Major humanitarian and human rights organisations with Australian links have been accused of failing Jewish staff, mishandling antisemitism complaints and allowing contested claims on Israel and Gaza to influence Australian media, education, Parliament and public debate.
A 63-page report by EiGHT, a group founded by current and former NGO professionals, says major international NGOs have minimised, reframed or dismissed antisemitism complaints despite presenting themselves as defenders of human rights, equality and accountability.
The report, “It is clear what is happening, and action needs to follow”: Insiders speak: NGO antisemitism, failed accountability, and their impact on social cohesion, was prepared for submission to the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion.
It draws on first-hand accounts from more than 70 current and former staff in human rights, humanitarian, environmental and development organisations, including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the International Committee of the Red Cross, Médecins Sans Frontières, Greenpeace, Mercy Corps, Plan International, Save the Children and UNICEF.
EiGHT says most of the organisations featured directly or indirectly in the report have a presence in Australia through national sections, affiliate offices or operational programs, and engage with Australian policy, media and public discourse.
The report alleges inaction, minimisation and retaliation over antisemitism complaints, the exclusion of Jewish staff from relevant processes, hostile internal cultures, weak complaints systems, flawed methods and the use of non-disclosure agreements to silence staff.
It says the consistency of accounts across organisations, countries and roles shows systemic failures rather than isolated incidents.
EiGHT argues the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission does not adequately cover the issues identified in the report, including research methodology, editorial standards, internal complaints or the accuracy of published NGO material.
The report’s eight recommendations include independent third-party reporting channels for staff, a standing oversight body able to investigate and publish findings, minimum accountability standards attached to government funding and tax concessions, an inquiry into non-disclosure agreements, a confidential Australia-specific survey of Jewish NGO staff, and sector-wide benchmarking standards.
One non-Jewish staffer at Amnesty International Australia said that after the Bondi Beach massacre in December 2025, efforts to address antisemitism were framed inside the organisation as attempts to restrict criticism of Israel.
Another Amnesty International Australia staff member reported a rise in antizionist ideology, with the term “Zionist” often used in a disparaging way.
The staffer said they knew of no organisational effort to define Zionism in consultation with Jewish groups or individuals for whom it formed part of their identity.
A third non-Jewish Amnesty International Australia staff member said anti-Jewish bias had become embedded in parts of the organisation’s culture and decision-making.
“My experience at AIA has left me deeply concerned that anti-Jewish bias and prejudice have become embedded in parts of the organisation’s culture and decision-making,” the staff member said.
“What I observed was not a series of isolated incidents, but a consistent pattern.”
The report says Jewish staff who raised concerns after the October 7 Hamas attacks were often treated with suspicion or accused of trying to shield Israel from criticism.
One contributor said discussions rarely began with what had happened or why an employee experienced it as antisemitic, and instead quickly moved to: “But what is antisemitism really? What about Zionism? What about Gaza?”
EiGHT says this left staff “circling the drain of definitions while nothing is actually investigated”.
The report contrasts this with NGO responses to #MeToo and Black Lives Matter, which produced training, external reviews, public statements and policy changes.
One NGO staffer said: “Jewish employees raised concerns openly at first. Then less often. Then not at all. In time, they were all gone.”
EiGHT also cites survey evidence saying 55 per cent of Jewish professionals in secular humanitarian organisations reported experiencing or witnessing anti-Jewish bias, 73 per cent said organisational responses were ineffective, and only 12 per cent said their workplace provided tools or resources for dealing with antisemitic statements or behaviour.
The report says Amnesty International Australia’s submission to a NSW parliamentary inquiry into hate slogans described “globalise the intifada” as “deeply embedded in peaceful anti-genocide, anti-apartheid, and anti-occupation movements”.
EiGHT says the slogan has been widely understood as a call to violence and has been cited in connection with antisemitic incidents in Australia and overseas.
It also says Amnesty International Australia’s statement marking the first anniversary of October 7 opened not with the Hamas attacks, but with: “76 years since the forced displacement of Palestinians by the state of Israel began…”
EiGHT says this reflected a broader pattern in which Israeli and Jewish victims were sidelined, minimised or placed inside a wider anti-Israel frame.
The report cites another Australian example in which an anti-racism facilitator contracted by a prominent NGO allegedly likened October 7 to a slave revolt and said she struggled to empathise with Israeli fear because Israelis were the “oppressor”.
It also says content approvers at a prominent Australian NGO removed the word “living” from copy about “all living Israeli hostages” being freed, on the basis that it privileged Israel.
EiGHT says the edit made the copy factually inaccurate because Hamas still held hostages’ bodies.
The report says international NGO material has become embedded in Australian public life.
It says ABC News and Media Watch, SBS News, The Guardian Australia and The Sydney Morning Herald regularly cited Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch material after October 7.
