France provides millions of euros annually to highly politicized Palestinian, Israeli, and international advocacy NGOs that operate in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The findings of this report have intensified concerns regarding the effectiveness of oversight mechanisms, and the vulnerability of French- and other European-funded projects to manipulation, diversion, or abuse.
IFPB sends “3 – 4 delegations to Israel/Palestine every year,” claiming to expose the “everyday violence of war and occupation” and promotes BDS including calling to “End US Military Aid to Israel.”
A number of NGOs that receive Australian funding lead campaigns and political activities that are inconsistent with Australian government policies to promote peace and a two-state framework in the Arab-Israeli conflict. These NGOs are centrally involved in anti-Israel BDS campaigns and lawfare.
On May 11, 2026, Nicholas Kristof published an opinion piece in The New York Times that promotes incendiary anti-Israel libels. In his piece, Kristof relies heavily on reports, quotations, and citations from highly politicized NGOs that, at best, have well-established, documented anti-Israel agendas, and at worst, have direct links to Hamas and other terror groups.
MCC’s activities and publications, as well as its funding of highly politicized NGOs active in the Arab-Israeli conflict, reveal a biased and anti-Israel agenda, including campaigning against the Israeli security barrier while ignoring Palestinian terror.
Bimkom is an Israeli NGO that regularly criticizes Israeli planning policies and obstacles created by the security barrier, while completely omitting the context of terror.
From the opening moments of the war that began on February 28, 2026, the highly politicized NGO network immediately launched predictable and often absurd condemnations of the U.S. and Israel for ostensible “aggression” and “violations of international law.”
MECA rhetoric includes accusations of “genocide,” “apartheid,” “ethnic cleansing,” and “collective punishment,” as well as supporting a Palestinian “right of return.”
While Emek Shaveh claims that it “oppose[s] attempts to use archaeological finds to legitimize acts that harm disadvantaged communities,” it promotes distorted facts and unsubstantiated positions that promote the Palestinian narrative of victimization and sole Israeli aggression.
