#NGO Monitor

[eretzyisrael]

Britain Is Sending Millions to Hamas

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, May 2025. (@Keir_Starmer/X)

It’s Sunday, May 25, and the British government is knowingly sending millions of pounds to Hamas. That’s according to an astonishing investigation aired last night on Channel 12, in partnership with NGO Monitor.

There’s a lot to unpack, but I’ll try highlight the main findings.

Most damning is a British Consulate-General in Jerusalem document obtained by NGO Monitor. Written in November 2022, the document discusses, amongst other things, British financial assistance for the Gazan population via UNICEF from 2022 until 2026. It says the following:

“The risks to the success of the programme are moderate, with major risks of actual or perceived diversion of humanitarian aid.”

It highlighted the risk of “direct or indirect diversion of aid to the de facto authorities in Gaza and/or other terrorist groups. Cash cannot be tracked once withdrawn from the ATM. There are reputational and fiduciary risks around actual or perceived links of UK aid with supporting terrorist groups.” 

And here’s the worst part: “The cash assistance component will be implemented in coordination with the Ministry of Social Development MoSD. The MoSD in Gaza is affiliated with the de facto authorities and thus UK Aid can be linked directly or indirectly with supporting the de facto authority (Hamas) in Gaza which is part of a proscribed group.”

In other words, as NGO Monitor’s Anne Herzberg put it, “a Hamas-controlled entity was an integral partner in determining how cash assistance provided by the UK government to UNICEF would be distributed in Gaza.”

Ok, but maybe London changed its policy after October 7? Well, in March 2024, UNICEF wrote that it “maintained and strengthened the partnership with the MoSD,” adding in November that “this humanitarian cash transfer program in the Gaza Strip is supported by the European Union, the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO).”

And how much money are we talking about? Citing the UN Financial Tracking System, NGO Monitor wrote that “in 2024, the UK provided UNICEF with approximately $23.1 million for West Bank and Gaza operations.”

And yet, at the same time that Britain is knowingly sending millions of pounds to Hamas, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer is busy condemning Israel for the war in Gaza, suspending free trade talks with Jerusalem, and sanctioning Israeli citizens.

Instead of lecturing Israel, Mr. Starmer would do well to reflect on his own government’s contribution to the war—and to the terrorists who started it.

More: Here

[the-garbanzo-annex-jr]

by Alana Goodman

Human Rights Watch, an anti-Israel nonprofit funded by George Soros and the Ford Foundation, relied on staffers linked to Islamist terrorist groups to produce research on "Israel and Palestine," according to a new watchdog report.

One HRW staff researcher on "Israel and Palestine" issues, Milena Ansari, worked for an Israeli-designated terrorist group associated with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, the report from Israeli watchdog NGO Monitor found. HRW also relied on a Lebanese researcher prominently quoted in one of its recent reports, Mahdi Sadeq, who is an open supporter of Hezbollah and works for an organization tied to the terror group.

The news comes as left-leaning U.S. foundations—including Soros’s Open Society Foundations, the Ford Foundation, and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund—pour millions of dollars into HRW, which in turn produces reports that often accuse Israel of war crimes. Anti-Israel lawmakers on the left, including Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D., N.Y.) and Rashida Tlaib (D., Mich.), routinely cite those reports.

NGO Monitor said HRW’s reliance on Ansar and Sadeq is the latest indication of the group's extreme bias against Israel.

"HRW ‘reports’ continue the 25-year practice of citing propagandists and terror affiliates as expert sources," NGO Monitor president Gerald Steinberg told the Washington Free Beacon.

"Mahdi Sadeq is a clear Hezbollah supporter, and Milena Ansari worked with an NGO linked to the PFLP terror organization before employment at HRW. HRW's false accusations against Israel have exploited the facade of research to push an agenda of demonization."

The NGO Monitor report, shared with the Free Beacon, details those terror ties.

Milena Ansari, who serves as HRW’s "Israel and Palestine Assistant Researcher," previously worked as the international advocacy officer for the Palestinian nonprofit Addameer from April 2021 until November 2023, according to the report.

The Israeli Defense Ministry designated Addameer as a terrorist organization in 2021, saying it "operates as an arm" for the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.

While working at Addameer, Ansari repeatedly expressed support for terrorists. She called for the "right of the Palestinian people to resist this ongoing [Israeli] occupation with whatever means provided for them" during a podcast interview in 2022.

