The Erosion of Impartiality: How Human Rights Discourse Became Entangled with Anti-Zionism
Table of Contents
The Sigrid Rausing Trust, a nearly 30-year-old charitable organization dedicated to human rights, found itself embroiled in a complex controversy after severing ties with several grantees following the October 7th attacks, highlighting a disturbing trend of conflating human rights advocacy with inflammatory rhetoric and, at times, antisemitism.
Founded on principles of rigorous adherence to truth and impartiality, the Trust has long prioritized clarity and a rejection of ideological excess in its grantmaking. This commitment was tested when, in the wake of the Hamas atrocities, a small number of its 400 grantees publicly expressed support for the attacks or framed Israel’s response in deeply problematic terms. The incident forced a reckoning with how the field of human rights has evolved – and, in some corners, become distorted – in recent decades.
A History of Principled Distance
For much of its early history, the human rights movement distinguished itself through a commitment to legal frameworks, evidence-based reporting, and, crucially, impartiality. Groups earned credibility by refusing to align exclusively with either the left or the right, a position that often drew criticism from both sides. However, the landscape shifted dramatically after the September 11th attacks.
The “war on terror” brought human rights organizations into contact with individuals accused of terrorism, providing legal representation and advocating for due process, even for those suspected of heinous crimes. While defending fundamental legal principles, this work inadvertently blurred lines and created associations that would later be exploited. As one observer noted, the argument centered on defending principles of due process and banning torture, rather than defending the accused themselves.
The hardening of political positions in the US and UK further complicated matters. In the US, advocating for human rights became associated with being “soft on terror,” while in the UK, the term became increasingly linked to the left wing of the Labour Party and groups with ambiguous stances on terrorism. President Obama’s 2014 acknowledgement of US torture practices, followed by a lack of accountability, further eroded trust and opened the door for a more cynical view of human rights advocacy.
The Rise of Slogans and the Soviet Legacy
This shift coincided with a change in the language used within activist circles. The Sigrid Rausing Trust’s founder observed a troubling trend: the adoption of slogans like “settler colonialist white-supremacist state” and “Zionist entity,” phrases that lack concrete meaning and echo the propaganda of the late Soviet Union.
The entanglement of antisemitism and anti-Zionism, it turns out, has deep historical roots in Soviet ideology. The infamous campaigns against “rootless cosmopolitans” and the Doctors’ Plot were overtly antisemitic, and anti-Zionism was frequently used as a pretext for persecution. The Trust’s founder pointed out that while many contemporary protesters may not be personally antisemitic, the historical connection between the two ideologies is undeniable.
This reliance on slogans, rather than nuanced analysis, has led to a troubling trend of applying labels without understanding the complexities of the situation. The debate over whether Israelis can be considered “white,” for example, demonstrates a descent into unproductive identity politics, diverting attention from the core issues at hand. As Orwell observed, such language prioritizes allegiance over meaning, becoming “a prefabricated hen-house” of empty phrases.
A Crisis of Impartiality and the Way Forward
The Trust’s decision to cut ties with grantees who expressed support for Hamas drew criticism, with some accusing it of failing to stand up for Palestinian human rights. Vu Le, a philanthropy critic, argued on LinkedIn that “Defunding organisations that are speaking up against gen@cide is the worst of all crappy funding practices.” However, the Trust maintained that its actions were based on a fundamental principle: that atrocities against civilians are incompatible with human rights.
The incident highlighted a broader crisis of impartiality within the human rights movement. The right has largely rejected the movement, associating it with overreach and elitism, while parts of the left have embraced it selectively, often without fully adhering to its core principles. The BBC’s attempt at “impartiality” – positioning itself in the center without a strong intellectual foundation – has further degraded the concept.
The Sigrid Rausing Trust has responded by narrowing its regional focus to Eurasia, the Balkans, and Turkey, and increasing its support for anti-corruption work. The founder acknowledges that the experience was bruising, but believes the Trust made the right decision. As one grantee in Serbia recently told the Trust, it’s not about having hope, but about having commitment. That commitment, the Trust believes, must be rooted in a rigorous adherence to truth and a refusal to compromise on fundamental principles, even in the face of intense pressure. The Trust has committed £591 million in grants throughout its history, and remains dedicated to upholding those principles in a world where they are increasingly under threat.
