How European Governments Have Created a Shadow Diplomatic Network Through Pro-Palestinian NGO Funding
What we’re witnessing across Europe represents a revolutionary development in international relations that I call Subcontracted Sovereignty—where governments systematically outsource their foreign policy objectives to non-governmental organizations while maintaining plausible deniability about their true intentions. This isn’t merely about funding humanitarian aid or supporting civil society; it’s about creating a parallel diplomatic infrastructure that can pursue aggressive political agendas while circumventing the diplomatic constraints and accountability mechanisms that normally govern state-to-state relations.
The Hamas coordination documents from the UK reveal this system’s operational mechanics: European governments fund NGOs that directly coordinate with designated terrorist organizations, enabling these governments to maintain indirect diplomatic relations with proscribed entities while publicly claiming strict non-contact policies. This creates what I term a “sovereignty bypass”—where sovereign state power is exercised through supposedly independent civil society actors, allowing governments to pursue objectives that would be diplomatically or legally impossible through official channels.
The Architecture of Influence
The European funding ecosystem for Palestinian NGOs represents a sophisticated influence operation that spans multiple layers of bureaucracy and accountability avoidance. At its core, this system operates through what can be described as “layered plausible deniability”—multiple intermediary organizations that obscure the direct connection between European taxpayer funding and politically aggressive anti-Israel activities.
European governments have established approximately 60 different funding frameworks across the EU and associated countries like Norway and Switzerland, specifically targeting Palestinian organizations. The European Union alone provides approximately €35 million annually to a carefully curated group of Palestinian NGOs through mechanisms like the Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument (NDICI), the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR), and country-specific bilateral programs.
France’s Agence Française de Développement authorized €8.3 million in February 2024 to 22 partners, including Al-Haq, a designated terrorist organization by Israel with documented links to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP). Sweden provided SEK 120 million (~$11 million) for 2024-2027 to projects involving Al-Haq, Al Mezan, Defense for Children International – Palestine, and other organizations with documented terror connections. Norway allocated NOK 7 million to Al-Haq in 2023-2024, while continuing to fund organizations that openly coordinate with Hamas-controlled ministries.
The Belgian Model
Belgium provides perhaps the clearest example of how European governments have institutionalized anti-Israel political warfare through NGO funding. The 2017-2021 Joint Strategic Framework for Belgian aid to Palestinians explicitly committed signatory organizations to “increase advocacy efforts towards European institutions and member states, promoting respect for international law and mitigating the influence of pro-Israel voices“. This represents direct government funding for political counter-advocacy designed to undermine pro-Israel perspectives in European policy-making. The Belgian system operates through “recognized NGOs” that receive up to 85% government funding for projects targeting Palestinian territories. Between 2017-2021, Belgium allocated approximately €9.5 million to organizations including Viva Salud, Broederlijk Delen, Oxfam Solidarité, and Solidarité Socialiste, with at least €3 million directed to projects involving Palestinian NGOs linked to the PFLP terrorist organization. Significantly, Belgium has refused to publish its 2022-2026 Joint Strategic Framework for Palestinian aid, while JSFs for other countries remain publicly accessible. This deliberate opacity suggests an awareness that the true objectives of these programs would be politically problematic if subjected to public scrutiny.
The Dutch Experience
The Netherlands provides a case study in how European governments respond when terror connections become undeniable. Despite independent investigations finding no evidence of financial flows between the Union of Agricultural Work Committees (UAWC) and the PFLP, and no proof of organizational unity or terrorist direction, Dutch authorities ultimately terminated funding under intense political pressure. The Dutch decision came after two UAWC employees—who had no connection to Dutch-funded programs—were arrested for involvement in the 2019 murder of 17-year-old Israeli Rina Shnerb. Despite the investigation clearing UAWC of terror financing allegations, the Dutch government cited “reputational risk” as justification for defunding, effectively acknowledging that political optics matter more than factual evidence. However, the political backlash has been significant. In January 2025, the Dutch Parliament passed a resolution requiring Palestinian NGO funding to be conditional on recognition of Israel’s right to exist, marking a significant shift in European policy approaches. This represents the first systematic attempt by a European government to condition civil society funding on basic recognition of Israel’s legitimacy.
