Report finds NGOs rife with ‘hostile behaviour related to Jews, Israel’

The 63‑page report from EiGHT, a group founded by NGO insiders, alleges ‘systemic patterns of discrimination, bias, and accountability failure’

A boy and his mother at a clinic run by Doctors Without Borders in Gaza City in 2022. The group is one of the NGOs named for antisemitism and/or anti-Israel bias in a new report. Photo by Mohammed Abed/AFP via Getty Images

Article content

Some 70 former and current staff from household‑name humanitarian and rights groups have come forward in a new report, alleging widespread “hostile behaviour related to Jews, Israel, or Israelis” inside organizations that claim to defend human rights.

Article content

Those surveyed say managers ignored, tolerated or normalized the conduct, while some staffers faced retaliation for speaking out.

Article content

Article content

Article content

The 63‑page report, “Insiders Speak: NGO Antisemitism, Failed Accountability, and Their Impact on Social Cohesion,” alleges “systemic patterns of discrimination, bias, and accountability failure” across the sector. Authored by EiGHT, an initiative founded by NGO insiders, it includes interviews with affected Jews and non‑Jews and is billed as “the first independent and extensive account” of its kind.

Article content

Article content

“The tipping point was realizing this wasn’t a series of isolated failures in a few organizations affecting a handful of employees,” EiGHT’s executive director Danielle Haas told the Post. “It was a systemic breakdown of values and principles within global organizations that shape democratic life — with public trust as the real casualty — and the situation was only getting worse.”

Article content

Haas left Human Rights Watch in 2023 after about 14 years, raising concerns in an exit email about methodological failures and compromised standards. The report has been filed through official complaint mechanisms to five United Nations Special Rapporteurs — as well as to Australia’s Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion.

Article content

Article content

Managers, staff and leaders in various NGOs indulged in public airing of “dehumanizing views toward Israel and Jews,” setting an institutional tone from the top. The report cites Amnesty International, Doctors Without Borders (Médecins Sans Frontières/MSF), Greenpeace, Human Rights Watch, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Mercy Corps, Plan International, Save the Children and UNICEF.

Article content

Article content

In response to queries from National Post, several of the cited NGOs said any form of discrimination was unacceptable and any allegations are taken seriously.

Article content

The EiGHT report alleges that Doctors Without Borders’ internal Souk communication platform — accessible to some 67,000 staff and association members — featured posts such as “Stop playing the Jewish card.” An Amnesty International Australia staffer publicly praised Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar, calling him “Legend!!” online.

Article content

Most of those interviewed withheld their names for fear of backlash and blacklisting, and across organizations growing numbers of Jewish professionals reported concealing aspects of their identity or leaving the sector altogether (according to cited independent studies from the Olam and Blue Compass surveys.) One staffer described “soft ostracism, ghosting, quiet exclusion” rather than direct confrontation when they raised concerns, a pattern echoed throughout the report.

Article content

“Global rights NGOs operate not only as investigators and advocates, but as strategic actors seeking to shape public narratives,” the study notes. According to a staffer at a global human rights NGO involved in Israel‑Palestine work, “That is how credibility dies: institutional certainty, slogan repetition, and refusal to self‑correct. The reality is that many of these organizations now function less like watchdogs and more like unelected political parties — powerful actors inside left‑leaning public opinion but increasingly detached from rigorous standards and from the basic human rights principles they claim to defend.”

Article content

In July 2024, a rocket killed 12 children in the Druze Israeli town of Majdal Shams; weapons analysts determined the projectile was an Iranian‑made Falaq‑1 rocket launched by Hezbollah from south Lebanon. According to Diane Richard, former press officer at Plan International France, her employer’s response exposed double standards: “The NGO wrote in a tweet that it was a ‘tragic’ event, without naming the source of the strike. Yet two days earlier, a strike on a school in Gaza had sparked outrage of a completely different magnitude.”

Article content

Article content

Mourners carry the coffins and pictures of people killed in a Hezbollah rocket strike from Lebanon a day earlier, during a mass funeral in the Druze town of Majdal Shams in the Golan Heights, on July 28, 2024. Photo by Jalaa Marey/AFP via Getty Images

Article content

Richard questioned the organization’s silence regarding Hamas’ October 7 sexual violence victims, reported retaliation and was subsequently dismissed. Other interviewees spoke of roles being “eliminated” after they raised concerns about alleged antisemitism — only to see the same positions quietly reappear months later. Plan International did not respond to the Post’s queries.

Article content

One employee at a global environmental NGO with an Australian presence described a post‑October 7 environment “increasingly characterized by hostility toward Israel and Jews, including Holocaust comparisons, minimizing or justifying Hamas violence, and promoting BDS‑related activity.” Another spoke of “systemic pollution of international NGO spaces … with the constant demonization of Israel, the total acquittal of Palestinian leadership, and the adoption of anti‑Israel language, like genocide, intifada, settler‑colonialism, etc.”

