We are only now understanding the full extent of how dangerous ideologies propagated by Hamas and other terrorist groups have radicalized Gaza. The rescue of four Israeli hostages from residential homes, including the house of an Al-Jazeera contributor, starkly illustrates how deeply Hamas has infiltrated Palestinian society. Martyrdom is glorified in school textbooks, and violence against Israelis is encouraged on children’s television shows.
Since October 7th, it has become increasingly clear that too many of the NGOs and UN agencies in Gaza, meant to reflect the democratic values of the international donors that fund them, actually fuel this hate. Instead of promoting freedom and human rights, NGOs and UN agencies have openly and proactively supported or tolerated terrorist activities and spread antisemitic and extremist propaganda.
If there is to be a better, more peaceful future when Gaza is rebuilt and restored, donor government aid systems must focus on deradicalizing the local population. This starts with taking an active stance to make sure their money is not fueling incitement and furthering the cycle of violence.
For years, terrorist organizations and those associated with them in Gaza have benefitted from internationally-funded programs and infrastructure of humanitarian aid organizations, including using their facilities as cover for terror activities. In perhaps the highest profile case, evidence was found in March that UNRWA, the UN agency tasked with providing humanitarian support to Palestinian refugees, has more than 450 employees with connections to Hamas, including several that participated in the October 7th atrocities in Israel. This information led dozens of donor countries to temporarily halt funding to UNRWA, although many have now resumed their funding.
There is an additional, lesser-known, problem. Humanitarian aid programs related to Gaza often also include political and legal advocacy projects, which are run by NGOs that, instead of working to improve human rights for Gazans, use these funds to create a political environment that legitimizes Hamas terror.
For example, Palestinian NGOs and their allies have taken the US, UK, German, Danish, and Dutch governments to court in attempts to stop arms exports to Israel. These same NGOs have worked closely with South Africa on its case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), accusing Israel of apartheid and genocide.
Al-Haq, a Palestinian NGO, was also behind the lawsuit in France that initially triggered a ban on Israelis participating in Eurosatury, the world’s largest security trade show, last week in Paris. Thankfully, an appeals court overturned this dreadful ruling.
These organizations pretend that attacking Israel is part of their opposition to the ‘occupation.’ In practice, their campaigns whitewash terror activities and seek to erode Israel’s legitimacy on the international stage. By portraying Israel as an aggressor and the Palestinians solely as victims, these NGOs create a narrative that justifies violence and undermines peace efforts, furthering the goals of terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah. These discriminatory NGO campaigns against Israel are complementary to Hamas terrorist activities—and the international aid community must acknowledge this.
Germany provides a salient example of the contradiction between its NGO funding and government policies. Germany supports Israel’s right to exist and opposes antisemitism and terrorism. The German government, however, has not done enough to ensure that its grants to UNRWA, other UN agencies, and other NGOs working in Gaza, do not support any organizations that deny Israel’s right to exist or have affiliations, whether direct or indirect, with terrorists or terrorist organizations.
Germany and other governments should reconcile their official politics and humanitarian aid —not only for the sake of Israel and the global Jewish community. A deradicalized and more democratic Palestinian society is key to a more peaceful future in the region, and humanitarian aid can be a crucial component in making this happen. Once donor countries start taking better steps to proactively vet aid recipients, they can ensure that their aid activities align with foreign policy.
Two general principles should guide this process. First, any group, organization, or individual denying Israel’s mere right to exist should not receive any governmental funds or aid. And, second, in order to prevent aid from helping terror groups or their interests, terror affiliation must be accurately defined to include all those directly or indirectly supporting or enabling terror.
The current practice of putting Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and PFLP on a state terror list is not enough, as this does not ensure on its own that their proxies do not benefit from the international humanitarian aid community. Parliaments around the world should institute mandatory and comprehensive vetting of Palestinian NGO grantees, starting with the adoption of budgetary regulations on a state level, which would be binding for all ministries and governmental agencies providing aid.
Another key measure is that donor countries should make all funding-related information transparent and publicly accessible. This should be followed by regular audits and running a centralized database to track aid allocation and use. Finally, all these measures only make sense if clear sanctions are defined for potential breaches of contract.
Such recalibration of how humanitarian aid is distributed could allow donor countries and the international community to ensure that billions of dollars in aid, sure to be forthcoming to Gaza, is used to promote peace and stability. Especially now, when the stakes could not be higher, the unchecked delivery of humanitarian aid will only further fuel the cycle of violence, hate, and extremism. This would be detrimental to the people of both Gaza and Israel, as well as the entire region.
