OPINION:
It has been nearly three weeks since Iranian ballistic missiles and explosive suicide drones rained down on Israeli civilians, hitting hospitals, residential buildings and places of worship. The fragile quiet of the ceasefire provides an opportunity to take stock of the active role human rights organizations have played in this war.
Theirs was a twofold process of dehumanizing Israelis. The same nongovernmental organizations that reflexively and vigorously condemn every Israel Defense Forces strike in the Gaza Strip remained silent in the face of Iran’s unprecedented assault on Israeli human rights. After all, each and every Iranian missile was undeniably a war crime for its targeting of civilians.
Beyond the passive failure to respond, NGOs actively shaped the international response to the conflict. Through selective statements, coordinated social media campaigns and organized protests, NGOs that claim to promote human rights helped drive a global narrative that vilified Israel while excusing, minimizing or ignoring Iranian aggression.
NGO Monitor’s analysis of dozens of NGO communications during and immediately after the two weeks of war starting June 13 found that only a handful even acknowledged the scale or nature of Iran’s attacks on Israel. Even fewer noted that Iran’s actions, including the launch of more than 400 ballistic missiles and more than 1,000 armed drones at Israeli population centers, represented clear violations of international law.
Yet, when Israel acted to defend its population with preemptive strikes on Iranian missiles ready for launch and targeted strikes on the regime’s nuclear program and related infrastructure, all non-civilian targets, the same NGOs were quick to condemn its actions, often before any credible information was available.
These groups issued demands for “restraint” and “de-escalation” aimed almost exclusively at Israel. In doing so, they shaped media coverage, policy discourse and public perception, all while failing to meet the standards of impartiality and consistency in respect for human rights that they demand from others.
This distortion was compounded by the disturbing degree of sympathy, if not enthusiastic support, that many human rights NGOs extended toward the Iranian regime. Iran has a very public and long-standing commitment to Israel’s destruction. This genocidal objective has been repeated by its leaders and written into the regime’s political doctrine, including its backing for proxy terrorist groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis.
Yet numerous NGOs either justified the Iranian attacks or framed them as a legitimate response to Israeli policies. Their language echoed that of Iran’s propaganda: portraying the regime as a victim of Israeli provocation and its assault as a form of defensive action.
In fact, some of the NGOs in question are fairly open in their promotion of pro-terrorist sentiments. Groups such as Samidoun, Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor, Masar Badil and the Palestinian Youth Movement offered outright support for the Iranian regime. Some openly celebrated Iran’s attacks and depicted them as legitimate acts of “resistance” against Israel.
A second group of NGOs was more insidious. These are the NGOs that portray themselves as objective observers and neutral policy or legal experts while exhibiting a similarly hyperpartisan agenda regarding Israel. This category includes the European Council on Foreign Relations and Democracy for the Arab World Now, which remained silent on Iran’s conduct and quickly pivoted to criticizing Israeli responses, reemphasizing the deep-seated political and ideological biases.
Human Rights Watch offers perhaps the clearest example of silence and hypocrisy. Its default posture during conflicts of this magnitude is to release a “frequently asked questions” brief within days of initial hostilities, laying out its interpretation, albeit distorted, of international humanitarian law and recommending conduct for the parties involved.
When it comes to situations where it can bash Israel, Human Rights Watch has a long history of frequent statements and emotive reports alleging all manner of wrongdoing.
However, after Israel’s June 13 strike on Iran’s nuclear and military infrastructure and Iran’s subsequent indiscriminate missile and drone attacks, Human Rights Watch was silent. This omission is particularly telling given the clear legal asymmetry: Iran launched barrages of indiscriminate weapons against highly populated civilian centers, while Israel targeted military and nuclear infrastructure.
Beyond the hypocrisy, this pattern of NGO silence about Israeli human rights while directing blame at Israel reflects a broader trend where NGOs treat Israelis, and Jews by extension, as less worthy of human rights protections.
This dehumanization has been especially glaring over the past 20 months. Not a single international human rights NGO has mounted a significant campaign on behalf of the more than 250 hostages Hamas violently took to Gaza on Oct. 7, 2023, which included women, children and the elderly. Fifty hostages remain in Gaza today.
By contrast, these same organizations have devoted enormous resources to advocating for Palestinian detainees, many of whom committed murder and other violent offenses against Israelis.
Likewise, the sharp rise in antisemitic violence worldwide has received little sustained attention from leading human rights organizations. The cumulative effect is a troubling double standard that normalizes threats to Israeli and Jewish safety.
With their actions and inactivity, many NGOs have again shown that they have no moral authority and are seeking to advance highly partisan political agendas rather than universal human rights. The time has come for accountability, not just for those who launch missiles but also for those who enable them through silence, distortion and selective application of human rights advocacy.
These organizations do not deserve humanitarian or government funding.
• Olga Deutsch is vice president of NGO Monitor.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.