Article content

The report describes complaint systems that, according to respondents, appear designed to preserve institutional reputations rather than protect staff. Many said concerns relating to alleged antisemitism, discrimination or Israel‑Palestine work were dismissed, reframed as political disagreement, or treated differently from other discrimination complaints.

Article content

Article content

By contrast, movements like #MeToo and Black Lives Matter triggered swift institutional responses. “Many people interviewed stated they did not know of any instance in which complaints relating to antisemitism had led to substantial organizational reflection, independent investigation, structural reform, or sustained institutional initiatives comparable to those implemented in response to movements such as #MeToo or Black Lives Matter,” the report says.

Article content

In some cases, staff allege that non‑disclosure agreements were used as tools of intimidation rather than standard confidentiality. NDAs at Plan International and Greenpeace, the report claims, resulted in “marginalization, role elimination, and enforced silence.” (Neither group offered comment to the Post on the matter).

Article content

In 2026, a Jewish employee of Greenpeace España brought a legal claim against Greenpeace Spain and Greenpeace International, alleging a hostile work environment that included repeated antisemitic posts on official Slack channels — even from senior staff such as Greenpeace International’s Global Equity, Diversity and Inclusion coordinator — as well as Holocaust‑referencing imagery and survey responses questioning the fitness of Jewish and Israeli staff for employment.

Article content

Alice Willson, Greenpeace International’s spokeswoman responded: “Greenpeace takes any allegation of discrimination, harassment, retaliation or other misconduct seriously. We have established an organisation-wide Integrity System to ensure concerns of this nature can be raised, assessed and, where appropriate, investigated through robust and established processes.”

Article content

“As a matter of principle, we can’t comment on individual employment matters or confidential integrity processes. Our responsibility is to ensure concerns are handled through fair and established processes.”

Article content

Amnesty International members hold up signs calling for an end to the Israel-Hamas conflict at an anti-Israel rally on Parliament Hill in Ottawa on April 12, 2025. In the EiGHT report, some Amnesty staffers from around the world describe being punished or frozen out after raising concerns over antisemitism or anti-Israel bias. Photo by Paula Tran/Postmedia

Article content

A recurring theme across NGOs, the report said, cited several staffers describe being punished or frozen out after raising concerns. A human rights lawyer at Amnesty USA said she was removed from all relevant discussions and ostracized after objecting to the organization immediately framing Israel’s “root cause” role in the October 7 attacks. “I went from a valued member of the staff to being persona non grata because I had suggested that we should have some respect for the victims of a horrendous human rights attack, instead of blaming them for it,” she said. One employee at Amnesty International who questioned Israel‑related work and related practices saw their position “eliminated,” only for it to reappear months later.

Article content

Article content

Another Amnesty staffer reported that after the Bondi Beach attacks, in which jihadists killed 15 Australian Jews, efforts to address allegations of antisemitism were habitually framed within the organization as attempts “to restrict criticism of Israel.” Managers rejected calls for mandatory antisemitism training, and a voluntary session in 2024 focused on identifying “false antisemitism” and Israeli illegitimacy; questions about whether attacks on “Zionists,” including threats of violence, might sometimes constitute antisemitism went unanswered.

Article content

The report also points to Amnesty’s suspension of its Israeli chapter for two years in January 2025 — just after members questioned the organization’s legal reasoning on “genocide” — with no meaningful due process or transparency. One non‑Jewish Amnesty Australia staffer concluded that anti‑Jewish prejudice had become embedded in parts of the organization’s culture and decision‑making, contributing to “a culture that tolerates and even justifies violence and intimidation towards Jews.”

Article content

Article content

Amnesty International did not respond to National Post’s queries.

Article content

Doctors Without Borders (MSF), which vows impartiality, is described as hosting internal posts since Oct. 7, 2023, that called Israel “a 76‑year‑old crime scene,” dismissed rape accusations against “Palestinian resistance fighters” as propaganda, and denounced Israel as “a racist, Nazi and genocidal state.”

Article content

Claudia Blume, spokesperson from MSF told the National Post that: “Any form of antisemitism, racism, discrimination, or bigotry by MSF staff is unacceptable and fundamentally incompatible with our humanitarian principles. MSF understands how dangerous antisemitism is and we are committed to taking it seriously.”

Article content

She added: “Throughout our more than 50-year history, MSF has spoken out against abuses committed by governments and armed actors around the world whenever they have endangered patients, healthcare workers, or civilians. We apply this same standard consistently, regardless of the country or parties involved.”

