Why West European Governments Funnel Cash to Anti-Israel, Pro-Terrorist Organizations

Last week, Denmark announced that it would cease its funding for the Ramallah-based Human Rights International Humanitarian Law Secretariat, which for the past five years has received millions of dollars annually from a group of European governments. In turn, the Secretariat uses the money to fund some two dozen nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), all of which are connected either to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP)—a Leninist terrorist group—or to the BDS movement. The move by Copenhagen is a small but important step toward dismantling a large network of European-funded anti-Israel NGOs that engage in incitement and support terror, and have disproportionate clout at the UN and with the media, as Gerald Steinberg explains. (Interview by Ruthie Blum.):

NGO funding—under the banner of “development” and “civil society”—has been a major part of West European foreign policy for the past two or three decades. In addition, many countries give money to NGO networks because they see that other countries are doing so. They figure that if others are doing it, it must be good for Europe. Moreover, much of the system is faith-based, in the sense that all a group has to say to garner the support of many European politicians is that its mission is to promote human rights. . . . [G]roups that claim to promote values seen as universally good—such as peace, human rights, justice, and coexistence—are automatically perceived as credible and above criticism or investigation.

Moreover, the money is not tracked; it is funneled into large and powerful mechanisms that serve as distributors for what are considered worthy causes. . . . In most cases, the government ministers and directors-general of ministries responsible for signing off on pledges do not have the time, the resources, or the inclination to follow up, particularly as they accept and trust that the “positively motivated organizations” receiving money will use it for good.

Another key factor is that many of the annual reports submitted by NGO-funding networks [like the Human Rights International Humanitarian Law Secretariat] are extremely brief and vague. Such reports will say something like: “We help NGOs in the following 45 countries in the pursuit of opportunities and fairness.” A perfect example is the governmental Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA), which has a huge budget and signs off on funding for all kinds of radical groups. . . .

In Europe, the images of Palestinian suffering, and the overall sympathy for Muslim victims in general, are so strong that it is very hard to cut through the myths and slogans surrounding them. This is true across the board, even in the British Conservative party. It is so deeply embedded in the culture that any criticism, including of NGOs with links to terrorists, immediately becomes labeled “Islamophobic.”

Read more at Gatestone

More about: BDS, Denmark, Europe and Israel, European Union, Israel & Zionism, NGO, PFLP

An American Withdrawal from Iraq Would Hand Another Victory to Iran

Since October 7, the powerful network of Iran-backed militias in Iraq have carried out 120 attacks on U.S. forces stationed in the country. In the previous year, there were dozens of such attacks. The recent escalation has led some in the U.S. to press for the withdrawal of these forces, whose stated purpose in the country is to stamp out the remnants of Islamic State and to prevent the group’s resurgence. William Roberts explains why doing so would be a mistake:

American withdrawal from Iraq would cement Iran’s influence and jeopardize our substantial investment into the stabilization of Iraq and the wider region, threatening U.S. national security. Critics of the U.S. military presence argue that [it] risks a regional escalation in the ongoing conflict between Israel and Iran. However, in the long term, the U.S. military has provided critical assistance to Iraq’s security forces while preventing the escalation of other regional conflicts, such as clashes between Turkey and Kurdish groups in northern Iraq and Syria.

Ultimately, the only path forward to preserve a democratic, pluralistic, and sovereign Iraq is through engagement with the international community, especially the United States. Resisting Iran’s takeover will require the U.S. to draw international attention to the democratic backsliding in the country and to be present and engage continuously with Iraqi civil society in military and non-military matters. Surrendering Iraq to Iran’s agents would not only squander our substantial investment in Iraq’s stability; it would greatly increase Iran’s capability to threaten American interests in the Levant through its influence in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon.

Read more at Providence

More about: Iran, Iraq, U.S. Foreign policy