[citation needed] NGO Monitor has been criticized by academic figures, diplomats, and journalists for allowing its research and conclusions to be driven by politics,[8][9][10] for not examining right-wing NGOs,[10] and for spreading misinformation.
[11] NGO Monitor's stated mission is to "end the practice used by certain self-declared 'humanitarian NGOs' of exploiting the label 'universal human rights values' to promote politically and ideologically motivated agendas".
[10][12][9] The organization's leader, Gerald M. Steinberg, has reportedly worked for the Israeli Foreign Ministry and the Office of the Prime Minister while heading NGO Monitor.
[20] Since its separation from the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (JCPA) and its formation as an independent organization in 2007, NGO Monitor has drawn on a wider range of funding sources.
[21] In 2010, the organization received a $500,000 grant from Research + Evaluation = Promoting Organizational Responsibility and Transparency (REPORT), formerly known as American Friends of NGO Monitor (AFNGOM).
[22] According to a February 2012 article by Uri Blau in Haaretz, his examination of NGO Monitor's finances revealed that "the organization sought to block the publication of one contributor and to get hundreds of thousands of Shekels from anonymous sources".
In the same article, Jason Edelstein, NGO Monitor's communications director, is quoted as saying "all of our financial information is fully disclosed with the Registrar for Non-Profits as required by law".
"[32] A spokesman for B'Tselem said the information had been published on its website for years and that NGO Monitor is a group of "Israeli government apologists masquerading as an objective watchdog.
"[32] NGO Monitor criticized the Ford Foundation for funding the 2001 World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance in Durban, South Africa.
"[39] With the stated aim of encouraging critical debate on the role of NGOs in the Middle East conflict, NGO Monitor held a 2006 conference in Jerusalem with 21 humanitarian aid groups in attendance.
[40] Amnesty International said the conference did "not give a balanced ground for open and fair dialogue" while another human rights group accused NGO Monitor of "partiality".
[42] Political research conducted at Lund University in 2019 rated NGO Monitor highly for "counter-democratic activities" and found that the organization was "heavily involved in [the] denunciation" of human rights NGOs by depicting them as "unprofessional and biased".
[47] NIF's rejoined that its public records lag the end of the reporting year by several months, but reiterated that updated information was given to NGO Monitor verbally.
[50] Uriel Heilman, a managing editor for the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA) and a senior reporter for The Jerusalem Post, wrote in an online opinion column that there were a "couple of disingenuous (read: inaccurate) elements" in the May 2009 digest of NGO Monitor.
[51] Kathleen Peratis, a member of the board of Human Rights Watch, called into question the research methodology underlying an op-ed by Steinberg for not saying specifically where or when HRW statements have been unverifiable.
Peratis took issue with an op-ed by Steinberg titled "Ken Roth's Blood Libel",[53] and argues those like NGO Monitor "who want selective exemption of Israel from the rules of war" may not "have faced the implications of getting what they wish for".
"[59] Ilan Baruch, Israel's former ambassador to South Africa, said in a September 2018 report by the Policy Working Group (PWG) that NGO Monitor "disseminates misleading and tendentious information, which it presents as factual in-depth research".
"This research shows that many of NGO Monitor's accusations are based on selective citations, half-facts and insinuations, but not necessarily on hard evidence", Blok added.
[62] NGO Monitor attempted in 2010 to cut the funding of The Electronic Intifada by the Dutch foundation Interchurch Organisation for Development Cooperation by asserting that the website was "anti-Semitic and frequently compares Israeli policies with those of the Nazi regime."
Newspapers such as The Washington Post and the Financial Times have frequently used material from the Electronic Intifada, and the rights of Palestinian people to a decent way of living are central in the news brought by the EI.
"[65] John H. Richardson, writing for Esquire magazine's website in 2009, called NGO Monitor a "rabidly partisan organization that attacks just about anyone who dares to criticize Israel on any grounds".
"[71] Ittijah, Union of Arab Community-Based Organisations in Israel, has said NGO Monitor represents the interests and the say of the Israeli state rather than civil society's voice based on human rights values.
Friedman continues, "In my time as an AP writer moving through the local conflict, with its myriad lunatics, bigots, and killers, the only person I ever saw subjected to an interview ban was this professor.