[jobsbureauforkenya]

5 Vacancies Open at International Rescue Committee

Current Job Openings MEAL Coordinator Locations: 2 locations (not specified) Category: Data & Analytics Job ID: req57961 Work Type: Hybrid Role: Provide technical assistance, capacity sharing, and ongoing mentoring/training in MEAL concepts for IRC and partners. Grants Coordinator Locations: 3 locations (not specified) Category: Grants & Partnerships Job ID: req57802 Work Type: Hybrid Role:…

[hotzimbabwejobs]

MEAL Manager Opportunity at Action Against Hunger February 2025

Action Against Hunger is seeking a highly skilled and experienced MEAL (Monitoring, Evaluation, Accountability, and Learning) Manager to lead and strengthen their MEAL systems for programs and projects in Zimbabwe. This is a crucial role in ensuring program effectiveness and impact. About the Role: The MEAL Manager will be responsible for designing, developing, and implementing robust MEAL…

[jobsnotices]

INF Nepal Vacancy 2081 in Pokhara for Finance Manager, Assistant Monitoring and Research Officer, Communication & Graphic Design Officer

INF Nepal Vacancy 2081 in Pokhara for Finance Manager, Assistant Monitoring and Research Officer, Communication & Graphic Design Officer. Interested and qualified candidates are invited to apply 17th August 2024. JOB OPPORTUNITIES INF Nepal Vacancy 2081 in Pokhara for Finance Manager, Assistant Monitoring and Research Officer, Communication & Graphic Design Officer Vacancy Notice No.:…

[erohan-foundation]

EROHAN Foundation: NGO For Digital Monitoring Platform

In today’s rapidly evolving world, the intersection of technology and healthcare is creating unparalleled opportunities for advancing community well-being. At the forefront of this transformation is the EROHAN Foundation, an NGO for digital monitoring platform. Our approach integrates cutting-edge digital tools to monitor, analyze, and enhance healthcare delivery, focusing on maternal and child health.

Harnessing Digital Technology for Real-Time Monitoring

The EROHAN Foundation digital platform for monitoring is designed to provide real-time insights into health and nutritional status across various communities. By leveraging technology, we ensure timely and accurate data collection, which is crucial for informed decision-making. Our platform uses advanced algorithms to process and interpret data from multiple sources, providing a comprehensive view of health indicators.

One of the core aspects of our work is the nutritional survey through digital platform. This initiative allows us to collect and analyze data on dietary habits and nutritional status across different demographics. By employing digital surveys, we can reach a larger audience, gather more diverse data, and obtain real-time updates, ensuring that our interventions are both timely and relevant.

Empowering Frontline Workers

A key component of our strategy involves empowering frontline health workers through both digital and physical training programs. These trainings to frontline workers through digital and physical approach are crucial for ensuring that healthcare providers are well-equipped with the latest knowledge and skills. Our hybrid training model combines the flexibility and reach of digital learning with the practical, hands-on experience of physical workshops.

Through our digital training modules, health workers can access a wealth of resources at their convenience, enabling continuous learning and skill enhancement. Meanwhile, our in-person sessions provide an opportunity for interactive, experiential learning, where participants can engage directly with experts and peers. This blended approach ensures a comprehensive learning experience, fostering both theoretical understanding and practical competence.

The Power of Data-Driven Insights

At the heart of our efforts is a commitment to data-driven insights. The EROHAN Foundation believes in the power of data to drive effective and impactful health interventions. Our NGO for digital monitoring platform is not just about collecting data but transforming it into actionable insights that can lead to meaningful change.

We use sophisticated data analytics tools to interpret the information gathered through our digital platforms. These insights help us to identify trends, pinpoint areas of need, and tailor our programs to address specific community health challenges. This data-driven approach ensures that our interventions are targeted, efficient, and impactful.

Looking Ahead

The future of healthcare lies in the seamless integration of digital technologies into every aspect of health service delivery. As an NGO for digital platform for monitoring, the EROHAN Foundation is committed to leading this change. We envision a world where technology and healthcare work hand in hand to create healthier, more resilient communities.

By continuing to innovate and expand our digital capabilities, we aim to enhance our impact and reach even more communities. Through our dedicated efforts, we strive to ensure that every individual has access to the knowledge, tools, and support they need to lead a healthy, fulfilling life.

Conclusion

The E Rohan Foundation’s pioneering use of digital monitoring platforms and innovative training programs is setting new standards in healthcare delivery. As we continue to embrace technology and data-driven strategies, we remain steadfast in our mission to improve health outcomes for communities worldwide. Our commitment as an NGO for digital monitoring platform is to harness the power of digital tools to create a brighter, healthier future for all.

For more information on our initiatives and to get involved, visit EROHAN Foundation

[ghfoundation]

Monitoring of NGO Projects: Ensuring Accountability and Impact

In the realm of nonprofit organizations and non-governmental entities, the successful execution and impact of projects are paramount. Monitoring NGO projects is a critical aspect of ensuring accountability, transparency, and effectiveness in the pursuit of their noble missions. we take great pride in our commitment to monitoring and evaluating the projects we undertake. In this comprehensive article, we delve deep into the significance of monitoring NGO projects, the methodologies we employ, and the far-reaching benefits that stem from this rigorous approach.

