In collaboration with NOW Lebanon, the Weekly Lebanon Round-Up brings you a monthly series of exclusive interviews and coverage of Lebanon's vibrant civil society. Join us each month for a fresh look at Lebanon's culture, social scene and best kept secrets.

The online activist group Avaaz has been working on global issues relating to human rights since 2007. Its first campaign was a petition for a ceasefire during the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war, for which it racked up some 300,000 signatures. It now has over 15 million subscribers worldwide. Though most of its actions take place online, Avaaz has been active on the ground, with a significant part of its efforts geared toward the Arab Spring, especially relief efforts in Syria. NOW Lebanon talked to Avaaz founding president and executive director Ricken Patel about the organization's work and the recent controversies that have plagued it.

Q: Avaaz had a recent petition against the Boycott, Divest and Sanction movement that was removed. Can you tell us a bit more about what happened?

Ricken Patel: We recently started this new site called Avaaz Community Petitions, which allows anyone who wants to change something to start a petition. The petition you are referring to was started by someone in Ireland who was opposing the BDS campaign. What we do with those petitions is, once they rise above a certain number-say 100 signatures-if we have any concerns about that petition, we sent it out to a randomized sample of our community to ensure that that petition is consistent with the mission and the values of the Avaaz community, and that petition was not supported. So we informed the creator and took it down.

As Avaaz, we've certainly never campaigned against BDS. We vigorously support the aspirations of the Palestinian people to a state and vigorously oppose the Israeli settlement policy. I think our record on this issue is very clear.

Q: Do you as an organization support the BDS movement?

Patel: Our community hasn't taken a position on that issue yet. But what we've been doing is going through a series of polling and discussions about that. What we've seen in our polling so far is targeting Israeli products that are made in the settlements. That appears to be a popular campaign.

Q: As opposed to a full-on Israeli product boycott?

Patel: Yes. That one has not done well in our polling. The positions we take are not determined by me or our staff. Every campaign that we might develop or suggest to our community has to have support from the community in order to become an Avaaz campaign.

Q: What about Avaaz's position on Palestinians' right of return or the 1967 borders?

Patel: Our campaign position has clearly endorsed the right of Palestinians to their own state and opposed Israeli settlements. Avaaz has campaigned for a solution based on the '67 borders but has not taken a position on the right of return.

Q: Can you tell us about your funding?

Patel: We don't accept money from governments, corporations, etc. It's all small online donations. We also don't accept donations over 5,000 Euros [$6,300]. We have possibly the most legitimate funding base on the planet.

Q: An article in the New Republic accused Avaaz of taking undeserved credit for the rescue last spring of journalist Paul Conroy, who was injured while covering the uprising in Syria. How do you respond to these accusations?

Patel: We made some honest mistakes in those initial 24 hours-for example, we didn't know that the Free Syrian Army (FSA) transported Paul once they were safely to the border, once outside Baba Amer [in Homs, where he was injured during a government attack].

So Paul says the FSA had him from start to finish, but eyewitnesses who were there say that he was taken into this tunnel by media center activists.

And Paul was in an incredibly tough state, and he didn't share a language with the people he was with. It's understandable how there can be many stories. It was chaotic, lots of room for misunderstanding.

At a big picture, I think we helped in the way that we claimed. I also think it's important to look at the difference between what we claimed and what people perceived to be claimed.

I think we've been caught between a journalist with an agenda and some drama and some honest misunderstandings.