Parliamentary questions about NGO Funding and activity are important for the promotion of accountability and transparency in the donor governments. Members of Parliament pose questions to the Executive Branch, and expect substantive responses. Through this dialogue, issues surrounding the role of foreign-funded NGOs and their donors are raised effectively.

Over the years, members of national parliaments and the European Parliament in Brussels have tabled many questions inspired by NGO Monitor’s research, compelling donor governments to directly address our findings. This tactic allows each parliament to fulfill its oversight role in “checking” the decisions of the government and associated aid agencies. Furthermore, it provides NGO Monitor and the public access to information that might have been withheld due to a lack of transparency and non-disclosure.

The questions posed by parliamentarians, addressing their governments on issues relating to the funding of NGOs involved in the Arab-Israeli conflict, demonstrate NGO Monitor’s impact and the mutual concern shared by many European leaders.

Parliamentary Questions and Responses (where relevant)

  1. French Government: Funding to the Union Juive Française pour la Paix (UJFP), December 28, 2017
  2. Application of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP, October 5, 2017
  3. Monitoring EU Funding for NGOs, September 21, 2017
  4. Dutch Government: Funding for the Women’s Affairs Technical Committee (WATC), September 6, 2017
  5. European Parliament: Commission Rule 130, July 11 2017
  6. EU Funding of PAC, July 11, 2017
  7. EU Funding for Organisations Legitimizing Terror and Incitement, April 7, 2017
  8. Ma’an TV in Palestine Glorifies Arch-Terrorist, February 4, 2016
  9. Control of EU Funding after Alleged Misconduct of NGO ‘Breaking the Silence’, April 21, 2016
  10. EU Funding of NGOs that are Signatories to the BDS call from 2005, May 4, 2016
  11. Written Declaration: “on the funnelling of EU aid to terrorist organisations” February 9, 2015
  12. EU Instruments for supporting civil society in the Middle East, February 13, 2015
  13. EU Foreign Policy and its Execution with Regard to Operation Protective Edge- Radical Political NGOs Receiving EU Funding, March 10, 2015
  14. EU Foreign Policy and its Execution with Regard to Operation Protective Edge- Radical Political NGOs Receiving EU Funding, March 11, 2015
  15. Funding for Political Advocacy NGOs in the Arab-Israeli Conflict, April 15, 2015
  16. EU Funding for NGOs Supporting Anti-Semitic Activities, September 18, 2015
  17. Palestinian NGOs’ Code of Conduct and EU Engagement in the Middle East Peace Process, September 21, 2015
  18. Financial Support to the Ma’an News Agency, October 19, 2015
  19. Report by NGO Monitor: ‘Evaluating Funding for Political Advocacy NGOs in the Arab- Israeli Conflict: EIDHR’, 16 April 2014
  20. Improvements to the Transparency of EU Funding for Certain NGOs, 25 March 2013
  21. Lack of Transparency in EU Funding Process of NGOs Active in Arab-Israeli Conflict- Limited Access to the Related Documentation, 25 March 2013
  22. Transparency of EU Funding Received by the Palestinian Authority, 18 April 2013
  23. Transparency in Funding for Arab and Israeli NGOs, 19 March 2013
  24. EU Aid to Palestine, 22 March 2013
  25. Transparency of Subsidies to NGOs in the Context of the Israeli/Palestinian Conflict, 20 March, 2013
  26. Funding to NGOs in the Middle East, 15 April 2013

1. French Government: Funding to the Union Juive Française pour la Paix (UJFP), December 28, 2017

Question 1

Question from Senator Loïc Hervé (Union Centriste) addressed to the Prime Minister: Mr. Loïc Hervé draws to the Prime Minister’s attention the October 2017 production of a series of anti-racism clips by the Union Juive Française pour la Paix. On this occasion, thirty-five activists from this organization spoke about racism and anti-racism today. This project is said to have received the support of the General Commissariat for Equality of the Territories, of the Prime Minister’s Office. While these clips seem to be intended to be screened in schools or at public meetings in popular neighborhoods, some accusatory remarks are made against France and appear to be inappropriate and could prove counterproductive. That is why he asks him to explain the reasons for the Government’s support for such a project.

Prime Minister’s Response

Published in the Senate’s Official Journal (15/02/2018) – page 655

In 2016, the French Jewish Union for Peace benefited from a financial partnership with the Commissariat General for Equality of the Territories (CGET), an administration under the Prime Minister’s services and placed, since the first of January 2018, under the authority of the Minister of Territorial Cohesion. The partnership was part of the fight against discrimination in priority neighborhoods of the city’s policy, aimed to support a project called “A Jewish word against racism: production of tools-public meetings.” It included the production of video clips on the fight against racism and the deconstruction of antisemitic speeches aimed at teachers, students at colleges of higher education and education, and social center workers. However, the video clips posted on the association’s website at the end of 2017 do not correspond to the specifications presented because they put into question an alleged “state racism.” They are therefore not eligible. Consequently, the State services have put the association on notice to remove any reference to State support from its website and all its documents. They have also initiated a procedure for recovering the grant for non-compliance with the specifications. Finally, the Ministry of Education has been alerted and will ensure that these contents are not disseminated.

 

2. Application of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP (October 5, 2017)

Fulvio Martusciello (PPE) , Patricija Šulin (PPE) , Tomáš Zdechovský (PPE) , Johannes Cornelis van Baalen (ALDE) , Anders Primdahl Vistisen (ECR) , Petras Auštrevičius (ALDE)

On 26 September 2017, a representative of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), Leila Khaled, addressed the European Parliament in a side event organised by the Confederal Group of the European United Left — Nordic Green Left (GUE/NGL Group). The PFLP is listed as a terrorist organisation on the list of persons, groups and entities subject to enhanced measures in police and judicial cooperation (EU terrorist list). Whereas Ms Khaled does not appear on the list individually, the fact that she was allowed to speak on behalf of the PFLP in the European Union is extremely troubling, given that Ms Khaled is an active member of the PFLP, regularly incites to violence, and may potentially be using funds linked to the PFLP.

1. Does the Council intend to revise the restrictive measures set out in Common Position 2001/931/CFSP in order to prevent this from happening?

2. Will the Council consider adding Ms Leila Khaled to the EU terrorist list?

Commission’s Response (December 11, 2017)

Under Council Common Position 2001/931/CFSP of 27 December 2001 on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) is subject to an asset freeze and to enhanced measures in police and judicial cooperation. Common Position 2001/931/CFSP does not provide for travel restrictions against persons designated therein.

