70Za zaprtimi vrati 70: Več kot 70 zaposlenih v nevladnih organizacijah v novem poročilu navaja antisemitizem in pomanjkanje odgovornosti

In the wake of the October 7, 2023, attacks on Israel, a growing number of professionals within the international NGO sector have begun to voice serious concerns about the ethical and operational integrity of their organizations. These concerns, detailed in a newly released report titled *Insiders Speak*, reveal a pattern of antisemitism, lack of accountability, and systemic failure to uphold the very values these organizations claim to champion. According to the report, over 70 current and former staff members from prominent NGOs such as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and Greenpeace have contributed firsthand accounts of a toxic work environment where dissent is discouraged, Jewish employees face marginalization, and antisemitic rhetoric is often dismissed as mere political disagreement.

The report, spearheaded by the newly formed advocacy group EiGHT, highlights a disturbing trend wherein the human rights and humanitarian sectors—often lauded as moral authorities—are failing to maintain the integrity they are expected to uphold. Founded by individuals with decades of experience in leading NGOs, EiGHT emerged from a collective realization that the sector's response to the October 7 crisis was deeply flawed. Many of the report's authors, including Danielle Haas, a former senior editor at Human Rights Watch, noted that the initial reaction to the attack was marked by a lack of critical engagement and a tendency to align with narratives that could serve political agendas.

Haas, who spent 14 years at Human Rights Watch before leaving in late 2023, described how colleagues began reaching out after the war started, sharing experiences that initially seemed like personal grievances. As conversations unfolded, it became clear that these were not isolated cases but symptoms of deeper institutional problems. This prompted the formation of a WhatsApp group, which eventually evolved into the comprehensive report now being circulated. The report asserts that the human rights sector is not immune to the same kinds of corruption and bias found in other industries, and that its influence over global discourse is disproportionate to the level of oversight it receives.

The report outlines several key findings, including the normalization of antisemitism within certain NGOs, the suppression of dissenting voices, and the exploitation of crises for fundraising purposes. For instance, it suggests that some organizations have used the suffering of Palestinians in Gaza to generate public sympathy and financial support, sometimes at the expense of acknowledging the broader geopolitical complexities. Additionally, the report notes that Jewish employees have faced increasing hostility, with their concerns about antisemitism frequently dismissed as overly sensitive or politically motivated.

One particularly striking finding is the report's assertion that the concept of "apartheid" has become a tool wielded by these organizations to shape public perception of Israel, often without sufficient evidence. The report argues that such labels are not merely ideological positions but are increasingly used to legitimize narratives that can influence policy and public sentiment globally.

The implications of these findings extend beyond the immediate concerns of individual NGOs. They suggest a broader failure in the international community to hold these influential groups accountable for their actions and statements. With many of the report's contributors remaining in the field or having left within the past few years, the situation appears to be evolving rapidly, raising urgent questions about the future direction of the human rights movement and the role of NGOs in shaping global discourse.