti- over the last several years cannot miss the mize any critiques of government policies, well-orchestrated legal and political cam- especially those voiced by HROs highlight- paigns against liberal social forces and ing the ramifications of the expanding HROs in Israel. These campaigns, led by a settlement project on the daily lives of Pal- coalition of conservative nationalist CSOs estinians in the West Bank. The campaigns and very influential politicians and politi- against HROs, which have received popular cal parties represented in the Knesset, are backing and acceptance by the government, tied strongly to the rising power of radical are only one component of a broader trans- nationalist social forces in Israeli society. formation taking place in Israeli society The unholy alliance between nationalist and politics over the last few years. This CSOs and legislators makes use of demo- broader transformation has been institu-

Prof. Dr. Amal Jamal is Head of International Graduate Program in Political Science and Political Communication and Head of the SWP Comment 2 Walter Lebach Institute for Jewish-Arab Coexistence at Tel Aviv University. He was a visiting fellow in the project “Israel and its regional January 2018 and global conflicts: Domestic developments, security issues and foreign affairs”. The project is conducted within the Middle East and Africa Division of SWP and funded by the German Federal Foreign Office.

1 tionalized within major legislative pro- activism and democracy and liberal values cesses and policies that target not only has been fiercely challenged over the last HROs, but also liberal social forces, minor- few decades. Many scholars have demon- ities, and critical media outlets. These same strated that CSOs could be deeply involved processes are responsible for the rising ten- in anti-democratic initiatives and the ex- sions between proponents of the settlers’ clusive promotion of nationalist, religious, movement in the occupied Palestinian ter- or racialist ideals. These experiences have ritories (OPTs) – including East Jerusalem – led to the differentiation between “good” on the one hand, and supporters of Israeli and “bad” civil society, based on the con- withdrawal from these areas in order to tributions of CSOs toward the promotion – protect the Jewish and democratic char- or the dismantling – of open and democratic acter of the Israeli state, on the other. societies. Bad civil society is not marked by This process of radicalization has not opposition to the liberal worldview or criti- been linear, and there has been strong push- cism of liberal opponents, but mainly by back by liberal forces seeking to protect the the combination of advancing chauvinistic liberal spaces in Israeli society. Nonetheless, nationalist or religious ideals and targeting the well-orchestrated efforts to reduce the the legitimate existence of liberal opponents liberal-democratic spaces that have charac- through various means, especially shaming, terized the Israeli political system through stigmatizing, silencing, and lobbying tactics the promotion of illiberal, religious-nation- that are aimed at outlawing or shrinking alist, and anti-human-rights ideals seem to the financial resources of their opponents. have gained the upper hand. The process This normative differentiation is not of radicalization, especially as reflected in strictly dichotomous and is contiguous. the campaigns against HROs, goes beyond CSOs whose raison d’être is the tolerance the traditional, well-known differentiation of differences in the name of civic values – between right and left in Israel and could even when they promote conservative be viewed as gaining traction in the com- worldviews – differ from CSOs that utilize petition for influence on state polices in the open civic sphere to propagate a chau- various fields, especially in economic, secu- vinistic nationalist worldview, and in this rity, and foreign policy, as well as the char- spirit view critical civic initiatives as detri- acter and identity of the state of Israel. mental to society and the state. These CSOs The conflict between conservative nation- view differences in perceptions of society alist CSOs and the HROs in Israel is strongly and the state as being sufficient justifica- related to a broader debate in the profes- tion for silencing or delegitimizing others. sional literature concerning the nature and CSOs that cross the boundaries of legiti- role of civil society in democratic cultures. mate debate on differences, advance a It has been a common tenet in the pro- narrow, nationalist worldview, and lobby fessional literature that civil society is for state practices that delegitimize, stig- largely comprised of those civil initiatives, matize, silence, or seek to outlaw critical movements, and organizations that seek CSOs – thereby limiting the space for dif- to promote and protect civic and liberal ferences and debate in civil society – could values – such as pluralism, tolerance, free- be depicted as “bad civil society.” dom, social justice, and human rights – One cannot but speak of the rise of bad against restrictive state policies. This per- civil society in Israel when looking at the ception of civil society, known as “the civil transformations taking place in Israeli civil society argument,” considers vibrant civic society. In addition to those mentioned activism as a major reason for – and guar- above, a growing number of CSOs are cross- antor of – the rise and sustainability of ing the boundaries of legitimate competi- democratic regimes and cultures. However, tion between different worldviews and pro- a one-dimensional affinity between civic moting hate speech, exclusive nationalist