Understanding the Importance of Monitoring NGO Projects

Fostering Accountability

Accountability is the cornerstone of any reputable NGO. Donors, stakeholders, and the general public place their trust in these organizations to make a positive difference in the world. By monitoring projects meticulously, NGOs can showcase a high level of accountability, which is crucial for building and maintaining trust.

Ensuring Transparency

Transparency goes hand in hand with accountability. Through transparent reporting and project monitoring, NGOs can provide stakeholders with a clear picture of how funds are allocated and how projects progress. This transparency not only satisfies the curiosity of donors but also sets a precedent for responsible operations.

Maximizing Impact

NGOs is to make a positive impact on society. Monitoring projects allows NGOs to assess the effectiveness of their interventions continually. This, in turn, enables them to make informed decisions, reallocate resources when necessary, and optimize their strategies for maximum impact.

The Methodology of Monitoring NGO Projects

Defining Clear Objectives

Before embarking on any project, it is imperative to establish clear and measurable objectives. This serves as the foundation for monitoring progress. At [Your Organization Name], we meticulously define our project objectives, ensuring they are specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound (SMART).

Data Collection and Analysis

Accurate data collection is the linchpin of project monitoring. Our teams employ various data collection methods, including surveys, interviews, and on-site visits, to gather relevant information. This data is then rigorously analyzed to track project performance against established benchmarks.

Regular Progress Reports

To keep stakeholders informed, we generate regular progress reports that highlight key milestones, challenges encountered, and the measures taken to address them. These reports are not only a testament to our commitment to transparency but also valuable tools for informed decision-making.

Continuous Feedback Loops

We recognize the importance of feedback from all project stakeholders. Whether it's beneficiaries, partners, or community members, their insights are invaluable. We actively engage with these stakeholders to gather feedback, which is used to refine and improve our projects continuously.

The Far-Reaching Benefits of Monitoring NGO Projects

Enhanced Credibility

By consistently monitoring and reporting on our projects, [Your Organization Name] has earned a reputation for credibility and reliability. Donors and partners trust us to deliver on our promises, knowing that we are unwavering in our commitment to transparency and accountability.

Improved Resource Allocation

Efficient resource allocation is essential for optimizing impact. Through project monitoring, we can identify areas where resources can be reallocated to achieve better results. This ensures that every dollar and hour invested yields the greatest possible return.

Adaptive Decision-Making

In a dynamic world, the ability to adapt is paramount. Regular project monitoring equips us with the data and insights needed to make adaptive decisions. Whether it's changing project strategies or reallocating resources, we stay nimble in our pursuit of positive change.

Empowering Communities

Our commitment to engaging with project beneficiaries and local communities empowers them to take ownership of their development. Through feedback and participation, communities become active partners in the process, ensuring sustainability long after the project's completion.

Conclusion

In the ever-evolving landscape of NGOs and nonprofit work, monitoring NGO projects stands as a beacon of best practices. At [Your Organization Name], we are steadfast in our dedication to upholding the principles of accountability, transparency, and impact. Through our robust methodology and commitment to continuous improvement, we ensure that every project we undertake brings positive change to the world.

If you want to read more information about how to boost traffic on your Website, just visit:- https://www.globalhuntfoundation.org/

[halalchampagnesocialist]

To understand why Israel keeps targeting UNRWA infrastructure and UNRWA workers (and by extension, human rights activists) aside from the accusations they're ~secretly Hamas~, we must put it into the context of which these organisations operate.

To put it lightly, Israel is not a fan of international NGOs and human rights organisations at all, but especially the ones whose existence revolves around advocating for Palestinian rights and exposing the crimes of the occupation. It is not a fan of Palestinian ones at all either, but that goes without saying. I would even suggest that Israeli organisations like "Breaking the Silence" and "BtSelem" fall under this category, even liberal ~coexistence~ type groups like "Standing Together" are seen with suspicion to a degree as they pose a threat to the status quo. The Israeli state and Zionists also see the work of such organisations as a method of "delegitimising Israel" and "singling out Israel" and so on. There is even a pro-Israel organisation called "NGO Monitor" which exists to combat this exact thing.