Further measures, including possible travel restrictions, would need to be decided by the Council acting unanimously on the basis of a proposal by either a Member State or the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. Moreover, additional names of persons, groups and entities can only be included ‘on the basis of precise information or material in the relevant file which indicates that a decision has been taken by a competent authority in respect of the persons, groups and entities concerned, irrespective of whether it concerns the instigation of investigations or prosecution for a terrorist act, an attempt to perpetrate, participate in or facilitate such an act based on serious and credible evidence or clues, or condemnation for such deeds’.1

3. Monitoring EU funding for NGOs, September 21, 2017

Frédérique Ries (ALDE)

As a co-grantee of the EU’s East Jerusalem Programme (2015-2018), the Burj Luq-Luq Social Centre Society received EUR 849 850 for a project entitled ‘Fostering Socio-Economic Empowerment and Protection of Vulnerable Palestinian Communities in East Jerusalem’. According to the society’s website, the grant includes funding for activities such as sporting recreation, including yearly football and basketball courses managed by a professional sports coach.

In 2014, Burj Luq-Luq hosted a soccer tournament named after Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) terrorist Abu Jihad, and organised another tournament named after Ibrahim Al-Akari, a terrorist who murdered two Israeli civilians in an attack in Jerusalem in November 2014.

Furthermore, in 2012 the society performed an anti-smoking puppet show that included strong language inciting children to violence and encouraging them to replace their cigarettes with machine guns.

Is the Commission aware of these activities?

Does it intend to review the selection process for grantees of the East Jerusalem Programme to prevent NGOs that promote incitement from being funded?

Commission’s Response (1 December, 2017)

The EU supports cultural, educational and sports activities in the ‘Burj Al Luqluq’ community center implemented by an international non-governmental organisation (NGO). ‘Burj Al Luqluq’ is situated in one of the poorest neighbourhoods of the Old City of Jerusalem and provides services for a very vulnerable community, especially for women and children.

All EU-funded activities at ‘Burj Al Luqluq’ are monitored by the Office of the European Representative in Jerusalem. EU-financed activities of the community center are considered to be in compliance with EU human rights rules and standards and in conformity with applicable EU financial rules. This applies in particular to the period during which the grant in question, financed through the 2015-2018 East Jerusalem Programme, is carried out.

The EU uses all possible means to make sure that organisations which benefit from EU funds are not the source of incitement to hatred and violence. According to its long-standing policy, as set out in consecutive EU Council Conculsions on the Middle East peace process, the Quartet Report of 1 July 2016 and United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 (2016), the EU uses every occasion in its bilateral meetings with Israeli and Palestinian stakeholders to urge them to avoid incitement in whatever form.

4. Dutch Government: Funding for the Women’s Affairs Technical Committee (WATC), September 6, 2017

Questions from members Van der Staaij (SGP), Ten Broeke (VVD) and De Roon (PVV) to the Minister for Foreign Affairs on terminating funding for the Women’s Affairs Technical Committee (submitted September 5, 2017).

Question 1:

Are you aware of the correspondence between the Dutch Minister of Foreign Affairs and NGO Monitor regarding funding to Palestinian NGOs?”

Question 2:

Can you confirm that the Dutch subsidies to the Women’s Affairs Technical Committee (WATC), an organization that recently built a youth center for girls in Nablus, named after the terrorist Dalal Mughrabi, who killed 37 civilians in 1978, were actually stopped?

Question 3:

Are there any other organizations subsidized by the Netherlands through the Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Secretariat, that directly or indirectly, are guilty of the proliferation and / or glorification of terrorism and violence?

Question 4:

If so, which organizations and is the Netherlands prepared to act in a timely manner to end these subsidies?

Question 5

Why does not the website of the Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Secretariat mention the suspension or termination of the cooperation with the WATC Do not you find it strange that the Cabinet lets the House know that the glorification of violence is “simply unacceptable” but that on the website of the Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Secretariat it is now being pretended that there is nothing wrong with the work of to praise the WATC?

Question 6

On what date did the Ministry of Foreign Affairs inform the Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Secretariat, or the WATC, about the suspension or termination of the cooperation?

Question 7

On what date did the last transaction of the Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Secretariat take place in the direction of the WATC?

Question 8

Is it true that the Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Secretariat received EUR 1.13 million from the Cabinet on 24 May 2017? Has the WATC received money from the Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Secretariat after the transaction ? If so, is it right to say that stopping the cooperation did not lead to the no longer paying out of subsidies promised in the past? If not, why is the WATC still listed on the website of the Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Secretariat as a subsidy recipient (with an increased subsidy compared to previous years)?

Question 9

Do you believe that the activities of the Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Secretariat based in Ramallah are in line with government policy, in the sense that government policy on the Israeli-Palestinian issue is not impeded? If so, how do you rate the proud mention in the 2016 annual report that the NGOs supported by this organization have succeeded in putting pressure on international organizations to punish Israel, and that these efforts have even led to a situation in the United Kingdom arrest warrant was issued against former Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni? Do you share, when reading that annual report, our concern that such initiatives will perpetuate the conflict rather than contributing to its solution?

Question 10

What agreements has the Cabinet made with the Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Secretariat regarding future financing from the Netherlands?

5. European Parliament: Commission Rule 130, July 11 2017

The Popular Art Centre (PAC) is a Palestinian nongovernmental organisation (NGO) that is the co-recipient of an EU ‘Cultural Diplomacy’ grant (worth EUR 200 000 for 2015-2017), the stated purpose of which is ‘to increase public awareness of EU core values and enhance visibility of the EU cooperation in Palestine through cultural diplomacy … to ensure maximum EU public outreach, in both the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, by participating in major Palestinian cultural events, performances, and festivals.

In February 2016, the PAC organised a ceremony in honor of ‘Palestinian martyrs’ whose homes had been demolished, featuring the ‘father of the martyr Baha Eleyan’ as a speaker. Eleyan was one of two terrorists to board a bus in Jerusalem in October 2015 armed with a gun and a knife, murdering three people and injuring seven others. The same event featured a musical performance captioned ‘no to laying down guns.’

The EU claims that it ‘funds projects submitted by NGOs, in line with (the) EU’s fundamental principles and values, but not NGOs themselves.’ However, the PAC was explicitly funded for the purpose of ‘increas[ing] public awareness of EU core values’. Can an organisation that honours terrorists be trusted with this objective? Is the Commission aware of the PAC’s activities?

