A group of 21 MEPs, led by Bert-Jan Ruissen (ECR), has submitted a written parliamentary question to the European Commission demanding a re-examination of EU humanitarian funding to the West Bank, Gaza, and Lebanon. The MEPs question whether the Commission is adequately vetting partner organisations to ensure EU funds do not support entities linked to antisemitic, anti-democratic, or violent activities, citing recent decisions by Sweden, Germany, and the Netherlands to cut funding to certain NGOs.
The question, filed on 14 April 2026, references the Commission’s announcement on 16 March 2026 of EUR 458 million in humanitarian aid for the Middle East, including EUR 124 million for the West Bank and Gaza and EUR 100 million for Lebanon. The MEPs contrast this with what they describe as increased accountability efforts by Member States, such as Sweden’s reported halt to grants for Islamic Relief Sweden in January 2026, Germany’s defunding of NGOs denying Israel’s right to exist in 2025, and the Netherlands’ cessation of funding to the Union of Agricultural Work Committees (UAWC) in January 2022.
The question contains concrete asks: the MEPs want the Commission to detail steps taken to update funding contracts, partner vetting, and oversight mechanisms for NGOs, UN agencies, and local implementing partners. The tone is critical, implying that current safeguards may be insufficient to prevent EU funds from reaching entities that do not align with EU values.
Policy orientation
The question reflects a push for stricter conditionality in EU humanitarian aid, aligning with a sovereignty-oriented, security-focused approach. The MEPs advocate for increased scrutiny and accountability, potentially limiting funding to organisations with perceived political or ideological ties. This could impact the operational flexibility of aid delivery in the region.
Expected follow-up
The Commission is expected to reply within approximately six weeks. Its answer will signal whether it shares the MEPs’ concerns or maintains that existing vetting procedures are adequate, potentially revealing a cleavage between those prioritising aid effectiveness and those prioritising value-based conditionality.