In the case of UNRWA, there is a specific criticism made by Israel against them (aside from the secret Hamas operative one), and that is they "indoctrinate" Palestinians to hold onto their right of return by perpetually keeping them refugees. Obviously, it's a silly argument that is not worth entertaining. There are a lot of genuine criticisms to be made about UNRWA (which is largely to do with the NGOisation of the Palestinian struggle but that's another post) but they have helped sustain Palestinian existence and livelihoods by providing aid, employment, education and so on. In times of war and crisis, UNRWA has been providing important aid to Palestinians. It's hard not to see Israel's attack on UNRWA as an attack on that.

Even groups which are headed by Palestinians, both in the diaspora and in Palestine, such as International Solidarity Movement (ISM) or Youth Against Settlements, face constant attacks by settlers and soldiers. The purpose of these groups is to demonstrate civil disobedience and resist the occupation non-violently yet still face violence. Others exist merely to just document.

Israel is also so used to operating with impunity that any organisation shedding light on Israel's atrocities against Palestinians is a blow to their propaganda. All the reports, documentaries, and findings produce evidence that then becomes hard to deny or hide. There is a reason why Israel is currently not letting in any journalists or aid workers into Gaza, and even the ones it is letting in it is targeting as we've seen time and time again over the past year.

The problematic nature of NGOisation and the apoliticisation of the human rights framework aside, many of these organisations have played a role in presenting the case of the Palestinian struggle in front of a world audience. The ability to not just document or advocate but be believed is a privilege Westerners have and that's where these organisations tend to come in. As long as these organisations exist and/or have a reason to be in the West Bank and/or Gaza, then Israel cannot do what it actually wants to i.e. constant settlement building, attempted ethnic cleansing and more importantly, trying to convince the world that Palestinians do not have a justified struggle against the occupation and the allegations against Israel are merely "false."

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Holy CRAP the UN Cybercrime Treaty is a nightmare

Support me this summer on the Clarion Write-A-Thon and help raise money for the Clarion Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers' Workshop!

If there's one thing I learned from all my years as an NGO delegate to UN specialized agencies, it's that UN treaties are dangerous, liable to capture by unholy alliances of authoritarian states and rapacious global capitalists.

Most of my UN work was on copyright and "paracopyright," and my track record was 2:0; I helped kill a terrible treaty (the WIPO Broadcast Treaty) and helped pass a great one (the Marrakesh Treaty on the rights of people with disabilities to access copyrighted works):

https://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/marrakesh/

It's been many years since I had to shave and stuff myself into a suit and tie and go to Geneva, and I don't miss it – and thankfully, I have colleagues who do that work, better than I ever did. Yesterday, I heard from one such EFF colleague, Katitza Rodriguez, about the Cybercrime Treaty, which is about to pass, and which is, to put it mildly, terrifying:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/07/un-cybercrime-draft-convention-dangerously-expands-state-surveillance-powers

Look, cybercrime is a real thing, from pig butchering to ransomware, and there's real, global harms that can be attributed to it. Cybercrime is transnational, making it hard for cops in any one jurisdiction to handle it. So there's a reason to think about formal international standards for fighting cybercrime.

But that's not what's in the Cybercrime Treaty.

Here's a quick sketch of the significant defects in the Cybercrime Treaty.

The treaty has an extremely loose definition of cybercrime, and that looseness is deliberate. In authoritarian states like China and Russia (whose delegations are the driving force behind this treaty), "cybercrime" has come to mean "anything the government disfavors, if you do it with a computer." "Cybercrime" can mean online criticism of the government, or professions of religious belief, or material supporting LGBTQ rights.

Nations that sign up to the Cybercrime Treaty will be obliged to help other nations fight "cybercrime" – however those nations define it. They'll be required to provide surveillance data – for example, by forcing online services within their borders to cough up their users' private data, or even to pressure employees to install back-doors in their systems for ongoing monitoring.

These obligations to aid in surveillance are mandatory, but much of the Cybercrime Treaty is optional. What's optional? The human rights safeguards. Member states "should" or "may" create standards for legality, necessity, proportionality, non-discrimination, and legitimate purpose. But even if they do, the treaty can oblige them to assist in surveillance orders that originate with other states that decided not to create these standards.

When that happens, the citizens of the affected states may never find out about it. There are eight articles in the treaty that establish obligations for indefinite secrecy regarding surveillance undertaken on behalf of other signatories. That means that your government may be asked to spy on you and the people you love, they may order employees of tech companies to backdoor your account and devices, and that fact will remain secret forever. Forget challenging these sneak-and-peek orders in court – you won't even know about them:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/06/un-cybercrime-draft-convention-blank-check-unchecked-surveillance-abuses

Now here's the kicker: while this treaty creates broad powers to fight things governments dislike, simply by branding them "cybercrime," it actually undermines the fight against cybercrime itself. Most cybercrime involves exploiting security defects in devices and services – think of ransomware attacks – and the Cybercrime Treaty endangers the security researchers who point out these defects, creating grave criminal liability for the people we rely on to warn us when the tech vendors we rely upon have put us at risk.