German Contradictions
Germany’s approach reveals the inherent contradictions in European funding policies. While claiming to support Israeli security and opposing antisemitism, Germany has simultaneously funded multiple organizations with documented PFLP connections, including Al-Haq, Defense for Children International – Palestine, and the Union of Health Work Committees. Following intense criticism, Germany announced in November 2023 that it would end funding to organizations “that supported armed resistance to Israel,” specifically targeting six Israeli-designated PFLP-linked NGOs. However, this decision came only after years of documented terror connections and followed the October 7 massacre, suggesting that German policy changes were reactive rather than proactive.
Paradoxically, Germany has also terminated funding for Israeli human rights organizations critical of Israeli policies, including Zochrot and New Profile, which focus on Palestinian refugee rights and military conscientious objection respectively. This suggests that German policy is designed to eliminate critical voices from both sides rather than genuinely address terror financing concerns.
The Hamas Nexus: Direct Terrorist Coordination
The UK documents obtained by NGO Monitor reveal the most damaging aspect of the European funding system: direct coordination with designated terrorist organizations. The Norwegian Refugee Council, recipient of £9.45 million from the UK between 2022-2025, openly acknowledges “fostering strong partnerships with national and local authorities, particularly with the MoSD in Gaza,” referring to Hamas’s Ministry of Social Development. UNICEF’s Gaza operations, funded by £18.9 million from the UK in 2023-2024, operate through direct coordination with Hamas-controlled ministries. British officials explicitly acknowledged that “the MoSD in Gaza is affiliated with the de facto authorities and thus UK Aid can be linked directly or indirectly with supporting the de facto authority (Hamas) in Gaza which is part of a proscribed group”. Rather than terminating these programs, UK officials classified Hamas coordination as merely a “reputational risk.”
The January 2022 Hamas security document reveals that NGO representatives assured Hamas authorities that “the British resolution will not have an impact on the designation of local employees in foreign associations which receive funding from Britain because they are non-governmental organizations”. This means European-funded NGOs can employ Hamas members without affecting their funding eligibility, creating a direct financial pipeline to terrorist organizations.
The Lawfare Strategy: Judicial Warfare Through European Courts
European-funded Palestinian NGOs have pioneered what experts call “lawfare”—the use of legal systems in democratic countries to harass Israeli officials and undermine Israel’s legitimacy. Organizations like Al-Haq, funded by France, Sweden, Norway, and Spain, have led efforts to secure arrest warrants for Israeli officials through the International Criminal Court and European national courts.
The Dutch case is particularly revealing. In late 2024, a consortium of Dutch-funded NGOs, including Al Mezan and the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (both terror-linked), filed a lawsuit against their own funding government, demanding that the Netherlands impose arms embargoes and economic sanctions against Israel. This represents the ultimate expression of subcontracted sovereignty: European-funded organizations using European legal systems to compel European governments to adopt more aggressive anti-Israel policies.
The involvement of terror-linked organizations in attempting to influence Dutch foreign policy through litigation raises fundamental questions about democratic governance and policy coherence. When governments fund organizations that then sue those same governments to change their policies, the traditional boundaries between state and civil society become meaningless.
The Scale of the Operation: Billions in Political Warfare Funding
The financial scope of European funding for Palestinian political advocacy is staggering. Research by NGO Monitor reveals that European governments collectively provide approximately €35 million annually to a core group of Palestinian NGOs engaged in political warfare against Israel. Over a decade, this represents hundreds of millions of euros in taxpayer funding directed specifically toward undermining Israel’s international legitimacy.
The European Union’s 2024 grants alone totaled €7.2 million for 14 projects involving highly politicized Israeli NGOs, with half explicitly aimed at “preserving” a “two-state” framework through political pressure on Israel. Significantly, no EU grants involved advocacy on behalf of Israeli hostages, victims of October 7 sexual violence, or families of Palestinian terror victims—revealing the one-sided nature of European “peace” funding.