It also says Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International material has featured in Western Australian senior humanities teaching programs, while Greens senators Lidia Thorpe and Jordon Steele-John cited both organisations in 2023 Senate speeches pressing apartheid allegations against Israel.
EiGHT says this gives NGO material significant authority in national debate even where the underlying research, sourcing and internal review processes are contested.
The report says staff raised concerns that some NGO reports omitted information favourable to Israeli military arguments, including evidence Hamas was operating where hostages were rescued.
It says a 2024 Amnesty workshop titled “Apartheid in Israel” portrayed Israel’s founding as illegitimate without mentioning Jewish historical presence or failed peace efforts.
EiGHT also says a Human Rights Watch “Israel-Palestine” meeting on October 23, 2023, attended by 300 staff, did not mention the October 7 victims or hostages.
An internal Human Rights Watch document from October 10, 2023 reportedly listed one objective as to “influence the narrative”, and staff later described briefing celebrities and advising Hollywood firms on Israel-Hamas messaging.
An MSF planning document ahead of the anniversary said it would be important to challenge the “dominant narrative” that the war began on October 7.
Staff at Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, which each accused Israel of genocide in 2024, also raised concerns that findings appeared predetermined.
Amnesty staff said an internal report was called “the genocide report” while research was still preliminary.
The report also raises concerns about sourcing.
Human Rights Watch’s Israel-Palestine director Omar Shakir reportedly told colleagues, five days after October 7, that the organisation’s “only source is the Gaza Health Ministry”, which is controlled by Hamas.
EiGHT says Israeli sources were treated with far more caution, even where Hamas had filmed or broadcast its own attacks.
The report says NGOs were slow to state clearly that Hamas had deliberately targeted civilians, despite extensive visual evidence.
Gaza also became a major fundraising driver, according to the report.
Staff at Doctors Without Borders and Amnesty said images of Palestinian suffering “played well” with donors, with results falling during ceasefires.
At Amnesty International Australia, one staffer said seven of 10 fundraising appeals since October 2023 focused wholly or partly on Israel-Palestine.
EiGHT says this created an incentive for urgent and emotional language, sometimes at the expense of accuracy.
The report points to the Antoinette Lattouf case as an example of how NGO claims can move from advocacy into media, law and public debate.
Lattouf was hired as a casual ABC Radio Sydney presenter for five days in December 2023.
She reposted a Human Rights Watch claim that Israel was deliberately using starvation as a weapon of war in Gaza, captioning it: “HRW reporting starvation as a tool of war.”
EiGHT says she did not present the claim as an allegation or contested finding.
The report says ABC Radio Sydney content director Elizabeth Green had advised Lattouf it was acceptable to post material that was “fact-based, from a verified source, or from a reputable organisation”.
The Federal Court later accepted she had been told that posting “fact-based material from a verified source would be fine”.
For EiGHT, the key point is that Human Rights Watch was treated as the verified source.
“Its imprimatur was the fact-check,” the report says.
The ABC removed Lattouf from her remaining two shifts.
In June 2025, the Federal Court found the ABC unlawfully terminated her employment for reasons including her political opinion, in breach of the Fair Work Act, and awarded her $70,000 in compensation for non-economic loss.
In September 2025, the Federal Court ordered the ABC to pay a further $150,000 penalty, bringing the total ordered to $220,000.
EiGHT says the case shows how contested NGO claims can pass through media and legal systems as verified fact without the underlying claim being examined.
The report says that when Lattouf was terminated, the accuracy of the Human Rights Watch claim was never examined.
Instead, EiGHT says, the termination was received not as a consequence of spreading unverified material, but as retaliation for spreading the truth.
It says claims circulated at broadcast scale under institutional authority contribute to an environment in which hostility toward Jewish Australians can present itself “not as prejudice but as conscience”.
The report says charitable status, moral language or international reputation should not be assumed to guarantee sound practice. It calls for independent oversight, stronger editorial safeguards, transparent corrections practices and a clearer line between advocacy and evidence.
It also urges scrutiny of non-disclosure agreements in NGO employment disputes, saying some appear to have been used not as standard confidentiality tools, but as instruments of intimidation.
EiGHT says the cases of Plan International and Greenpeace, both with Australian operations, show how such mechanisms can protect institutions rather than staff.
The report says NGOs operating in Australia, especially those receiving public funding or tax concessions, should provide staff with genuinely independent, third-party reporting pathways for discrimination complaints, including antisemitism.
It also recommends an Australia-specific survey of current and former Jewish professionals working in human rights and humanitarian NGOs.
For Jewish staff who spoke to EiGHT, the issue is not whether Israel should be immune from criticism.
It is whether organisations that demand accountability from others are willing to apply the same standards to themselves.