By John Q. Hosedrinker The German government recently cut funding to two Israeli human rights NGOs, Zochrot and New Profile, citing concerns over their advocacy for Palestinian rights and a one-state solution. Zochrot, which lost 25% of its budget, and New Profile, which lost approximately half, have criticized this decision as anti-Palestinian racism and a sign of unconditional support for Israel. This action follows similar defunding of Palestinian NGOs and is viewed by some as a precursor to further cuts targeting organizations critical of Israel’s actions. A German partner NGO expressed frustration over the government’s decision, highlighting the unprecedented nature of the funding cuts within their organization.
Read the original article here
Germany’s recent decision to quietly cut funding to two Israeli human rights organizations, Zochrot and New Profile, has sparked considerable debate. Zochrot, which reportedly lost 25% of its budget, advocates for Israel to acknowledge its role in the Nakba, the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinian Arabs in 1948, and supports the Palestinians’ right of return. This advocacy, coupled with statements from Zochrot criticizing Israel’s actions, appears to have played a significant role in the German government’s decision.
The other organization, New Profile, experienced a more substantial loss, with roughly half its funding eliminated. New Profile, primarily volunteer-based, provides support to Israeli soldiers who object to military service, facing potential imprisonment for their actions. The government’s rationale for defunding this organization remains unclear, but their activities supporting IDF objectors likely contributed to the decision.
A German international broadcaster, Deutsche Welle, investigated the situation and concluded that the defunding of these two Israeli NGOs is a potential harbinger of further cuts to organizations critical of Israel’s actions in Gaza. This suggests a broader shift in German policy concerning funding for human rights groups operating within Israel and the Palestinian territories.
The German government’s justification for these funding cuts remains a subject of contention. While officials reportedly cited the importance of supporting Israel due to Germany’s historical context, this explanation has been met with criticism. Zochrot, in its response, viewed the move as consistent with Germany’s unconditional support for Israel, regardless of its actions against Palestinians. This interpretation casts doubt on the sincerity of the government’s justification, framing the cuts as a political move rather than a purely budgetary decision.
The German NGO Kurve Wustrow, which had collaborated with both Zochrot and New Profile, attempted to intervene on their behalf, but their efforts proved unsuccessful. This highlights the seemingly firm resolve of the German government to carry out these funding cuts, despite concerns raised by other organizations working in the field. The frustration expressed by Kurve Wustrow’s acting director underscores the perceived abrupt nature of the decision and its broader implications for German-Israeli collaboration on human rights issues.
Adding to the complexity of this situation, there are differing perspectives on the nature of these organizations. Some argue that Zochrot and New Profile are not simply advocating for human rights, but actively promoting agendas that challenge the existence of Israel, particularly through their support for the Palestinian right of return. The scale of a complete right of return, potentially encompassing millions of descendants of 1948 refugees, presents enormous logistical and political challenges, fueling concerns that such advocacy could destabilize the region.
Conversely, others defend the work of these NGOs, emphasizing their commitment to human rights and the importance of open dialogue about the conflict. They argue that the German government’s action stifles these voices, potentially jeopardizing the pursuit of a just and lasting peace. The focus on the right of return, while potentially contentious, is seen by some as a crucial element in achieving a fair and equitable resolution to the conflict, even if its practical implementation presents significant hurdles. The debate extends beyond the immediate implications of the funding cuts, touching on fundamental questions of free speech, political expression, and the role of foreign governments in influencing internal affairs of another nation.
The quiet manner in which the cuts were implemented also raises questions about transparency and accountability. The lack of public explanation from the German government has fueled speculation and criticism, highlighting a perceived disconnect between the stated justification and the actual implications of the decision. This lack of transparency contributes to the feeling that the situation is less about funding priorities and more about political positioning regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The involvement of NGO Monitor, an Israeli organization critical of NGOs viewed as anti-Israel, further complicates the matter. Their perspectives, while understandably aligned with the German government’s decision, cannot be taken as neutral. Their statements serve to highlight the polarized nature of the debate, making it challenging to discern objective analysis from partisan commentary. The entire situation reveals a complex interplay of geopolitical interests, competing narratives, and deeply entrenched perspectives on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, adding significant layers of nuance to the seeming simplicity of funding cuts. The long-term effects of these cuts remain to be seen, but the implications for freedom of expression, international collaboration on human rights, and the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict are undeniable.