I’m posting this summary of World Vision anti-Israel bias and agitation for readers considering supporting humanitarian causes:
From “World Vision InternationalÂ´s Pro-Palestinian Agenda“, NGO Monitor Digest (Vol. 2 No. 12), August 15, 2004:
Summary: Tacit support for terror and a highly politicized agenda reflecting anti-Israel rhetoric and biased history, under the guise of “development assistance and justice.”…Â The organizationâ€™s Brief History of the region repeats many of the standard Palestinian myths and distortions. …fail[s] to mention the Arab invasion that led to the war….[and] offers no background or context to the 1967 Six Day War that led to Israelâ€™s control over the West Bank and Gaza Strip simply stating: â€œIn 1967 Israel occupied the West Bank and East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip.â€…Â violence is blamed solely on Israeli policies …Â…ignoring the terrorism that was responsible for the deaths of Israeli civilians, World Vision promotes an amoral equivalence between perpetrators and victims of terror, and offering no context to the loss of life. Instead, Israeli security measures are described as â€œa policy of sealing entries and exits to cities, villages, and towns as a form of collective punishment of the Palestinian population.â€World Visionâ€™s casual attitude towards Israeli security is demonstrated in a December 17, 2002 news article â€œBethlehem has little to rejoice about at Christmasâ€ which states: â€œBethlehem’s population of 120,000 is under collective punishment. The reason given by Israel for re-entering Bethlehem is because the last suicide bomber to blow up a bus in Jerusalem was from the Bethlehem area.â€ÂOther news archives demonstrate a lack of context behind events. For example, a January 5, 2004 news article â€œWorld Vision helps 245 homeless families in Rafahâ€ claims that â€œOne hundred homes were demolished and another 70 were severely damaged during an Israeli army incursion on October 10th,â€ failing to mention the terrorist activities and weapons smuggling tunnels that prompted the Israeli military operations.World Visionâ€™s response to Israelâ€™s security barrier also displays almost no acknowledgement of this impact of this obstacle in preventing terror. For example, Tim Costello, Word Vision Australiaâ€™s Chief Executive described the barrier as â€œpart of the problem, not part of the solutionâ€, in a July 14, 2004 op-ed in The Age (Melbourne). Costello evokes the highly politicized and inappropriate claim that the barrier â€œis reminiscent of the Cold War and Eastern Bloc oppression.â€ (Costelloâ€™s comparison reflects the Palestinian propaganda effort to compare the Berlin Wall, designed to keep citizens from fleeing, with Israelâ€™s security barrier, which saves the lives of its citizens.) These issues are noted in Colin Rubinsteinâ€™s response to Costello, who also points to reliance on the faulty advisory decision of the ICJ, in response to the highly politicized indictment from the UN General Assembly.Analysis of World Vision Internationalâ€™s website also reflects the clear political agenda, with little attention to entirely legitimate Israeli security concerns, as well as a total disregard for the effects of Palestinian terrorism on the situation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Thus, World Visionâ€™s activities in the region reflect a strong political bias, with a high level ofÂ misunderstanding and negative attitudes displayed towards Israel, while encouraging or at least condoning terrorism and incitement. This agenda is entirely inconsistent with the claimed emphasis on â€œeconomic development and promotion of justiceâ€.
From “UPDATED: World Vision representative in UN (Geneva) â€“ promoting hatred of Israel” NGO Monitor, December 04, 2007:
World Vision representative in UN (Geneva) â€“ promoting hatred of IsraelNGO Monitor has reported on extreme anti-Israel bias in the publications and activities of World Vision.â€“ a powerful organization which receives funding from US Aid, Irish Aid, and the Finnish Ministry of Foreign Affairs.ÂThis NGO, which claims charitable status, is particularly active in promoting crude propaganda in the UN framework.ÂOn November 29, 2007, the director of international relations for World Vision, Thomas Getman, continued this pattern in a speech in Geneva marking the 60th anniversary of UN Resolution 181, which called for the creation of two states, one Arab and one Jewish. According to UN Watch Getman “sought to promote hatred of Israel among the delegates.” His speech failed to mention ongoing Palestinian terrorist and missile attacks against Israel, and he used highly manipulative, emotionally charged rhetoric. He called on his audience to â€œthink about the first child that each of us saw in a terrible situation because of the Israeli occupationâ€¦â€ The situation of the many Israeli children who have been subject to mass terror attacks was of no concern to the representative from World Vision.As UN Watch notes, â€œMr. Getmanâ€™s extremist political activity, conflicting with World Visionâ€™s humanitarian mandate, is nothing new; in 2006, when the representative of a human rights NGO was cut short during a UN debate by Syrian objectionsâ€”Damascus had demanded a special agenda item on â€œoccupation,â€ but sought to censor any suggestion that this might include its own occupation of Lebanonâ€”Mr. Getman shouted at the NGO representative, and published an open letter siding with Syria.â€ This behavior is consistent with World Vision’s statement in the inaugural session of the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in June 2006, which exploited the suffering of Palestinian children in order to launch a political attack on Israel.Update: World Vision representative at UN (Geneva) and UN Watch — an exchangeÂ Following the November 29, 2007 UN Watch report on Getmanâ€™s speech, an exchange took place between Getman and UN Watch, which the watchdog organization has posted on their website.ÂGetman accuses UN Watch of â€œtwisting words or intentions for other motivesâ€; UN Watch offers a detailed response to these charges. UN Watch states:â€œâ€¦â€˜in the interest of honest fair play,â€™ Mr. Getman insists that his World Vision statement featured â€˜emphasis for all children of the region who live in fear.â€™ Really? Does a two-page statement replete with Palestinian grievances and attacks on Israelâ€”apart from one fleeting reference to â€˜Palestinian and Israeli childrenâ€™â€”really emphasize â€˜allâ€™ children?â€ÂTo view the rest of the dialogue, click here.
Bottom Line: Beware who you rely on to act as your shaliach in the mitzvah of Tzedakah and Tikkun Olam.