SWP Comment 2 January 2018

2 values and practices, attacking HROs and anti-democratic values and norms, which delegitimizing their role, and cooperating undermines civil and democratic ideals with political parties in order to promote and liberal freedoms and brings the entire legislation that seeks to silence liberal democratic system into question. Below are CSOs and narrow the democratic spaces a few basic examples that demonstrate the in society and the state. tools and policies utilized by “bad civil The rising influence of nationalist CSOs – society” organizations in their attempts to such as Im Tirtzu, My Israel, Regavim, Leava, determine the results of their “war” against Shurat HaDin, the Institute for Zionist HROs and their liberal supporters. Strategy, NGO Monitor, and many others – illustrates this process, despite the fact that these CSOs are not equally radical and Attacking Academic Freedom and aggressive in their worldviews, goals, and Silencing Liberal Voices means. They do not fall within the tradi- One of the best examples of the policies tional “right”/“left” political dichotomy of and tools utilized by nationalist CSOs is Israel. Nonetheless, most of them utilize the silencing of liberal voices in the Israeli nationalist discourse to win support, stig- public sphere, especially in academia. Im matize liberal HROs as enemies, and facili- Tirtzu and the Institute for Zionist Strat- tate sophisticated lobbying policies that egies started a media campaign in 2009– delegitimize HROs and frame them as anti- 2010 seeking to put limits on academic patriotic political organizations, thereby freedom in Israel. They sought to intimi- encouraging government measures that date academic institutions based on the will cut them off from their financial political worldviews of some of their pro- resources. One of the common features fessors. They demanded that these insti- of the policies of these organizations is tutions identify academic staff members blurring the differences between marking according to the degree of their loyalties the violations of basic human rights of to the Zionist values of the state. The well- Palestinians and making accusations that orchestrated campaign of these two nation- HROs are protecting – or even assisting – alist CSOs started with the presentation terrorists or associated individuals and of selective data concerning the teaching organizations. syllabi of professors and measuring their These CSOs are advocating and lobbying pro- or post-Zionist commitments. The two for more nationalist government policies organizations argued in their “studies” that and mobilizing popular support through most of the literature taught by most of the the stigmatization not only of HROs, but professors in the departments of sociology also the liberal social forces supporting and political science was critical of Israel them. They are also utilizing media cam- and represented an ideological bias of post- paigns in order to frame HROs as “enemies Zionist or anti-Zionist tendencies question- of the state and society.” Such efforts go ing the moral justifications of the state beyond legitimate competition between of Israel. The well-orchestrated campaign various CSOs over state policies and over sought to shame the publicly funded aca- public opinion, which, according to the demic institutions and mobilize public professional literature, reflect the essence opinion against them. The two organiza- of civil society. Nationalist CSOs also dis- tions lobbied the education committee in approve of the basic values of pluralism the Knesset, dominated by nationalist par- when these do not match their perceptions ties, to discuss their reports and demand of reality. The cooperation of “bad civil that universities take action against pro- society” with – and support from – govern- fessors critical of the official Zionist nar- ment ministries and central political par- rative and of government policies toward ties feeds the Israeli public sphere with Palestinians.