6. EU funding of PAC, July 11, 2017

Marijana Petir (PPE) , Fulvio Martusciello (PPE) , Lars Adaktusson (PPE) , Patricija Šulin (PPE) , Bas Belder (ECR)

The Popular Art Centre (PAC) is a Palestinian nongovernmental organisation (NGO) that is the co-recipient of an EU ‘Cultural Diplomacy’ grant (worth EUR 200 000 for 2015-2017), the stated purpose of which is ‘to increase public awareness of EU core values and enhance visibility of the EU cooperation in Palestine through cultural diplomacy … to ensure maximum EU public outreach, in both the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, by participating in major Palestinian cultural events, performances, and festivals.’

In February 2016, the PAC organised a ceremony in honour of ‘Palestinian martyrs’ whose homes had been demolished, featuring the ‘father of the martyr Baha Eleyan’ as a speaker. Eleyan was one of two terrorists to board a bus in Jerusalem in October 2015 armed with a gun and a knife, murdering three people and injuring seven others. The same event featured a musical performance captioned ‘no to laying down guns’.

The EU claims that it ‘funds projects submitted by NGOs, in line with (the) EU’s fundamental principles and values, but not NGOs themselves.’ However, the PAC was explicitly funded for the purpose of ‘increas[ing] public awareness of EU core values’. Can an organisation that honours terrorists be trusted with this objective? Is the Commission aware of the PAC’s activities?

Commission’s Response (October 11, 2017)

The European Union (EU) thanks the Honourable Members for drawing attention to a specific event that took place in Ramallah Cultural Palace on 6 February 2016. It takes seriously the allegations contained in their question.

The EU has indeed contributed to the funding of a cultural programme through a consortium of Non-Governmental Organisations. The Popular Art Centre (PAC) was in charge of the organisation of the Palestine International Festival for Music and Dance which was organised in summer 2016. The festival was closely monitored by the EU and assessed as fully in line with the EU values laid down in our contractual guidelines. The event which is the subject of the question was not part of that festival. The project ended on 30 June 2017.

On the event to which you draw attention, a ceremony was indeed organised by the organisation PAC in February 2016. From the information collected by our services, the ceremony was not seen by the Palestinians as ‘honouring martyrs’ but, rather, as a one-off ‘fund-raising’ event to collect funds for the family of Baha Olayyan and other families whose houses had been demolished by Israel, a practice which could amount to collective punishment and on which the EU has in the past expressed concern with reference to the applicability of international humanitarian law.

The title of the event was ‘We will build it’.

The EU uses all possible means to ensure that an organisation benefiting from EU funds is not the source of public incitement to hatred or to violence. In such cases, the EU would immediately react.

7. EU Funding for Organisations Legitimizing Terror and Incitement, April 7, 2017

Tomáš Zdechovský (PPE)

Two Palestinian organisations, the Women’s Centre for Legal Aid and Counselling (WCLAC) and the Democracy and Workers’ Rights Centre (DWRC), receive EU funding despite legitimising terror and incitement against Israeli civilians.

The WCLAC received EUR 2.5 million from the EU’s East Jerusalem Programme for a project that is due to come to an end in April 2019. The organisation has filed a complaint to the United Nations concerning the ‘Frequent targeting of Palestinian human rights defender, Manal Tamimi’. Mrs Tamimi is a fieldworker for the WCLAC who has incited violence and glorified terrorism numerous times on Twitter, on one occasion tweeting: ‘Vampire zionist celebrating their Kipur day by drinking Palestinian blood, yes our blood is pure & delicious but it will kill u at the end’. In August 2015, she tweeted: ‘I do hate Israel, (sic) wish a thrid Intefada (sic) coming soon and people rais (sic) up and kills all these zionist settlers everywhere’. Additionally, in February 2017 she was invited to speak at an EU-funded conference in Barcelona on ‘preventing violent extremism’.

For its part, the DWRC, together with two partner organisations, received EUR 583 986 from the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights for a project which is set to come to an end in June 2018.

In light of the activities and statements of the respective beneficiaries, does the EU intend to follow through with the aforementioned projects?

Commission’s Response (July 25, 2017)

The ‘Women’s Centre for Legal Aid and Counselling’ (WCLAC) is one of six partner organisations in a project funded by the EU’s East Jerusalem Programme which aims at strengthening the resilience of vulnerable communities in East Jerusalem. The activities funded by the EU aim to advocate fundamental EU values to protect vulnerable communities in East Jerusalem and to promote human rights. Ms Tamimi no longer works for the WCLAC.

The ‘Democracy and Workers’ Rights Centre’ (DWRC), in partnership with two Italian Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs), received a grant from the EU aiming at strengthening the capacity of trade unions to defend fundamental rights and freedoms of female and male workers.

The two projects were selected for funding according to criteria in line with EU policy on human rights and fundamental freedoms.

Financial support is monitored according to the rules of the EU’s Financial Regulation. This includes verification as to whether funds are used according to the objectives agreed upon with the EU.

The EU uses every opportunity to call upon Palestinian institutions and Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) to refrain from incitement in whatever form, in particular incitement to violence and to terrorist acts.

EU support to civil society actors, including human rights organisations, that contribute to peace efforts and confidence-building between Israelis and Palestinians, is also in line with the European Parliament resolution on achieving the two-state solution in the Middle East that was adopted on 17 May 2017.

8. Ma’an TV in Palestine Glorifies Arch-Terrorist, February 4, 2016

Patricija Šulin (PPE), Frédérique Ries (ALDE), Heinz K. Becker (PPE), Michael Theurer (ALDE), Petras Auštrevičius (ALDE), Tomáš Zdechovský (PPE) and Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)

The Palestinian Ma’an News Agency, part of the Ma’an Network, has been responsible in recent years for material that glorifies terrorism and violence, as well as virulent anti-Semitic canards, including Holocaust denial and affirming the existence of the ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion’.

Such activities were seen to continue in the summer of 2015, when Ma’an TV broadcast a story on 22 June glorifying convicted terrorist Abdallah Barghouti. Barghouti, a bomb-maker, was sentenced to 67 life sentences, one for every civilian death he caused. In the televised interview, in a visit to the ‘home of the heroic prisoner’ Barghouti’s father called his son a ‘hero’ and a ‘noble fighter’, and encouraged ‘every Palestinian of noble soul to follow in the footsteps of Abdallah’.Yet Ma’an has received funding from the EU, enabling it to spread hatred. According to the Anna Lindh Foundation, the EU is one of Ma’an’s ‘major funders’: EU financial support continued until at least 2013. Parliament’s commendable resolution of 10 September 2015 nonetheless states that organisations of this kind should not receive EU support.