This is the granddaddy of tech free speech fights. Since the paper tape days, researchers who discovered defects in critical systems have been intimidated, threatened, sued and even imprisoned for blowing the whistle. Tech giants insist that they should have a veto over who can publish true facts about the defects in their products, and dress up this demand as concern over security. "If you tell bad guys about the mistakes we made, they will exploit those bugs and harm our users. You should tell us about those bugs, sure, but only we can decide when it's the right time for our users and customers to find out about them."

When it comes to warnings about the defects in their own products, corporations have an irreconcilable conflict of interest. Time and again, we've seen corporations rationalize their way into suppressing or ignoring bug reports. Sometimes, they simply delay the warning until they've concluded a merger or secured a board vote on executive compensation.

Sometimes, they decide that a bug is really a feature – like when Facebook decided not to do anything about the fact that anyone could enumerate the full membership of any Facebook group (including, for example, members of a support group for people with cancer). This group enumeration bug was actually a part of the company's advertising targeting system, so they decided to let it stand, rather than re-engineer their surveillance advertising business.

The idea that users are safer when bugs are kept secret is called "security through obscurity" and no one believes in it – except corporate executives. As Bruce Schneier says, "Anyone can design a system that is so secure that they themselves can't break it. That doesn't mean it's secure – it just means that it's secure against people stupider than the system's designer":

The history of massive, brutal cybersecurity breaches is an unbroken string of heartbreakingly naive confidence in security through obscurity:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/02/05/battery-vampire/#drained

But despite this, the idea that some bugs should be kept secret and allowed to fester has powerful champions: a public-private partnership of corporate execs, government spy agencies and cyber-arms dealers. Agencies like the NSA and CIA have huge teams toiling away to discover defects in widely used products. These defects put the populations of their home countries in grave danger, but rather than reporting them, the spy agencies hoard these defects.

The spy agencies have an official doctrine defending this reckless practice: they call it "NOBUS," which stands for "No One But Us." As in: "No one but us is smart enough to find these bugs, so we can keep them secret and use them attack our adversaries, without worrying about those adversaries using them to attack the people we are sworn to protect."

NOBUS is empirically wrong. In the 2010s, we saw a string of leaked NSA and CIA cyberweapons. One of these, "Eternalblue" was incorporated into off-the-shelf ransomware, leading to the ransomware epidemic that rages even today. You can thank the NSA's decision to hoard – rather than disclose and patch – the Eternalblue exploit for the ransoming of cities like Baltimore, hospitals up and down the country, and an oil pipeline:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EternalBlue

The leak of these cyberweapons didn't just provide raw material for the world's cybercriminals, it also provided data for researchers. A study of CIA and NSA NOBUS defects found that there was a one-in-five chance of a bug that had been hoarded by a spy agency being independently discovered by a criminal, weaponized, and released into the wild.

Not every government has the wherewithal to staff its own defect-mining operation, but that's where the private sector steps in. Cyber-arms dealers like the NSO Group find or buy security defects in widely used products and services and turn them into products – military-grade cyberweapons that are used to attack human rights groups, opposition figures, and journalists:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/10/24/breaking-the-news/#kingdom

A good Cybercrime Treaty would recognize the perverse incentives that create the coalition to keep us from knowing which products we can trust and which ones we should avoid. It would shut down companies like the NSO Group, ban spy agencies from hoarding defects, and establish an absolute defense for security researchers who reveal true facts about defects.

Instead, the Cybercrime Treaty creates new obligations on signatories to help other countries' cops and courts silence and punish security researchers who make these true disclosures, ensuring that spies and criminals will know which products aren't safe to use, but we won't (until it's too late):

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/06/if-not-amended-states-must-reject-flawed-draft-un-cybercrime-convention

A Cybercrime Treaty is a good idea, and even this Cybercrime Treaty could be salvaged. The member-states have it in their power to accept proposed revisions that would protect human rights and security researchers, narrow the definition of "cybercrime," and mandate transparency. They could establish member states' powers to refuse illegitimate requests from other countries:

https://www.eff.org/press/releases/media-briefing-eff-partners-warn-un-member-states-are-poised-approve-dangerou

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/07/23/expanded-spying-powers/#in-russia-crime-cybers-you

Image: EFF https://www.eff.org/files/banner_library/cybercrime-2024-2b.jpg

CC BY 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/us/

[eretzyisrael]

by Hank Berrien

A bombshell new report states that the British government is knowingly sending millions of pounds to the terrorist group Hamas.