SWP Comment 2 January 2018

3 This campaign against academic free- Delegitimizing and Stigmatizing HROs dom manifested itself again with the initia- Another example illustrating the problem- tive – supported by Education Minister Naf- atic character of the new generation of tali Bennett – from the Habayit Hayehudi nationalist CSOs are the harsh critiques of (Jewish Home) Party to draft an “ethical 20 HROs compiled in a very selective and code” for all academic institutions in Israel. slanted report published by Im Tirtzu in The declarations made by the minister and 2015. “The Foreign Agents 2015” report por- the involvement of Im Tirtzu and other trays the 20 HROs, such as B’Tselem, Yesh nationalist CSOs in lobbying for the ethical Din, Adallah, and others, as “political propa- code reflected the deep affinity between ganda organizations that act from within nationalist CSOs and government minis- with broad financial support of foreign coun- tries. Declarations made by the education tries against Israeli society, against soldiers minister made it clear that the code sought of the IDF and against the ability of the state to fight against post-Zionist professors in to protect itself in its war against terror.” academia. CSOs supporting this position The Im Tirtzu report was accompanied sought to limit academics from expressing by a media campaign and a controversial any political views on publicly disputed video called “The Foreign Agents – Re- topics while teaching. The proposed ethical vealed!,” in which several well-known civic code reflected the real intentions of the activists were associated with HROs and minister and his supporters in civil society, accused of being foreign agents as well as since “political activity” was defined in broad assisting the enemies of the state by raising terms. According to the initiative, any money from foreign countries in order to activity that reflects “support” for or “oppo- support these enemies or defend them in sition” to a political party or representative the courts. It states: “While we fight terror, of a political party – or that could be con- they fight us,” clearly portraying these ceived of as taking a position vis-à-vis a dis- CSOs as enemies of Israeli society. Depicting puted public issue being discussed in the HROs as cooperating with the enemies of Knesset and/or in the public sphere – should the people in a situation of war was aimed be viewed as being unethical and should be at delegitimizing them and inciting the punished. Implementing such an under- public and the state to take action against standing would have translated into a situa- them. As a result of the campaign, many tion in which voices critical of the current human rights activists expressed their fears status quo, especially the settler movement of being attacked on the streets. in the OPTs, would be silenced. The extremist and inciting language of Whereas most academic institutions, the video led politicians – even from the liberal intellectuals, and student unions conservative right – to express dissatisfac- viewed this effort as a clear attempt to limit tion with it, including Prime Minister Ben- academic freedom and silence voices criti- jamin Netanyahu, who argued that he does cal of government policies, many conserva- not like the idea of naming those who do tive nationalist CSOs expressed satisfaction not agree with him as enemies. Nonethe- with putting an ethical code in place. In less, many nationalist CSOs and politicians response, 300 academics signed a petition supported the spirit of the video and pushed in December 2016 stating that they would for legislation to put an end to this phe- ignore the instructions of the ethical code nomenon. and expressed outrage at the attempts to promote censorship in academia. The cam- paign has not ended yet, and efforts to Lobbying against the Funding of HROs shame academic institutions and personnel Another example of the rising exclusionist continue. character of nationalist CSOs in Israel are the efforts to block the financial support of