What is being done to fight such incitement? Do the Commission and the EEAS scrutinise other organisations funded by the EU, in order to prevent unaccountable misuse of EU funding to promote hate occurring thanks to existing indications?

Commission’s Response (21 April 2016):

The EU rejects violence and incitement to violence. As regards funding of Palestinian organisations, the EU provides support as part of its commitment to Palestine state-building and promotion of democratic values, the rule of law and human rights. All EU-funded projects include respect for these fundamental principles and core values and go through systematic monitoring and evaluation, in full compliance with EU rules and procedures in the management of activities.

The EU does not provide global funding to NGOs but provides grants supporting specific actions under programmes with clearly-defined objectives. The EU is not currently funding Ma’an Network. Under the framework of the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights programme; however the EU did fund a project implemented by Ma’an Network aiming to empower civil society by expanding press freedom, access to information and awareness of human rights issues in the occupied Palestinian territory. The two-year project ended in 2013.

The EU will continue paying attention to hate speech, defamation and incitement to violence, including in the context of the Israeli-Arab conflict and especially in the mass media within the region suffering so gravely from increased extremism and radicalism in both political and security terms.
In their Statement on 12 February 2016, the Middle East Quartet Principals, including HR/VP Mogherini, once again condemned acts of terror and called upon all parties to reject incitement.

The Honorable Members can also refer to reply E-013967/2015 on a similar subject(1).

9. Control of EU Funding after Alleged Misconduct of NGO ‘Breaking the Silence’, April 21, 2016

MEP Antonio Lopez-Isturiz White (EPP)

On 17 March 2016 Israel’s Channel 2 news programme aired an exposé showing activists from the NGO ‘Breaking the Silence’ (BtS) caught on camera trying to obtain sensitive information from veteran Israeli soldiers, including details of Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) military tactics, operations and special equipment.

This programme created general consternation among Israeli public opinion, since it is not clear what BtS does with this information once it is obtained. It was also revealed that a former CEO allegedly engaged an activist to join a classified IDF unit in order to access inside information.

Taking into account this situation and considering that the EU is a major funding source for BtS, including through an ongoing project (contributing EUR 236 000) aimed at educating on human rights, I would ask the Commission:

  1. Is the Commission/EEAS aware of such activities (collecting sensitive information, working from inside the IDF) on the part of BtS or any other EU-funded organisation?
  2. How does the EU evaluate the partnership with BtS and its contribution to the Middle East Peace Process? Is due attention given to its effect on EU credibility?
  3. Will the Commission/EEAS evaluate the impact of this on the continuity of the funding?

Commission’s Response (September 5, 2016):

The project with ‘Breaking the Silence’ (BtS) is funded through the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR). The key objective of the project is to engage and educate primarily young Israelis about the importance of respecting Human Rights in the occupied Palestinian territory (oPt) including East Jerusalem and to promote Human Rights and international law in the Israeli public. The promotion of the respect for Human Rights is one of the political commitments by the EU and Israel as set out in the Europan Neighbourhood Policy Action Plan.

Israeli veteran combatants are members of BtS. They have taken upon themselves to inform the Israeli public about everyday’s life and the Human Rights situation in the oPt and to stimulate a public debate. BtS was nominated in 2010 for the European Parliament’s Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thoughts.

The EEAS/Commission consider activities of Human Rights NGO’s in Israel as important. The EU expects those NGOs it funds to operate within the law, but the EU is concerned about legislation adopted recently in Israel that increases state control over certain NGOs, including those that receive external public funding. The EU believes that it is important that the vibrant NGO community in Israel can continue their valuable activities.

10. EU Funding of NGOs that are Signatories to the BDS call from 2005, May 4, 2016

Davor Ivo Stier (PPE) , Ramona Nicole Mănescu (PPE) , Lars Adaktusson (PPE)

The EU has consistently asserted that it does not support any form of boycott or sanctions against Israel.

In the light of the above, does the Commission fund any NGOs or projects associated with them that are signatories to the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) call from 2005 or actively promote BDS?

Commission’s Response:

[Answer from the Commission currently not provided (May 2016)]

11. Written Declaration: “on the funnelling of EU aid to terrorist organisations,” February 9, 2015

MEP Michael Theurer (ALDE Germany), initiated with 10 other MEPs (3 ALDE, 2 EPP, 3 ECR, 1 Green, 1 S&D). In overall, the Written Declaration gathered 65 MEP signatures.

Written declaration, under Rule 136 of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure, on the funnelling of EU aid to terrorist organisations

  1. EU funds are a vital resource for agreed common foreign and aid policy objectives.
  2. Particularly in times of economic stringency and heightened security concern, it is important to ensure that EU funds are not wasted or abused. This would be the case if EU funds were being channelled, deliberately or by neglect, to terrorist organisations.
  3. The European Court of Auditors (ECA) and the European External Action Service (EEAS) are hence called upon to subject to special scrutiny those recipients of high levels of EU funding, for example the Palestinian Authority and Pakistan, where there is a suggestion of evidence of support for terrorist activity.
  4. Where there are indications of such abuse, the Commission is called upon to freeze or reduce funding until the necessary checks and control measures have been put in place.
  5. This declaration, together with the names of the signatories, is forwarded to the Council, the Commission and the European Court of Auditors.

12. EU Instruments for supporting civil society in the Middle East, February 13, 2015

MEP Tomas Zdechovsky (EPP Czech Republic)

Under the EIDHR framework, the EU allocates approximately EUR 160 million in funding to foreign NGOs in order to promote its values in third countries around the world. A highly disproportionate amount of funding is allocated to NGOs that are active in the Israeli-Palestinian context. Another EU instrument is Partnership for Peace (PfP).

Support is often given through these instruments to NGOs that promote an ideological agenda that is inconsistent with EU foreign policy or the declared goals of the EU instruments.

Several NGOs active in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would seem to be incompetent in carrying out the stated goals of ‘building peace, tolerance and non-violence’, and yet are still being granted EU money through European instruments.

1. How does the EU seek to hold its NGO grantees financially accountable for their activities, which might shake EU credibility as a mediator in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict?

2. How and how regularly does the EU evaluate and review all NGO grants in order to be sure that the allocated funds are justified?

3. How can EU taxpayers be sure that radical NGOs that partner with the EEAS and the Commission do not affect the execution of the Common Foreign Policy?

