A new report by advocacy group EiGHT has accused some international humanitarian and human rights organisations of mishandling antisemitism complaints, exploiting suffering in Gaza for fundraising, and promoting one-sided narratives around the Israel-Gaza war.
The report, covered by The Australian Jewish News, raises concerns about transparency, internal accountability, staff safety, donor communication, and the political messaging of major non-governmental organisations working or speaking on humanitarian crises.
According to the report, some NGO staff members alleged that antisemitism complaints within their organisations were ignored or minimised after the outbreak of the Gaza war. The report further claims that humanitarian suffering in Gaza was used in fundraising campaigns in ways that, according to its authors, may have oversimplified the conflict and strengthened anti-Israel messaging.
EiGHT, described in the report as a new advocacy group, argues that the NGO sector has significant public influence but insufficient external oversight. The group is calling for stronger accountability mechanisms within humanitarian and human rights organisations, especially where organisations campaign publicly on politically sensitive conflicts while also raising funds from public sympathy.
One of EiGHT’s lead organisers, Danielle Haas, is a former senior editor at Human Rights Watch. According to the report, Haas left Human Rights Watch after the start of the Gaza war and later became a critic of the NGO sector’s handling of Israel-related issues. The report says other current and former NGO staff members later contacted her with similar concerns, leading to the formation of EiGHT.
The allegations come at a time when humanitarian organisations continue to face intense scrutiny over their role in conflict reporting, aid delivery, public advocacy, and fundraising. In crises such as Gaza, NGOs often play a major role in documenting suffering, calling for protection of civilians, raising emergency funds, and shaping global public understanding.
However, the report highlights a difficult question for the social impact sector: how can humanitarian organisations advocate strongly for civilians while maintaining fairness, transparency, internal inclusion, and accountability to staff, donors, and affected communities?
For the NGO and foundation sector, the controversy is a reminder that credibility is one of the most important assets in humanitarian work. Organisations responding to conflict must ensure that their messaging is accurate, their fundraising is ethical, their staff complaints are handled fairly, and their advocacy does not erase the suffering, identity, or safety concerns of any group.
The claims in the report remain allegations and should be assessed alongside responses from the organisations named or affected. Before drawing final conclusions, editors and readers should review the full EiGHT report, the responses of the NGOs involved, and independent analysis from humanitarian accountability experts.
Leave a Reply