SWP Comment 2 January 2018

4 HROs. A case at hand are the efforts being reduce the massive amount of government made by NGO Monitor – led by a Bar-Ilan funding – for what it considers radical CSOs University professor, Gerald Steinberg – – received directly from the EU, its 28 mem- to reach out to foundations and states and ber states, Norway, and Switzerland, as well present them with data that associates as through indirect channels via European their support for HROs with anti-Israel cam- Christian aid frameworks. It admits that, paigns – such as boycott, divestment, and in 2013, it made significant progress in a sanctions (BDS) – with anti-Semitic initia- number of key areas following a strategy tives or even terrorist organizations. The described as “naming and shaming.” Ac- intentions of NGO Monitor are stated in its cordingly, it claims that the efforts have documents, namely “providing information produced important results, including the and analysis, promoting accountability, discontinuation of European funding for and supporting discussion on the reports a number of politicized CSOs active in the and activities of NGOs, claiming to advance Arab-Israeli conflict. One good example human rights and humanitarian agendas.” to illustrate NGO Monitor’s strategy is its Despite its strong cooperation with govern- lobbying in the United States (US) and the ment officials, the organization distances United Kingdom (UK) against donations for itself from the government, stating that it the New Israel Fund (NIF). The representa- “was founded jointly with the Wechsler tives of NGO Monitor target potential NIF Family Foundation,” that all its funding donors to convince them to stop their sup- “is provided by private donors and founda- port for it, since the NIF, in their view, pro- tions,” and that it “receives no governmen- motes anti-Israeli political projects, illus- tal support.” The diplomatic formulations trated by the support given to the Associa- of NGO Monitor cannot hide its coopera- tion of Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) and tion with government offices, such as the Adalah. These efforts followed an accusa- Ministry of Strategic Affairs and the Minis- tion made by Im Tirtzu that CSOs supported try of Foreign Affairs, or with nationalist by the NIF stood behind most of the infor- members of the Knesset, in order to pro- mation provided to the Goldstone Report, mote its goals of delegitimizing HROs and which accused the Israeli army of violating diminishing their financial resources. The international humanitarian law during tactics of NGO Monitor are: having its rep- Operation Cast Lead in Gaza in 2008. An- resentatives appear together with officials other example is the “Domino Strategy,” of the Israeli state in international settings presented by NGO Monitor in its 2016 and presenting a common position; attack- report. This strategy aims to put pressure ing Israeli and Palestinian HROs; accusing on European governments to review their them of providing false information with funding for what NGO Monitor considers regard to Israeli policies in the OPTs; and “anti-Israeli NGOs” by lobbying the respec- associating them with either BDS activities, tive parliaments. This was implemented in anti-Semitic activities, or even terrorist several European parliaments, including organizations. Steinberg, president of NGO the Netherlands, Switzerland, Denmark, Monitor, argued that “[l]arge-scale foreign the UK, Germany, Norway, Finland, and (mostly European) government funding to the European Parliament. Israeli political groups, under facades such These efforts of shaming and silencing as civil society, human rights, peace- or are strongly related to efforts made by democracy-building, and which does not other nationalist CSOs to promote nation- take place in any other democracy, is seen alist legislation, such as the promotion of as an attack on Israeli sovereignty and the “Nation-State Bill” of the Institute for democratic self-determination.” Zionist Strategies. Aside from the many bills NGO Monitor states that one of its pri- awaiting discussion in the Knesset, these mary objectives in Europe is to significantly efforts aim at restructuring the Israeli state

SWP Comment 2 January 2018

5 and regime while submitting democracy to bition of Foreign Political Entity’s Support nationalist and religious values. The religion- of Political Associations in Israel) in March ization process taking place in Israeli soci- 2010 and again in November 2011. The pur- ety, as reflected in many public opinion sur- pose was to prevent associations in Israel veys, puts wind in the sails of these trends. from receiving donations from foreign gov- ernments and institutions (the UN, the EU), since, according to the bill, the “human Legislating the Surveillance of HROs rights organizations” were acting provoca- The attacks on HROs also come from high tively in their attempts to influence Israel’s up in the government. This is reflected in a political discourse, its nature, and policies. clear legislative process in the Knesset that On February 27, 2012, five right-wing establishes the differences between legiti- MKs – Michael Ben-Ari, Aryeh Eldad, Nissim mate and illegitimate civic engagement Ze’ev, Ronit Tirosh, and Uri Ariel – proposed and activism. This process seeks to avoid an amendment regarding maximum wages being characterized as anti-civil or anti- in CSOs, intending to “[block] attempts for liberal while still being able to put pressure unsuitable and unbalanced exploitation and limits on particular forms of civic of public funds in public CSOs.” After the engagement and certain CSOs, especially 2013 elections, efforts continued toward those that are associated with the “peace legislating against CSOs thought to be camp” or promote the language of human “harming” Israel’s image and “assisting” rights and social justice for all, including enemies of the state. On December 15, Palestinians. 2013, the ministerial legislative committee A good example is the so-called NGO Law, approved a bill proposed by Ayelet Shaked, whose precursors date back to at least 2007. an MK of the Jewish Home Party who be- Since then, the Knesset has seen various came Israel’s Minister of Justice after the attempts to advance an amendment that 2015 elections; this was the first step before aims at enforcing the state’s supervision and forwarding the bill to parliament. The bill surveillance of CSO activities and financing, sought to impose a tax of 45 percent on all especially by the CSO Registrar in the Jus- organizations receiving donations from for- tice Ministry. One of the most prominent eign entities and included punitive meas- amendments to the law is Amendment 36a ures for activities involving calls to boycott from 2008, which requires CSOs to reveal Israel or attempts to put soldiers on trial in their sources of financing and reinforces international courts. previous state supervisory provisions. The approval of the bill on the govern- Extreme nationalist members of the Knes- ment level led opposition leaders to voice set (MKs) were not satisfied with the 2008 their critiques. The opposition leader at the amendments. Political parties in Netanya- time, MK Isaac Herzog of the Labor Party, hu’s second government since 2009 – espe- clearly stated that the committee’s decision cially Israel Beytenu and Shas, and assisted was “dark, anti-democratic, and shut the by key members in the ruling Likud Party – mouths of those who dare to think differ- sought the tightening of state supervision ently from it. The next phase of the imple- over HROs, arguing that they endangered mentation of the law is the establishment national security and served foreign inter- of thought police that will determine who ests. The right-wing parties’ aspirations will pay a fine because of his views and who were based on allegations made by nation- will not, who will enter the black political alist CSOs, such as Im Tirtzu, that HROs are list and who will not. Israel is becoming less financed by foreign governments and hos- and less democratic.” tile foundations. Legislative efforts to curb civil society MK Ofir Akunis proposed an amendment activism continued also after the 2015 elec- of the same NGO Law (Amendment – Prohi- tions. Shaked, now Minister of Justice, was