France’s €8.3 million grant in 2024 to 22 partners, including the terrorist-linked Al-Haq, demonstrates how European governments have institutionalized funding for organizations that openly call for Israel’s elimination. Sweden’s SEK 120 million commitment through 2027 for projects involving multiple terror-linked organizations represents perhaps the largest single European investment in anti-Israel political advocacy.
The American Connection: Transatlantic Coordination
Recent investigations by NGO Monitor reveal that the European funding model has been replicated in the United States, where organizations with documented ties to Hamas, Hezbollah, and the PFLP are actively raising funds through tax-exempt nonprofits and established financial services. The Middle East Peace Foundation, with 2023 revenues of $1.5 billion, provided funds to Al-Haq, Al-Haq Europe, Al-Mezan, and Defense for Children International – Palestine. The Open Society Institute funded Al-Haq with $800,000 between 2020-2023 and provided $250,000 to Al-Haq Europe from 2023-2025. The Rockefeller Brothers Fund transferred $100,000 to DCI-P between 2020-2022, while also funding anti-Israeli campus organizations that celebrated the October 7 attacks.
This transatlantic funding network suggests coordinated efforts to maintain financial lifelines for terrorist-linked organizations even as European governments face increasing domestic pressure to terminate such programs. The involvement of major American financial services like Stripe, Inc. in facilitating donation transfers to Al-Haq Europe and the Hezbollah-linked Hind Rajab Foundation demonstrates how the private sector has become complicit in terrorist financing under the guise of civil society support.
Undermining Counter-Terrorism and Democratic Accountability
The European NGO funding system represents a fundamental challenge to both counter-terrorism policies and democratic accountability. By creating parallel diplomatic channels through supposedly independent civil society actors, European governments have effectively circumvented the legal and political constraints that normally govern international relations with terrorist entities.
The systematic funding of organizations with documented terror connections undermines the entire framework of terrorist designation and financial sanctions. When the UK can maintain coordination with Hamas through NGO intermediaries while claiming strict non-contact policies, the legal significance of terrorist designation becomes meaningless. Similarly, when European governments continue funding organizations with PFLP connections despite overwhelming evidence of terrorist links, the credibility of counter-terrorism efforts is fundamentally compromised.
The Hamas documents reveal that terrorist organizations understand and exploit this system. The January 2022 ISM memo noted that “even if the designation will affect funding to UK-funded NGOs, in the long run, it will end [meaning funding will shortly be resumed]”. This demonstrates that terrorist organizations view European funding restrictions as temporary obstacles rather than permanent policy changes.
Democratic Deficit and Accountability Avoidance
The NGO funding system creates what political scientists call a “democratic deficit”—policy outcomes that circumvent normal democratic oversight and accountability mechanisms. When European governments pursue aggressive anti-Israel policies through NGO proxies while claiming neutrality in official diplomatic channels, voters and parliamentarians cannot effectively evaluate or challenge these policies through normal democratic processes.
The Belgian refusal to publish its 2022-2026 Joint Strategic Framework for Palestinian aid, while maintaining transparency for other countries, exemplifies this accountability avoidance. The UK’s classification of Hamas coordination as merely a “reputational risk” rather than a legal violation demonstrates how bureaucratic language is used to obscure policy contradictions.
Parliamentary oversight becomes meaningless when civil servants can claim that funding goes to “humanitarian” purposes while knowing that recipient organizations coordinate directly with terrorist entities. The systematic misrepresentation of these programs to elected officials represents a fundamental breakdown in democratic governance.
