After the #MeToo and Black Lives Matter movements erupted, Human Rights Watch held internal “listening sessions” to mull its failures and hear the “lived experiences” of colleagues. In 2019, after staff suicides, Amnesty investigated and committed to radical change. In 2020, after staff at Doctors Without Borders (Médecins Sans Frontières) claimed institutional racism and “white savior” culture, leadership investigated and promised reforms.

The response of these same organizations to Jewish staff raising documented antisemitism and policy breaches for nearly three years? Absolutely nothing.

I’ve heard dozens of staff from major global rights, humanitarian, development, and environmental NGOs describe shocking experiences and violated practices, which they have dutifully detailed in emails and laid out in multi-page dossiers for managers who have consistently made one thing clear: they don’t give a damn.

No explorations of “subconscious bias” or validation of Jewish pain here.

No internal investigations, follow up questions, or review of policies.

No effort to survey Jewish staff or respond to independent studies or articles showing that isolation, corrupted work, and antisemitism is rife in the sector.

Quite the cover-up opposite: in 2025, Amnesty USA director Paul O’Brien even advised staff not to share an Atlantic magazine article detailing NGO double standards towards Israel and the experience of Jews in the sector in order to “reduce amplification.” He encouraged sensitivity to those “who may feel impacted” by the piece, not those actually featured.

What has happened in these groups that promote free-speech, accountability, and anti-hate policies? Gaslighting (“I’m sorry you feel demoralized”), excuses, and flat-out denial of lived experiences readily validated for other minority staff including Black, Asian, Muslim, and LGBT colleagues.

And of course, the same worn, spurious canard pushed by leaders who would rather deflect scrutiny than respond to it: that dedicated professionals who are brave enough to flag corruption, failed methodology, and bias are “disgruntled” or simply can’t hack criticism of Israel.

Non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) seal abusive practices behind closed walls: I saw one recently that demanded a staff member erase their own experiences of antisemitism and explicitly state no organizational failure as a precondition for receiving money.

The message to Jewish staff in the rights, humanitarian, and environmental sector is clear: you aren’t believed here. You aren’t safe here. And you’re not wanted here.

It’s hard to make university campuses look good given their mess since October 7, but at least there is growing acknowledgement there’s an issue. Human rights NGOs, by contrast, are still acting like it’s 2022—and that everyone else is the problem.

These organizations must immediately establish:

An independent mechanism for staff to enable safe reporting without risk of retaliation.

Establish an independent inquiry into internal antisemitism and the experiences of Jewish staff since October 7, 2023.

Establish an independent inquiry into whether past commitments to staff wellbeing and tackling institutional discrimination have been implemented, and if they have, how effectively. 

Consult Jewish staff on antisemitism trainings, so they have a voice rather than being instructed, as at Amnesty, on other peoples’ views of their experiences and on identifying what antisemitism is not (“false antisemitism”)

Hold staff-wide antisemitism trainings, which include examining how “anti-Zionism” rhetoric can be used to mask antisemitism.

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)