SWP Comment 2 January 2018

6 heading the entire justice system and has ter, and noted the US government’s con- continued her efforts to censor critiques of cerns on the matter.” Furthermore, German the government voiced by liberal CSOs and Chancellor Angela Merkel expressed her to limit the activities of HROs in the OPTs concern about the proposed NGO’s Trans- who reveal the violations of basic human parency Bill in a meeting with Prime Minis- rights of Palestinians that result from poli- ter Netanyahu on February 16, 2016, in cies promoted mainly by Shaked’s party. Berlin. Human rights activists defined the The justification utilized this time to pro- meaning of the legislative process as a way mote the repressive legislation was the need of branding them “traitors.” Many argued for transparency. On July 16, 2016, the gov- that it was worrying since it was coming ernment managed to gain a majority of from high up in the government, as well votes (57–48) and passed the “Transparency as from the mainstream press. Bill” in the Knesset. The ideological nature The bill, promoted by Justice Minister of the new law is revealed through the fact Shaked, was added to the list of laws in that it does not relate to CSOs funded by Israel that, in the name of “progressive” private sources, which is the case for most ideals, promote more government surveil- major CSOs associated with the conserva- lance and control over the activities and tive nationalist right. Hence, the wording engagement of liberal and human rights of the law was intentionally formulated to civic activists. Indicative of the spirit of the protect them. times were the words expressed by opposi- Prime Minister Netanyahu supported the tion leader Isaac Herzog, who said that the move, clarifying that “[t]ransparency is the NGO Law “is indicative, more than any- heart of democracy. When you hear about thing, of the budding fascism creeping into the use and abuse of NGOs here – transpar- Israeli society.” ency is the least we want and is much war- ranted and it is common sense. Israel is being held to a different standard here.” This Policy Recommendations argument by Netanyahu – whose personal 1) It is important for leading democratic position was revealed in his decision to can- countries – especially those close to Israel, cel a planned meeting in April 2017 with such as Germany, the UK, the Netherlands, German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel France, Italy, Australia, and Canada – to ex- for the latter’s meeting with two leading press their critiques of the legislative meas- HROs in Israel – reflects the cunning attempt ures of the Israeli parliament and in the to instrumentalize democratic transparency public sphere. Popular anti-liberal and anti- in order to put pressure on HROs. human rights trends have the upper hand, Ambassadors of Germany, the UK, France, especially since they are supported by pro- Holland, the EU, and the US expressed con- minent leaders such as Prime Minister cern about the proposed legislation. The Netanyahu. Nonetheless, the political real- European Commission criticized the bill, ity in Israel is fluid and dynamic. Exerting saying that its demands on CSOs would go pressure from the outside – especially on “beyond the legitimate need for transpar- states that provide economic assistance not ency” and that it is seemingly “aimed at only to liberal CSOs, but also to the Israeli constraining the activities of these CSOs government, which diverts some of these working in Israel.” resources to the promotion of nationalist After a meeting of the Ambassador with projects that violate human rights – could Israeli Justice Minister Shaked, the Ameri- be of great importance in insisting on demo- can Embassy in Tel Aviv issued an unusual cratic, liberal, and human rights values. press statement in which it stated that “Am- 2) Donors, whether governments or pri- bassador Shapiro sought more information vate institutions, should not fall into the about the draft legislation from the Minis- trap of the populist discourse propagated

