It’s hard to take seriously the reactions to the NGO law, which passed its final reading by a 57-48 majority on Monday night in the Knesset.

Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked, who announced that the law would increase “transparency” and improve public discourse in Israel, was being disingenuous – the law does not force the NGOs receiving funding from foreign governments to disclose any details they were not already required to.

Equally, the warnings from the European Union and some of the NGOs of a danger to democracy and a blow against human rights were also greatly exaggerated.

The new law’s requirements that NGOs receiving foreign funding acknowledge the fact in their official publications and communications should not hinder their operations in any major way. Foreign money will continue pouring into the human-rights organisations’ coffers. It is even possible that funders’ desire to show that they were not cowed by the law will prompt them to bump up the payments.

However, the fact that law has changed little in the actual legal situation does not mean there are not powerful arguments for and against it.

The law’s right-wing sponsors and supporters have scored a significant victory, even though some of its original clauses were deleted or watered-down. That’s because it puts the funding - to their mind, the “foreign interference” - on the public agenda and keeps it there. Even though the relevant data was available already, it will be much more accessible and prominent now. They have succeeded in branding these organisations as agents in the pay of anti-Israeli entities. Which is why this legislation is indeed a blow for those NGOs. The entire convoluted process of passing the law, regardless of the final result, has been another step towards creating an increasingly hostile, “us” against “them” environment for Israel’s human-rights community.

By focusing on funding from foreign governments and large public foundations, the law is clearly focused on the NGOs of the left.

Right-wing groups such as those involved in settlement-building are no less heavily funded from abroad, but the cash comes from private donors and foundations.

So the law not only favours one side of the political spectrum, it feeds the narrative of an Israel that is forsaking its democratic values.

True of false, this is the narrative currently dominating much of the foreign coverage of the legislation, no matter nugatory the actual legal ramifications.