There are many NGOs that are overtly anti Israel. Amnesty. Human Rights Watch. B’Tselem. Addameer.
There are others where they are less overtly but their bias is still observable. Oxfam for example.
Many of these groups are highly active in international legal and media campaigns against Israel.
The EU and even Israel have designated some as linked to terrorism, especially those connected to the PFLP.
NGOs are not always apolitical. They are made up of people, very often left-wing activists who are not politicaly neutral.
That doesn't mean they don't do useful work. Amnesty international for example produces an annual report on human rights abuses in both Israeli and Palestinian territories. I read them cover to cover.
But they only publicise the accusations against israel obsessively, like a mad froth of desperation, and you need to hunt down the report showing the (far, far worse) record on Palestinians themselves.
So you just need to be wary that what you're hearing is often just the bit of the story they want you to hear.
A really good example of how this works in practice is that everyone here knows a lot of information about food shortages in Gaza, but nobody except me knew the UN report on trucks not making it to their destination.
I also doubt anyone knows the UN have refused to deliver aid citing security concerns, and habe said Israel was responsible for ensuring security but then regused to accept that security. Which is essentially the UN creating impossible parameters.
It's not necessarily lying. But it's constant ommission. Constant half-truth. All of it based om trying to demonise Israel.
MSF certainly do great work. But they're not without political bias. They repeatedly used highly charged language in statements about Israel, referring to “Indiscriminate bombing,” “Massacres,” “Targeting civilians,”
That might align with your political views, but not with mine and it's certainly not neutral. Their comms lack context (such as Hamas’ use of human shields or tunnel warfare) and they rarely mention Hamas atrocities or acknowledge Israel’s right to self-defence.
In contrast, MSF has been much more measured in criticism of other conflicts even where those involved are about as bad as it gets - such as Syria, Russia, or Sudan, leading to accusations of selective outrage that i personally agree with.
MSF claims neutrality and humanitarian focus, but it has often issued statements that critics say cross into political advocacy, particularly in conflicts involving Israel and individual staff members have made antisemitic or extremist posts, including praising terrorism, sharing Holocaust inversion tropes and justifying Hamas violence.
Whilst very vocally condemning israel theyve been consistently silent on Hamas’ attacks on 7 October and otherwise, even when those attacks directly led to humanitarian crises MSF was commenting on which to be is astonishing.
This one-sided framing, condemning Israel while not mentioning the actors who initiate the conflict, is a major point of criticism so if people honestly believe their output is neutral that's up to them but I personally see them as highly political and therefore to be taken with due critique.