SWP Comment 2 January 2018

7 by nationalist CSOs that seek to blur the efforts to influence state policies focus on differences between marking violations the legality of government decisions and of basic human rights of Palestinians and avoid ideological polemics; they focus on accusations made by nationalist CSOs that asking the state to implement its own laws HROs protect or even assist terrorists or rather than seeking to change them. State associated individuals and organizations. laws protecting human and citizenship This line of thinking is propagated in order rights are based on values that all demo- to embarrass democratic governments, cratic and liberal states share. These values which are then accused by nationalist CSOs are not necessarily respected by nationalist of acting against their own official posi- CSOs, and therefore the latter cannot be tions. Nationalist CSOs seek to link the pro- put on the same level with liberal HROs. cess of assisting HROs in Israel with being The latter have to engage in an internal anti-Israeli, or even anti-Semitic, knowing battle for their mere survival in Israel in that none of the donor states would toler- the face of common attacks orchestrated

© Stiftung Wissenschaft und ate being affiliated with such activities. by nationalist CSOs as well as nationalist Politik, 2018 The communicative strategies and dis- politicians and parties in the Knesset and All rights reserved course of nationalist CSOs, such as those of the government. This Comment reflects NGO Monitor, are not limited to personal One should note that certain donors the author’s views. meetings with state officials. They also in- such as the Ford Foundation have stopped The online version of this clude very sophisticated appeals to mem- supporting CSOs in Israel, making it more publication contains func- bers of parliaments and to public opinion difficult for CSOs to fight against their own tioning links to other SWP texts and other relevant in the targeted states in order to pressure delegitimization and for their survival. It sources. governments. Such strategies cannot be is clear that nationalist CSOs are seeking to

SWP Comments are subject implemented without the cooperation of engage liberal HROs in a survival struggle to internal peer review, fact- government officials and ministries in instead of defending liberalism and human checking and copy-editing. Israel. Since the targeted governments in rights. Liberal foundations must take note SWP Europe and elsewhere have not shied away of the unique circumstances in which en- Stiftung Wissenschaft und from meeting representatives of nationalist emies of liberal and democratic values uti- Politik German Institute for CSOs, they have enabled them to translate lize civil society tools to fight against them. International and their threats to appeal to the public into 4) It is very important for governments Security Affairs successful policy. These governments could and donors to invite Israeli HROs and other Ludwigkirchplatz 3­4 and should have a say in countering argu- liberal CSOs promoting democratic values 10719 Berlin Telephone +49 30 880 07-0 ments made by nationalist CSOs accusing to participate in public events in Europe Fax +49 30 880 07-100 them of supporting “anti-Israel NGOs.” If and elsewhere in order to demonstrate their www.swp-berlin.org these governments wish to help Israel save support for them, legitimate their activ- [email protected] the remaining liberal and democratic ities, and open channels that enable the ISSN 1861-1761 spaces it has, they have to stipulate their CSOs to communicate information and support for the Israeli state by respecting transmit knowledge. the rights of HROs to defend their values. 5) It is very crucial that Western media Furthermore, these governments should pay more attention to the activities and in- make clear that their support for the state formation provided by HROs and liberal of Israel cannot be ignored by nationalist CSOs in Israel. This media coverage could CSOs and government officials lobbying be central in blocking government policies for one-sided funding policies. that silence and delegitimize those who are 3) It is also necessary for major donors promoting democratic values. to liberal HROs to take note of the major differences between them and nationalist CSOs when it comes to their ability to in- fluence state policies. What differentiates liberal HROs such as ACRI is that their

SWP Comment 2 January 2018

8