Commission’s Response (22 January 2016):

1. Allocations for country-based calls for proposals for Israel and Palestine under the EIDHR amount to around EUR 3 million per year on average. In 2015 the allocations were of EUR 2 million for Israel and 1.7 for Palestine, representing less than 5% of the total of around EUR 83 million budget, albeit with some additional projects being awarded on the basis of global calls for proposals launched in Brussels. Actions to be undertaken through these grants are laid down in contracts signed by the Commission and the beneficiary. All beneficiaries are required to provide a detailed budget and any expenditure not foreseen in this budget is not eligible for reimbursement. All beneficiaries are registered with the national authorities responsible for regulating NGOs in Israel and Palestine as appropriate.

2. The projects are regularly monitored by the EU Delegations concerned and financial and narrative reports required at regular intervals. All beneficiaries also have to provide a verification of expenditure by a recognised external auditor. Additional audits are undertaken if necessary.

3. The projects referred to contribute towards the respect of human rights and democracy in Israel and Palestine and, in the case of Partnership for Peace, between the two conflicting sides, in line with the EU Council Conclusions on the Middle East Peace Process (MEPP). Such projects can often reach parts of the population excluded from the mainstream of political dialogue. They also deal with groups who are often by nature opposed to the peace process. The Commission and the HR therefore consider that these actions are complementary to the mainstream political process.

13. EU Foreign Policy and its Execution with Regard to Operation Protective Edge- Radical Political NGOs Receiving EU Funding, March 10, 2015

MEP Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE Spain)

On 23 March 2015 the United Nations Human Rights Council will release its report on the recent hostilities between Israel and Hamas.The UN resolution which established the Commission of Inquiry authoring the report was adopted despite the EU’s position against it. Italy, speaking at the relevant UN session on behalf of the EU, declared that the adopted text was ‘unbalanced’ and that the Commission of Inquiry had ‘prejudged the findings even before it was formed’. None of the EU’s suggestions were accepted. Furthermore, the resolution stands in direct conflict with the July 2014 conclusions of the Foreign Affairs Council.

Radical political NGOs were one of the strongest forces in bringing this mandate, and the entire resolution, into being. The role they played in promoting the resolution included the use of hostile statements, open letters, articles, other publications and events, aimed at making the text as one-sided as possible. Many of these NGOs receive extensive funding from the EU and European governments(1).

William Schabas, the head of the Commission of Inquiry, recently resigned after his bias was exposed.

1. How does the European External Action Service (EEAS) and/or the Commission plan to defend its position on the report?

2. Is the EEAS and/or the Commission concerned about the fact that EU-funded NGOs are acting to frustrate EU policy? What measures will the EEAS and/or the Commission take to prevent this?

Commission’s Response (4 June 2015):

On July 23 2014, the EU and its Member States abstained on the UNHRC resolution S-21/1 establishing a UN Independent Commission on Inquiry (CoI) and outlined its reservations in an Explanation of Vote.

Once the CoI was established, its Commissioners made it clear that ‘they interpret this mandate to include investigations of the activities of Palestinian armed groups in Gaza, including attacks on Israel, as well as the Israeli military operation in the Gaza Strip and Israeli actions in the West Bank including East Jerusalem.’(1)

During the 28th session of the Human Rights Council (HRC), the Chairperson of the CoI, provided an oral update of its work and confirmed that it was looking at a broad range of alleged violations by all sides(2). In an Explanation of Vote delivered at the time of adoption of a separate resolution during the 28th session of the HRC, the EU urged ‘all sides to cooperate with the Commission of Inquiry and allow it access so that it can listen to all duty bearers, as well as civil society organisations and victims from all sides’. There has so far been no progress on access. The EU will examine the report, expected to be presented at the 29th session of the HRC, once it is released.

The EU funds projects submitted by NGOs, in line with EU’s fundamental principles and values, but not NGO themselves. The EU has been advocating for accountability for international human rights law and international humanitarian law violations, as well as abuses by institutional bodies and non-state actors and will continue to promote and support projects aiming at this goal.

14. EU Foreign Policy and its Execution with Regard to Operation Protective Edge- Radical Political NGOs Receiving EU Funding, March 11, 2015

MEP Jan Zahradil (ECR Czech Republic)

In March 2013, the EU-funded Israeli NGO Adalah published a database of ‘Discriminatory Laws in Israel’ on its website, in which, among other things, it defines laws promoting Zionist narratives, the historic Jewish connection to Israel and the use of Hebrew dates in governmental correspondence as ‘discriminatory’ or ‘racist’ towards minorities.

Another Israeli-registered organisation, Zochrot, which is seeking to achieve the ‘right of return’ for millions of Palestinians who are not considered to be refugees under international law, receives its funding mainly from EU sources.

Adalah and Zochrot are just two examples of organisations that receive support from the EU. Contrary to those in all other European Neighbourhood Partnership (ENP) countries, NGOs in Israel that promote the perpetuation of divisive narratives are considered to be eligible for EU support.

1. What is the EU’s policy regarding minorities in ENP countries, with regard to the above? Do any EU projects exist that reject the character of other third countries?

2. Does the EU support projects inside Israel that promote the integration of Israeli Arabs as a minority in Israel? What is its evaluation of the efficiency of the projects it funds that focus on Arab‐minority rights in Israel?

3. How does the EU’s support for organisations such as those outlined above contribute to democracy and reconciliation between Jews and Arabs in Israel?

Commission’s Response (14 May 2015):

1. The EU promotes the rights of minorities in the Neighbourhood countries through various programmes funded under the European Neighbourhood Instrument (ENI), the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights, and the Development Cooperation Instrument.

All projects funded under these instruments in Israel are implemented by NGOs legally registered with the appropriate Israeli authorities.

The EU does not finance projects which have the purpose of rejecting the existence of another country.

2. The EU supports projects in favour of vulnerable groups in Israel, among which are the Arab minorities, financed under the abovementioned instruments.

Israeli NGOs that receive EU funding are expected to operate to a very high standard of professionalism and the projects implemented by them with EU funds have generally received a positive assessment from external evaluations.

3. The EU, through the Partnership for Peace programme (under the ENI), supports projects aiming at the peaceful solution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, in parallel to the political track of the Middle East Peace Process. The projects are selected through open calls for proposals, in compliance with the European Union’s Financial Regulation.