Article content

The organization’s public statements, she said, “are based on the realities on the ground and the events witnessed by our staff and patients…”

Article content

“The way Israel has prosecuted this war has resulted in immense civilian suffering, repeatedly placed medical personnel and patients at risk, and severely undermined access to lifesaving healthcare and humanitarian assistance. We believe these actions raise profound concerns under international humanitarian law and are incompatible with the obligation to protect civilians, medical facilities, and humanitarian workers during armed conflict.”

Article content

In another case in the report, an MSF manager allegedly opposed correcting the group’s claim that Israel caused the deadly October 2023 Al‑Ahli Hospital explosion — later widely attributed to a Palestinian rocket — citing risks to staff under Hamas control in Gaza and colleagues held hostage in Yemen, and warning that a correction might appear “pro‑Israel.” The post remains live as of press time.

Article content

Regarding Al Ahli Arab Hospital, Blume told the Post: “MSF is not an investigative body and cannot determine responsibility for the explosion at Al Ahli Arab Hospital on 17 October 2023… We believe it is essential that incidents such as the explosion at Al Ahli Arab Hospital are subject to credible, independent investigations once conditions allow. Establishing the facts and identifying those responsible is critical both for accountability and for protecting civilians and healthcare in future conflicts.”

Article content

Article content

From 2023 to 2024, the report noted, MSF did not use the word “genocide” for crises in Sudan, Syria, Yemen, Ukraine or Myanmar, making Gaza the only context in which that label entered its communications.

Article content

An internal Human Rights Watch document from three days after Hamas’ massacres shows that the Middle East team’s top objective in drafting talking points was to “Influence the narrative — highlight the context of this latest round of hostilities (i.e. Apartheid etc.).” Despite Hamas live‑streaming its own attacks and survivor testimonies circulating widely, HRW initially referred to “apparent” deliberate targeting of civilians; only 11 days later did it state categorically that Hamas had intended to kill, after “verifying” four videos.

Article content

EiGHT’s executive director Danielle Haas: “These are organizations that ask others to confront prejudice, bias, and systemic discrimination. They should be willing to ask the same questions of themselves.” Photo by Supplied

Article content

Haas said the Israel-Palestine director of Human Rights Watch was “repeatedly calling the Hamas-led Ministry of Health figures reliable and credible.”

Article content

To these points, a spokesperson from Human Rights Watch responded to National Post with the following:

Article content

“Human Rights Watch has extensively researched and reported on the atrocities committed in Israel on October 7, 2023. On July 17, 2024, we published a 236-page report based on field research from October and November 2023, and remote research continuing through June 2024. We concluded that Hamas-led Palestinian armed groups committed numerous war crimes and crimes against humanity during the October 7 assault on southern Israel that resulted in the deaths of more than 1,000 people, most of them civilians, and the taking of 251 hostages. The investigation documented widespread, coordinated attacks against civilians, including murder, torture and ill-treatment, sexual and gender-based violence, and the war crime of hostage taking.”

Article content

Article content

The emailed statement continued: “The report is based in large part on interviews with 94 Israeli and other nationals who witnessed the October 7 attacks and described assaults on communities near the border with Gaza, two music festivals, a beach party, and indiscriminate rocket fire across Israel.”

Article content

In an interview with National Post, Haas said: “We saw trusted, household‑name NGOs becoming so infested by ideology, that they have ignored and even excused racism, violated core principles like neutrality and universalism, grown comfortable with being militant‑adjacent, openly courted money from rights‑abusing countries like Qatar, and pumped compromised work into the public sphere. And instead of showing concern or acting when these issues were raised, managers repeatedly and consistently ignored, denied, and excused them — sidelining, and retaliating against people who spoke up.”

Article content

“The result is that flawed or incomplete reporting infused by ideology is shaping public understanding and democratic decision‑making,” she added. “The problem isn’t influence. It’s influence without independent accountability. No institution that shapes democratic decision‑making should be left to judge its own standards and claim rigour without being challenged. It’s downright dangerous.”

Article content

EiGHT’s recommendations focus on treating antisemitism as seriously as any other form of discrimination. The report calls for safe, independent reporting channels for staff; prohibiting NDAs from being used to silence complainants; independent third‑party reviews of the past three years; regular public reporting on implementation of antisemitism measures; and holding policy violators — including leaders — accountable.

Article content

“These are organizations that ask others to confront prejudice, bias, and systemic discrimination,” Haas said. “They should be willing to ask the same questions of themselves — and to extend the same curiosity and concern to Jews.” She argued that the sector must also grapple with the possibility that while criticism of Israel is legitimate, anti‑Zionism can be a vehicle for antisemitism, and that this possibility “should be seriously investigated by a third party — not dismissed out of hand.”

Article content

Special to National Post

Article content

Article content