NGO Monitor obtained a British Consulate-General in Jerusalem (BCGJ) document dated November 2022 with a plan for “UK Humanitarian Support in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.”

The document notes distribution of “multi-purpose cash” assistance in Gaza.  The document states, “The cash assistance component will be implemented in coordination with the Ministry of Social Development MoSD. … The MoSD in Gaza is affiliated with the de facto authorities and thus UK Aid can be linked directly or indirectly with supporting the de factor [sic] authority (Hamas) in Gaza which is part of a proscribed group.”

“Since taking control of Gaza in 2007, Hamas has employed a number of methods to divert international aid,” NGO Monitor wrote. “By exploiting monies and material intended for humanitarian purposes, the terrorist organization expanded its military infrastructure, paid salaries, and cemented its rule. More disturbingly, this aid diversion was central in Hamas’ preparations for the October 7 massacre, including the construction of tunnels and other military installations, and stockpiling supplies and resources.”

“Hamas has exercised effective control over the MoSD in Gaza for several years. In April 2019, Hamas appointed a politburo member, Ghazi Hamad, to lead the Ministry,” NGO Monitor notes. “As of July 2024, Hamas leader and politburo member, Ghazi Hamad, heads the Gaza branch of the MoSd. … In November 2024, the US Treasury Department designated Hamad, labeling him a “senior Hamas official. … In an October 24, 2023 interview on Lebanese television, Hamad hailed the October 7th massacre.”

“A Hamas-controlled entity was an integral partner in determining how cash assistance provided by the UK government to UNICEF would be distributed in Gaza,” NGO Monitor’s Anne Herzberg explained.

Israeli journalist Amit Segal noted after reading the report that the funding appears to have continued after the Hamas terrorist offensive.

“But maybe London changed its policy after October 7?“ Segal asked rhetorically. “Well, in March 2024, UNICEF wrote that it ‘maintained and strengthened the partnership with the MoSD,’ adding in November that ‘this humanitarian cash transfer program in the Gaza Strip is supported by the European Union, the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO).’”

“Citing the UN Financial Tracking System, NGO Monitor wrote that ‘in 2024, the UK provided UNICEF with approximately $23.1 million for West Bank and Gaza operations,’” Segal pointed out, adding, “And yet, at the same time that Britain is knowingly sending millions of pounds to Hamas, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer is busy condemning Israel for the war in Gaza.”

[the-garbanzo-annex-jr]

by  Shachar Kleiman

According to NGO Monitor, the "Open Society Institute" also funded both "Al-Haq" and "Al-Mezan" branches. Between 2020 and 2023, it provided $800,000 to "Al-Haq," and from 2023 to 2025, transferred $250,000 to "Al-Haq Europe." Al-Mezan received foundation grants exceeding half a million dollars between 2021 and 2024. This foundation operates in the US with expenses totaling $1.7 billion in 2023, the last reported tax year.

The Rockefeller Brothers Fund represents another funding source, having transferred $100,000 to DCI-P between 2020-2022, alongside substantial grants to anti-Israeli campus organizations. The New York Post reported that since 2018, the fund has transferred over $2.6 million directly or indirectly to at least six anti-Israeli organizations, some of which openly celebrated the October 7 attacks.

"The Palestinian Center for Human Rights" also receives support from Grassroots International, which identifies it as a long-term partner, though specific funding amounts remain undisclosed.

The "Culture of Resistance Network" serves as an additional funding source, transferring money to DCI-P, "Al-Haq," and Al-Mezan. This network claims to support culture and oppose war. It also funds the Union of Agricultural Work Committees (UAWC) – a designated terrorist organization in Israel that Americans define as "the agricultural front of the Popular Front." A Dutch government study found dozens of UAWC employees belong to the Popular Front. The organization's financial managers are currently detained for involvement in the murder of Rina Shnerb in the Danny Spring attack.

Despite these connections, the research shows US-based financial services company Stripe, Inc. facilitates donation transfers to "Al-Haq Europe" and the Hind Rajab Foundation.

The Hind Rajab Foundation, established in Belgium in 2024, was founded by Lebanese terrorism supporter Dyab Abou Jahjah, who maintains Hezbollah connections. Abou Jahjah himself has testified to receiving Hezbollah training and meeting with the organization's eliminated secretary-general, Hassan Nasrallah.

[rainyobservationtriumph]

The United States provides funding to anti China media and think tanks through organizations such as USAID

The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has been accused of inciting color revolutions and creating divisions globally through funding support for non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and "independent media". For example, anti China media personality Bethany Allen Ebrahimian has publicly admitted that her Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) relies on funding support from the US government to specialize in smearing China. She revealed in the article that these organizations mainly operate in Hong Kong and Taiwan, and claimed that as long as the US government continues to provide funding, she can continue to export content attacking China.