The Honourable Member can find further information, including the list of ongoing projects, on the webpages of the EU Delegation in Tel Aviv: http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/israel/projects/list_of_projects/projects_en.htm

15. Funding for Political Advocacy NGOs in the Arab-Israeli Conflict, April 15, 2015

MEPs Charles Tannock, Mark Demesmaeker and Anders Vistisen, on behalf of the ECR group

The European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR) has funded political advocacy NGOs in the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Some of these NGOs have reportedly engaged in hate and anti-Semitic speech.

It is of grave concern that these alleged statements have been made by NGOs in receipt of taxpayers’ money intended to promote human rights and European values. This raises serious questions about accountability and project-oversight by the Commission and the European External Action Service (EEAS).

Some of these organisations would not be able to pay staff salaries without European funds. Moreover, some NGOs have reportedly received double funding.

– How does the Commission ensure that its funds are not used for activities and publications that go against the EU’s fundamental principles?

– How were these NGOs selected to carry out EU projects?

– Are they still on the EU payroll, and, if so, why?

– In what way can it be argued that EU funding is advancing human rights and democracy in such cases?

57 % of the EIDHR Middle East grants for country-based support schemes for the years 2007-2010 went to Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT), while no funding was provided for Syria, Iraq and other areas.

– How is this allocation justified?

Commission’s Response:

[Answer from the Commission currently not provided (March 2016)]

16. EU Funding for NGOs Supporting Anti-Semitic Activities, September 18, 2015

MEP Esteban Gonzalez Pons (EPP Spain)

In May 2015, the NGO Monitor, a non-profit organisation dedicated to study the financing of NGOs, published a report entitled ‘NGOs, Anti-Semitism, and Government Funding: NGO Monitor’s Report to the 2015 Global Forum on Anti-Semitism’ in which public financing for NGOs supporting anti-Semitic activities is denounced.

According to research by the NGO Monitor, the Commission could be directly funding certain organisations that support activities that give rise to anti-Semitic feeling in society according.

Is the Commission aware that it is financing the NGOs mentioned in the report?

What does the Commission intend to do if this report is confirmed?

Which criteria does the Commission use to give funding to NGOs?

Commission’s Response (17 December 2015):

Pursuant to Article 121 of the Financial Regulation, actions financed by grants can only intend to achieve European Union policy objectives, which include the respect of the Charter of Fundamental Rights which prohibits any discrimination on any ground such sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation.

The Commission takes seriously any allegations of non-compliance with EU law and the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and will examine the report’s claims accordingly.

Should any cases be confirmed, the Commission would apply the relevant procedures of the Financial Regulation which may lead to administrative sanctions, such as the exclusion from EU funding and the imposition of financial penalties. This would also have other consequences such as the termination of grant agreements and the recovery of disbursed funds.

17. Palestinian NGOs’ Code of Conduct and EU Engagement in the Middle East Peace Process, September 21, 2015

MEP Zdzislaw Krasnodebski (ECR Poland)

In 2008, Palestinian organisations drafted the Palestinian NGOs’ Code of Conduct. This document is in contradiction with the vision of the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP), i.e. to foster peace and regional cooperation, particularly insofar as it obliges signatory NGOs to ‘be in line with the national agenda without any normalisation activities with the occupier [Israel], neither at the political-security nor the cultural or developmental levels’.

The NGO Development Centre (NDC), which facilitated the Code of Conduct, as well as many other organisations that have become parties to the code and otherwise actively promote the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign, are funded by and/or partner with various EU mechanisms. Meanwhile, an EU evaluation of July 2014 stated that ‘cooperation with Israeli civil society partners (including participation in regional programmes) is limited by increasing pressure from the anti-normalisation movement’.

1. Is the VP/HR aware of this Code of Conduct being in use by Palestinian NGOs, and what is her assessment of it?

2. Does the VP/HR consider actors that ideologically promote anti-normalisation to be suitable ENP partners? Does the VP/HR share the view that by strengthening these NGOs the EU is thwarting its own role as champion of peace and is helping hostile views expand within the Palestinian community?

3. Should the ENP develop tools to better define positive civil society engagement?

Commission’s Response (30 November 2015):

The EU ongoing projects with Palestinian non-governmental organisations do not promote nor support this NGO’s Code of Conduct.

The EU does not promote nor support anti-normalization campaigns or activities. The objectives and strategic framework of EU engagement with civil society in Palestine(1) are identified in a publicly available Roadmap(2).

A joint Communication by the High Representative and the European Commission on the review of the European Neighbourhood Policy has been adopted on 18 November 2015. Among the goals of the review is a deeper engagement with civil society. An empowered civil society is a crucial component of any democratic system: it represents and foster pluralism, it can contribute to more effective policies as well as to equitable and sustainable development and to inclusive growth. Moreover, civil society actors can be important players in fostering peace and in conflict resolution.

18. Financial Support to the Ma’an News Agency, October 29, 2015

MEP Raymond Finch (EFDD)

Has the Commission financed the Ma’an News Agency in Palestine?

Commission’s Response (25 January 2016):

In 2011, the Commission awarded a EUR 288 290 grant to Ma’an Network under the framework of the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights2 to implement the project entitled ‘Mobilising Media to Empower Citizens and Civil Society for Human Rights, Democratic Reform, and Intra-Palestinian Reconciliation’ focused on improving press freedom, access to information and awareness of human rights issues in the occupied Palestinian Territory.

Previously, in 2008, the EU had funded another project, under the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument3, on information and communication activities to promote EU cooperation in the Palestinian territories and advancing the institutional cooperation and public understanding. Both projects are now ended.

It is worth reminding that the EU does not provide global funding to civil society organisations, but awards grants supporting specific projects and well-defined actions.

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question P-002015/20134.

19Report by NGO Monitor: ‘Evaluating Funding for Political Advocacy NGOs in the Arab-Israeli Conflict: EIDHR’, 16 April 2014

MEP Bas Belder (EFD Netherlands)

Concerning the report published by NGO Monitor, entitled ‘Evaluating Funding for Political Advocacy NGOs in the Arab-Israeli Conflict: EIDHR’:

  1. Would the High Representative agree that the EU should be held responsible for other views held by NGOs in receipt of funding for a project, since the funding gives legitimacy to the entire NGO and not just to the project?
  2. While both the EU and Israel cherish the value of freedom of speech and attach great importance to vibrant public debate, does the High Representative deem it advisable to fund projects by NGOs in Israel and the Palestinian Territories which promote the Palestinian political narrative, even though they might not be conducive in the resolution of the Middle East Peace Process (MEPP)?(1) Would the High Representative agree that projects should incorporate or be sensitive to both Israeli and Palestinian narratives so as to promote the MEPP?
  3. In light of the importance of promoting the MEPP and human rights in the region, does the High Representative deem it necessary to promote EIDHR projects in countries such as Iran, Saudi Arabia and the UAE (countries considered ‘not free’ by Freedom House)? Why does Israel receive more funding under EIDHR in comparison to most of its neighbours while being considered the only free country in the Middle East and North Africa by Freedom House?(2)