The Post-October 7 Acceleration: From Advocacy to Open Support
The October 7 massacre and subsequent war in Gaza have revealed the true nature of European-funded NGO activities. Rather than moderating their positions or expressing concern about Hamas terrorism, many European-funded organizations have escalated their anti-Israel advocacy to include explicit support for “resistance” and calls for Israel’s elimination. Al-Haq, funded by France, Sweden, Norway, and Spain, published reports asserting that Palestinian terrorism is justified and lobbied for Hamas’s removal from EU terror lists. The organization’s strategy explicitly calls for Israel to be “dismantled” and legitimizes violent attacks against Israeli civilians. EU-funded NGOs B’Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights published statements alleging Israeli “genocide”—the most extreme form of antisemitic libel. The fact that European governments have continued or even increased funding to these organizations after October 7 reveals that the “humanitarian” justifications for these programs were always pretextual. The true objective has been to maintain financial and political support for Palestinian maximalist positions regardless of their connection to terrorism or violence.
Institutionalized Antisemitism as Foreign Policy, Normalization of Extremism
The European NGO funding system represents the institutionalization of antisemitism as an instrument of foreign policy. By systematically funding organizations that deny Israel’s right to exist, promote conspiracy theories about Jewish influence, and justify violence against Israeli civilians, European governments have created a taxpayer-funded antisemitism industry that operates under the guise of human rights advocacy. The scale and sophistication of this system suggest that it will persist regardless of changing political circumstances. The multi-year funding commitments, institutional relationships, and bureaucratic momentum behind these programs create powerful incentives for continuation even when specific policies prove problematic or counterproductive.
Perhaps most troublingly, the European funding system has normalized extremist positions that would be politically impossible to advocate through official diplomatic channels. When European-funded organizations can call for Israel’s destruction, justify terrorism, and promote antisemitic conspiracy theories while receiving continued government support, these positions gradually become accepted within mainstream policy discussions.
The involvement of European-funded NGOs in campus protests celebrating October 7, international efforts to secure arrest warrants for Israeli officials, and legal challenges to European governments’ own policies demonstrates how this funding creates a self-perpetuating cycle of radicalization. Organizations use European money to promote extreme anti-Israel positions, which then influence European public opinion and policy debates, creating political pressure for even more aggressive funding and policy positions.
The Subversion of Democratic Sovereignty
The European NGO funding system represents a fundamental subversion of democratic sovereignty and the rule of law. By creating parallel diplomatic channels through terrorist-linked organizations, European governments have effectively outsourced their foreign policy to actors who openly support violence against Israeli civilians and the elimination of the Jewish state.
The concept of Subcontracted Sovereignty explains how this system operates: European governments maintain official policies supporting Israel’s right to exist and opposing terrorism, while simultaneously funding organizations that directly contradict these positions. This allows governments to satisfy both domestic pro-Israel constituencies and increasingly vocal pro-Palestinian advocacy groups, while avoiding responsibility for the contradictions inherent in their policies. The Hamas coordination documents from the UK demonstrate that this system has evolved to the point where terrorist organizations themselves understand and exploit European funding mechanisms. When Hamas security services can meet with British diplomatic representatives to discuss continued funding for terrorist-controlled programs, the entire framework of counter-terrorism and diplomatic relations has been fundamentally compromised.
The challenge facing European democracies is whether they will continue to maintain this system of institutionalized policy contradiction, or whether they will acknowledge that genuine counter-terrorism efforts and support for Israeli security are incompatible with funding organizations that coordinate with designated terrorist entities. The Dutch Parliament’s 2025 resolution conditioning Palestinian NGO funding on recognition of Israel’s right to exist suggests that some European governments are beginning to recognize the fundamental contradictions in their current approaches.
However, the scale of institutional investment in the current system, combined with the powerful advocacy networks it has created, suggests that meaningful reform will require sustained political pressure and public awareness of how European taxpayer funds are being used to undermine the very security and diplomatic objectives that European governments claim to support.
Until European voters and parliamentarians understand the true nature of Subcontracted Sovereignty, these programs will continue to function as a shadow foreign policy that contradicts official government positions while promoting extremism and terrorism under the guise of humanitarian assistance and civil society support.
The report is available here: https://ngo-monitor.org/