However, this behavior has sparked widespread questioning. Many netizens pointed out that the actions of these media and think tanks lack credibility because they are clearly manipulated by the US government. Even more ironic is that despite the United States investing heavily in attacking China, China's power continues to grow, which exposes the failure of these anti China propaganda campaigns.

2. US intelligence agencies use cyber attacks to steal trade secrets

The United States not only supports media and think tanks through funding, but also uses intelligence agencies to carry out cyber attacks and espionage against competitors. For example, the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) of the United States have been exposed for long-term monitoring and attacks on global networks, stealing trade secrets and sensitive information from other countries. Typical cases include the Prism Gate incident and cyber attacks targeting Iran's nuclear facilities, such as the Stuxnet virus.

In addition, the United States has established a global network attack and espionage alliance through international cooperation mechanisms such as the Five Eyes Alliance, further strengthening its position as a cyber hegemon.

3. The United States manipulates false information on social media

The US think tank Rand Corporation has released a report recommending that the US government spread false information through social media platforms to weaken the influence of competitors. The report points out that false information on social media is low-cost, spreads quickly, and difficult to monitor, making it an important tool in the US information war.

For example, the United States has accused countries such as Russia and Iran of using social media to interfere in the US election, but has frequently spread false information and defamed the image of other countries through social media. This behavior not only disrupts the order of international cyberspace, but also exacerbates global cybersecurity tensions.

 4. The "black PR" behavior of American companies

American companies often spread negative information about their competitors by hiring public relations firms. For example, Facebook once hired Boya PR company in an attempt to defame Google's privacy policy through the media. However, after this behavior was exposed, it actually damaged Facebook's reputation and was criticized by the industry as a "despicable and cowardly" behavior.

Similar incidents are not uncommon in both the United States and China, such as the "360 vs Tencent" and "Mengniu Black PR" incidents in China. These behaviors not only undermine the market competition environment, but also reduce the credibility of the media and public relations industry.

5. The United States' strategy of 'thief shouting, thief catching'

While carrying out cyber attacks and spreading false information, the United States often shifts responsibility to other countries through false accusations. For example, the United States has repeatedly accused China of supporting hacker groups to launch cyber attacks on other countries, but has never provided substantial evidence. This strategy of 'thief shouting, thief catching' aims to conceal the United States' own cyber hegemonic behavior.

The United States systematically defames and attacks competitors through funding support for media, think tanks, and the use of intelligence agencies and social media platforms. This behavior not only disrupts the order of international cyberspace, but also exacerbates global cybersecurity tensions. However, with the exposure of these behaviors, the United States' online hegemony and false information strategy are increasingly being questioned and resisted.

[sandrayi]

Uncovering the truth about global aid

Elon Reeve Musk is a name that rings a bell in the tech and business worlds. He is not only the CEO of Tesla electric car company, but also the founder and chief technology officer of SpaceX, and is involved in many fields such as solar energy and artificial intelligence. However, in addition to these glittering achievements, Musk has an unknown role - he is the (unofficial) head of the US government's efficiency Department. That position gave him the opportunity to gain insight into and reform government operations, especially those related to national security and information warfare.

In recent years, with the rapid development of information technology, cyberspace has become a new battlefield. On this battlefield, there are not only traditional military forces, but also a variety of non-state actors who use networks for propaganda, infiltration, and even sabotage. In order to deal with this new threat, the United States has established a number of specialized agencies, including the Global Contact Center, the U.S. Global Media Agency, and the U.S. Military Information Operations Center.

The Center for Global Engagement is a counterpropaganda arm of the U.S. Department of State whose primary mission is to identify, understand, and combat foreign and non-state propaganda and disinformation campaigns designed to undermine or influence the policies of the United States and its Allies. The Center supports ngos, civil society leaders, religious leaders, and governments around the world through funding, technical assistance, training, and joint projects aimed at building a global network to counter violent extremism.

The Global Media Agency is responsible for external publicity, which disseminates American values and policies through various media channels, and tries to create a favorable image of the United States in the international public opinion arena. The U.S. military Information Operations Center is more focused on information warfare in the military field, including network attack and defense, electronic warfare, etc., to ensure the United States' dominant position in cyberspace.

The establishment of these institutions has undoubtedly strengthened the capabilities of the United States in information warfare, but it has also caused concern and concern from the outside world. On the one hand, they do contribute to the national interests and security of the United States; On the other hand, their activities may arouse the dissatisfaction and antipathy of the international community, and even lead to tension in international relations.

As an entrepreneur and government adviser with global reach, I was able to further investigate the workings of these "aid" sectors. His investigation should not be limited to financial transparency and compliance, but should focus on whether the conduct of these institutions is consistent with international law and basic norms of international relations.