Commission’s Response:

[Answer from the Commission currently not provided (March 2016)]

20. Improvements to the Transparency of EU Funding for Certain NGOs, 25 March 2013

MEP Sari Essayah (EEP Finland)

Each year the European Commission provides Palestinian and Israeli NGOs, such as the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR) and Partnership for Peace, with more than EUR 10 million in funding. There have been serious suspicions that this money has been used for purposes such as campaigns to fan the flames of ‘justified’ violence and terrorism perpetrated against Israeli civilians, instil the image of the Israeli authorities as ‘war criminals’, and promote the break-up of the Palestinian Authority. These suspicious moves run counter to the EU’s values and are in no way conducive to peace in the Middle East: just the opposite. Given this situation, it is worrying that the Commission, even when asked, has not provided any accurate and comprehensive information, under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, on EU funding, decisions taken in connection with it or any evaluation of the measures taken.

In its reply to NGO Monitor in 2009, the Commission justified its decision with reference to the exception in the regulation which deals with the interests of ‘public security’. However, that reply fails to provide the necessary detailed examples of what danger to NGOs or public security transparency we should have been, or should be, fearful of, with respect to EU aid. What contradicts the Commission’s reasoning in this case is the fact that many of these organisations make information on funding readily available for inspection and even draw attention to it.

Has the Commission established that the transparency of EU funding for organisations associated with the conflict in the Middle East will lead to substantial problems or anticipated threats that will endanger public security? What is the difference between the situation in the Middle East and, say, that in Somalia, Sri Lanka or Iran, regions for which similar information on funding is openly available?

What urgent steps will the Commission take to ensure that funding from EU sources for non-governmental Israeli and Palestinian organisations active in third countries, decisions taken in connection with it and an evaluation of the results are in the public domain in line with the EU’s principles of transparency and accountability?

Commission’s Response (11 June 2013):

By its judgment of 27th November 2012 (Case T-17/10 Steinberg v European Commission), the Court of Justice dismissed the application referred to by the Honourable Members as, in part manifestly inadmissible and, in part, lacking any foundation in law.

There is no differentiation of treatment regarding procedures on openness and transparency between Israel and Palestine and any of the countries referred to in the questions.

Concerning the information provided on funding and procedures and decisions taken in this regard, the Commission refers the Honourable Members to the text of the judgment in question for details of the arguments presented and the reasoned conclusions of the Court(1).

Evaluations are organised in accordance with the Treaty of the European Union, the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights Regulation, public information directives and the relevant interinstitutional agreements between the European Commission, the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament.

The Commission also refers the Honourable Members to its reply to Question E 003077/13(2).

21. Lack of Transparency in EU Funding Process of NGOs Active in Arab-Israeli Conflict- Limited Access to the Related Documentation, 25 March 2013

MEP Oreste Rossi (EFD Italy)

The lack of transparency in processes which provide significant funding for non-governmental organisations involved in the context of the Arab-Israeli conflict is an issue that raises serious problems. Every year the Commission makes its financial contribution to these NGOs as it strives to achieve equal individual and collective rights. However, in the past when the NGOs asked for detailed materials documenting all activities specifically related to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, it received only incomplete, badly written material from which important information available elsewhere was missing. The Commission maintained that the need for secrecy concerning the content of the documents and the consequent lack of detailed data arose from reasons of public safety, privacy and commercial interests and from the need not to make the Israel-Palestine relationship even more difficult. The matter has been taken to the European Court of Justice, but there has been no ruling yet.

Taking into account that:

  • documents on NGO funding are widely available through newspapers and Internet articles, but continue to be kept secret or are not fully updated because of public safety concerns;
  • by contrast, documents pertaining to grants for countries such as Angola, Somalia or Sri Lanka are easily accessible;
  • the research undertaken draws attention to the involvement of some NGOs which are recipients of Commission funding in anti-Israel boycotts and pro-war campaigns;
  • there is no certainty that aid granted to these NGOs in the future will not have the effect of supporting or encouraging violence that runs counter to the European values of democracy, freedom and tolerance;

can the Commission state:

  1. what criteria are used to justify the differences in access to openness and transparency as regards documents relating to EU funding programs in the cases of the countries mentioned above;
  2. on what grounds it decides that certain materials are ‘sensitive’;
  3. whether it believes it needs to ensure that the information related to the evaluation phase of the funding process have already been made public?

Commission’s Response (11 June 2013): 

Commission provided the same response as to MEP Essayah, detailed above.

22. Transparency of EU Funding Received by the Palestinian Authority, 18 April 2013

MEP Hannu Takkula (ALDE Finland)

EU funding of individual Palestinian political organisations is substantial. However, information about the basis on which financial assistance is provided is not freely accessible; nor are details of the use made of the funding. There are indications that funds have been used in a way which does not accord with the EU’s purposes and does not pursue objectives geared to promoting peace. Funding has been provided to political organisations actively involved in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Such activity is not likely to improve the preconditions for a lasting settlement to the disputes. Lastly, it is not clear whether the funding has been used in the way intended by the EU.

The Commission has previously stated that the reason for secrecy was general security. What evidence does the Commission have that such secrecy is functioning in the intended manner and remains necessary? How does the Commission ensure that the funds it provides are not used in the wrong way, given that, for example, secrecy makes it harder for the media to carry out monitoring? How is EU citizens’ right to be informed about EU administration respected with regard to the funding granted to the Palestinian Authority?

Commission’s Response (30 May 2013):

There is no secrecy surrounding the attribution of EU funds for Palestine. Allocations to the Palestinian Authority and other beneficiaries (in particular the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) and the Office of the President of the Palestine Liberation Organisation for funding for East Jerusalem) from the European Neighbourhood Partnership Instrument are approved by the Management Committee, consisting of representatives of all Member States. Details of such funding are available on the websites of the EU Representative Office in East Jerusalem and of the Directorate-General for Development and Cooperation in Brussels(1).

Insofar as funding of projects implemented by civil society organisations is concerned, funds are awarded on the basis of public calls for proposals, the guidelines for which are published in the two websites referred to above. The results of the calls are published, together with information on the projects selected. Only activities foreseen in the detailed budgets of these proposals are eligible for funding. All beneficiaries are required to submit interim narrative and financial reports, together with a final expenditure verification report from an independent auditor. The EU also regularly carries out results-oriented monitoring and evaluations of such projects and activities through external contractors.

