It’s time to replace the human rights NGOs

For nearly two years — since October 7, 2023 — grim accounts have seeped from the world’s major human rights and humanitarian organizations. 

Jewish and non-Jewish staff describe a surge of unchecked antisemitism and a shocking indifference to Hamas’s massacres, hostage-taking, and sexual violence. Internal forums brim with anti-Zionist, anti-Israel rhetoric—sometimes personally targeted, and in clear violation of organizational policies. 

Firsthand testimony exposes practices distorted by ideology. Among the examples:

• Staff leaving false claims uncorrected online – such as that Israel bombed Gaza’s Al-Ahli hospital – because correcting them could “appear pro-Israel” and anger Hamas.
• Managers denying knowledge that staff worked alongside militants in Gaza, even as it was openly discussed in meetings.
• Palestinian suffering elevated in fundraising because it “plays well with donors,” while some 30 million people in Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo face famine, displacement, and hunger.
• Staff permitted to march for a Gaza ceasefire under the organizational banner, but barred from marching for Israeli hostages because it might appear “pro-Netanyahu.”

Emails and internal correspondence back these accounts. 

I know this because, since I wrote in Sapir Magazine about ideological capture during 14 years as senior editor at Human Rights Watch, I have connected with more than 60 current and former staff from global organizations, including Amnesty, Doctors Without Borders (MSF), the International Committee of the Red Cross, Save the Children, UNICEF, and USAID. A few have spoken publicly. But mostly their experiences remained buried. Until now.

From Anecdote to Data

A new survey by OLAM, the global Jewish humanitarian network, turns anecdotes into data and confirms what the sector has long ignored or denied. Based on 168 Jewish professionals in secular humanitarian and human rights groups, it finds:

• 55% have experienced or witnessed anti-Jewish bias or hate, including stereotypes, jokes, or exclusion; one in five said it began after October 7. 
• 57% reported anti-Israel incidents, such as colleagues questioning Israel’s legitimacy or dismissing Jewish expertise as “biased.”
• 73% said their organizations’ responses were ineffective; more than half said no action was taken.
• Most felt pressured to suppress their identity, fearing assumptions about their stance on Israel.

The survey is modest in size and self-reported, but its findings mirror internal documents, resignations, and testimonies. Dismissing it reveals bias, not rigor.

Behind the numbers lie chilling accounts: colleagues declaring “World War III will be the fault of Israel,” dismissing Jewish lives as expendable “collateral,” or suggesting Jews are inherently dishonest. Some were warned to hide their Jewishness in the field. Others resigned after complaints or expertise were ignored.

Selective Outrage

OLAM’s findings should trigger reform: antisemitism training, independent reporting channels, and audits of Israel work against that which is done elsewhere.

For example, why did Amnesty mount a global campaign for the Chibok girls and release a report within a year of Boko Haram’s kidnappings, but nearly two years after Hamas’s attacks, has issued no report on October 7 and not campaigned for Hamas’s captives? What resources have flowed into Israel-Gaza work in relation to crises elsewhere, and why?

But history, and recent trends, show reform is unlikely. 

Scandals — sexual, financial, racial, and methodological — have long shown that money and reputation, not principles, drive the sector. In a marketplace where antisemitism and anti-Israelism are ascendant, there is little incentive to defend Jews or scrutinize Israel work.

Since October 7, things have worsened. Largely unregulated and unaccountable, groups that claim to be the acme of humanity and impartiality have become open enablers — and perpetrators — of just the opposite, with leaders including MSF’s UK Executive Director Natalie Roberts — flaunting solidarity with those waving Hezbollah flags and declaring “Fuck Israel.” 

Accountability Avoided

Their reaction to The Atlantic’s March 2025 exposé on NGO double standards proved the point. Instead of reflection or engagement, implicated groups like MSF, HRW, and Amnesty chose denial, silence, or deflection. Amnesty USA’s director Paul O’Brien even urged staff not to share the article — “to reduce amplification.”

Gulf funding deepens the rot. In April, Mercy Corps’ CEO announced a donor tour to Qatar and the UAE — “a region with significant potential for new partnerships and funding.” It was another reminder that groups condemning Gulf regimes’ abuses still court their checkbooks.

Meanwhile, many Jewish professionals are barely hanging on. Over a third of OLAM survey respondents who faced hate or bias said they would consider leaving their jobs — or the sector entirely. That is not just a personal tragedy; it is a devastating loss for a sector Jews helped build and sustain far beyond their numbers.

Human Rights 2.0

Faith in human rights remains vital. But it is reckless to trust organizations that turned silence on October 7 into strategy. This is not a few wayward organizations, it is an industry-wide collapse, years in the making, abetted by involvement and silence at the top. As one senior ex-colleague involved with Israel-Palestine work told me: “I’m torn between saying…the future is clear and I’m not part of it….and actually taking a stand. It depends on how much energy I have on any given day.”

The solution is not reform but reinvention: Human Rights 2.0. 

That means new organizations and partnerships grounded in universalism, neutrality, equality, and humanism. It means rejecting selective outrage and politics disguised as principle. It requires transparency in funding and proven rigor in methodology — including applying the same standards and moral clarity to every abuse, whether in Sudan, China, or Gaza.

Reinvention will take time, but it has already begun. Post-October 7 disillusionment is giving way to new voices, fresh initiatives, and emerging partnerships in Israel and abroad — spaces where Jews are judged for their professionalism rather than for their presumed politics. 

Compromised NGOs may one day reckon with their failures. But there is no point trying to revive organizations that have already flatlined. There’s too much work to do.