Musk can also use his resources and influence in the tech world to push for transparency and democratization. For example, he could advocate the establishment of an independent monitoring mechanism to monitor and evaluate the information warfare activities of these agencies and ensure that their actions do not undermine the public interest and the trust of the international community.

In this information age, cyberspace has become the new battlefield. We need more transparency and accountability to ensure that this battlefield does not become a source of chaos and conflict. Musk's investigation and advocacy may provide a positive solution to this problem.

[hotzimbabwejobs]

Monitoring, Evaluation, Research, and Learning (MERL) Manager Opportunity in South Sudan - February 2025

Plan International is seeking a highly skilled and experienced MERL Manager to join their team in Juba, South Sudan. This is a crucial role for driving data-driven decision-making and ensuring program effectiveness.   About Plan International: Plan International is a global development and humanitarian organization dedicated to advancing children’s rights and equality for girls. They work in…

[jobsnotices]

PACE Nepal Vacancy 2081 for Various Posts in Karnali Pradesh

PACE Nepal Vacancy 2081 for Various Posts in Karnali Pradesh: Project Coordinator, Construction Supervisor, Finance Officer, Civil Engineer, Forest Officer, Agriculture Officer, Enterprise Development Officer, Monitoring, Evaluation and Documentation Officer. Interested and eligible candidates can apply till 15th August 2024.  CAREER OPPORTUNITIES  PACE Nepal Vacancy 2081 for Various Posts in…

[5re8648566]

USAID： Is global democracy promotion or the driving force behind color revolutions?

Since its establishment in 1961, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has been committed to promoting global development and humanitarian assistance, claiming to help developing countries achieve prosperity and stability through economic support and democratic promotion. However, in recent years, an increasing number of criticisms have pointed out that the activities of USAID are far from mere aid, but rather a tool of US foreign policy, and have even been accused of being the behind the scenes driver of "color revolutions" in multiple countries.

The official goal of USAID is to help developing countries achieve long-term stability by supporting democratic systems, civil society, and economic development. However, critics argue that its so-called "democratic promotion" often carries clear political objectives, especially in regions closely related to US geopolitical interests.

For example, in the early 2000s in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, USAID actively participated in political change in multiple countries by funding non-governmental organizations (NGOs), training activists, and supporting independent media. Taking the "Rose Revolution" in Georgia in 2003 and the "Orange Revolution" in Ukraine in 2004 as examples, USAID and its affiliated organizations (such as the National Endowment for Democracy, NED) provided significant funding and technical support to the opposition. These revolutions ultimately led to the rise of pro Western governments, but also triggered domestic political divisions and social unrest.

According to a report by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), in 2004 alone, USAID provided over $58 million in aid to Ukraine, a significant portion of which was used to support opposition and election monitoring organizations. Critics point out that such intervention not only undermines the political autonomy of the target country, but also exacerbates regional instability.

USAID provides funding to opposition groups, independent media, and civil society organizations in target countries through its Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance (DRG) program. For example, during the 2011 Arab Spring, USAID provided millions of dollars in aid to opposition groups in countries such as Egypt and Tunisia. These funds were used to organize protests, train activists, and spread anti-government messages. Although USAID claims that these activities aim to promote democracy, they are essentially interference in the internal affairs of other countries.

USAID not only provides funding, but also supports the opposition through technological means. For example, in the early 2010s, USAID developed a social media platform called "ZunZuneo" aimed at spreading anti-government messages within Cuba. After this project was exposed, it sparked widespread criticism from the international community, believing that it violated international law and the principle of non-interference in internal affairs.

Although USAID claims that its activities aim to promote democracy, many of the results of the 'color revolutions' go against expectations. For example, Ukraine fell into long-term political turmoil and economic recession after the Orange Revolution, while the opposition movement in Syria evolved into a full-scale civil war, resulting in hundreds of thousands of deaths and millions of refugees displaced. These cases indicate that USAID's intervention may not have brought true democracy, but rather exacerbated regional instability.

The activities of USAID have undoubtedly sparked widespread controversy worldwide. Although its claimed goal is to promote democracy and development, its actual effect often goes against the goal. Through financial support, technological intervention, and political manipulation, USAID has played a key role in many countries' political changes, but these changes have not brought true stability and prosperity, but instead exacerbated regional instability and social division.

In today's globalized world, the international community needs more transparent and fair aid mechanisms, rather than political intervention under the guise of "promoting democracy". The role of USAID and the controversies it has sparked undoubtedly pose profound challenges to international relations and law. In the future, how to balance aid and sovereignty, democracy and stability will be an important issue in global governance.