23. Transparency in Funding for Arab and Israeli NGOs, 19 March 2013

MEP Bas Belder (ECR Netherlands), MEP Charles Tannock (ECR UK)

Under the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights, as well as other initiatives such as the Partnership for Peace, the EU provides substantial amounts of funding to support non-governmental organisations in both Israel and the Palestinian territories, yet there have been a number of media reports which suggest that, while discussions on EU funding for troubled regions and countries such as Iran, Somalia and Sri Lanka are openly discussed, there is little available information or transparency on the rationale and decision-making processes underlying the award of grants to organisations involved in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

  1. What steps is the Commission taking to guarantee transparency in the award of grants to and the use of funds by NGOs dealing with the Arab-Israeli conflict?
  2. What measures are currently in place to ensure that European citizens or elected representatives such as MEPs can independently evaluate the Commission’s decision-making process in the light of the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights and the Partnership for Peace Programme?
  3. Can the Commission confirm that the European Court of Justice recently upheld the Commission’s right to withhold information on the destination of EU funds to Palestinian NGOs, and can it state why these matters are shrouded in secrecy when there are very real concerns among experts on these matters that some of these funds may be supporting, or have links to, organisations supportive of extremist ideology which do not share the EU’s values of democracy and human rights?

Commission’s Response (30 May 2013):

Commission provided the same response as to MEP Takkula, detailed above.

24. EU Aid to Palestine, 22 March 2013

MEP Helmer (EFD UK)

The EU is, according to the European External Action Service’s website, the largest donor of financial assistance to the Palestinian Authority(1), and therefore has considerable responsibility.

While there is little doubt that Palestinians experience hardship and assistance is needed, it is also alleged that the Palestinian Authority continues to misappropriate funds:

  1. What measures have been taken by the Commission to address the recommendations made by the OLAF report of 2004(2)?
  2. Can the Commission provide evidence that EU aid funds can no longer be misappropriated by the Palestinian Authority?

While I am aware that basic data is provided on EU grants to Palestine, I am also informed that substantial documentation on grants relating to organisations involved in the Arab-Israeli conflict remains hidden. Can the Commission explain why there is a lack of transparency in this instance?

Commission’s Response (30 May 2013):

Commission provided the same response as to MEP Takkula, detailed above.

25. Transparency of Subsidies to NGOs in the Context of the Israeli/ Palestinian Conflict, 20 March 2013

MEP Daniel van der Stoep (NI Netherlands)

The Commission does not act with transparency with regard to EU subsidies for non-governmental organisations (NGOs) operating in the context of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. It has been found that the Commission has often refused to account for the funding provided, giving no explanation for its refusal. The sums involved amount to at least EUR 10 m per annum!

  1. Is the VP/HR familiar with the memorandum ‘Ending Secrecy in European Union Funding to Political Advocacy NGOs Operating in the Arab-Israeli Conflict’ by ‘NGO Monitor — Making ANGOs Accountable’
    What view does the VP/HR take of the conclusion stated there that she does not act with transparency with regard to EU subsidies for NGOs operating in the context of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict? How does the VP/HR explain her non-transparent attitude, and will she change it? If not, how does the VP/HR explain the conclusion reached by NGO Monitor?
  2. How does the VP/HR explain her non-transparent attitude in the light of Article 11 of Title II of the Lisbon Treaty, which lays down the transparency principle applicable to the European institutions? Does the VP/HR agree that her attitude breaches that article? How does the VP/HR account for this to European citizens, who ultimately have to provide the EUR 10 m given to NGOs each year?
  3. Is there any connection between this non-transparent attitude on the part of the VP/HR and her partiality in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, and what reasons can the VP/HR adduce for this partiality? Will the VP/HR adopt a clear pro-Israeli position in the conflict?
  4. How will the VP/HR ensure that the funding provided does not fall into the wrong hands? How will she ensure that the funding is not passed on to Palestinian people/organisations fighting against Israel and/or seeking the destruction of Israel?
  5. Does the VP/HR agree that her non-transparent attitude and the withholding of information are arousing more and more suspicion and mistrust among the people of Europe? Does the VP/HR agree that this is undesirable and that it demonstrates the serious democratic deficit of the EU? How will the VP/HR rectify this?

Commission’s Response (30 May 2013):

Commission provided the same response as to MEP Takkula, detailed above.

26. Funding to NGOs in the Middle East, 15 April 2013

MEP Diane Dodds (NI UK)

According to NGO Monitor, the Commission provides millions of euros annually in funding to political advocacy NGOs operating in the Arab-Israeli conflict, with many of the groups engaging in campaigns and activities that are not consistent with EU foreign policy objectives.

An example of this is the Gaza-based Palestinian Centre for Human Rights and Oxfam Novib securing a EUR 298 339.08 grant from the EU to ‘contribute to the abolition of the death penalty in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, applied by the Palestinian National Authority via judicial death sentences’ by the Israeli military.

How does the Commission respond to these claims, and how does it ensure that advocacy work engages in purely legitimate activities?

Commission’s Response (7 June 2013):

The project ‘Awareness-rasing and lobbying against the death penalty in the Occupied Palestinian Territory’ was financed from ‘European initiative for democracy and human rights’ funds in 2005. The action’s objectives were the following:

  • to advocate and raise public awareness for the abolition of laws allowing for the death penalty; specifically Article 37 of the Palestinian Penal Law 74 of 1936 applicable to the Gaza Strip; Article 14 of the Jordanian Penal Law 16 of 1960 applicable to the West Bank and Palestine Liberation Organisation Revolutionary Penal Code of 1979 applicable to both areas;
  • to contribute to the abolition of the Palestinian State Security Court;
  • to provide legal aid to people charged with an offence which may result in the death penalty under Palestinian Law and to commute or abrogate death sentences by lobbying the Office of the President to issue a general moratorium on the death penalty or secure such a moratorium on a case by case basis.
  • to raise international awareness with respect to extra-judicial executions committed by the Israeli military.

The grant awarded for this action was consistent with EU Guidelines on the Death Penalty and supported this specific project and not the general operations of the non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in question.

More generally, the EU monitors advocacy work in the same way as other funded activities-through visits, the implementation of visibility guidelines (including use of disclaimers), reviewing of field reports and through eligibility analyses.