David Cronin
The Electronic Intifada / July 1, 2026
The European Union has been urged by its own citizens’ watchdog to be more open about the activities of a Brussels official with a decidedly pro-Israel agenda.
The recommendation follows a probe prompted by a complaint I filed about Katharina von Schnurbein, the official in question.
My complaint focused on how the EU hierarchy withheld basic details about who paid for a visit to Israel which von Schnurbein undertook in May 2025. I had argued that ascertaining whether the trip was financed from the EU’s own budget or by a foreign government (namely Israel) was a matter of fundamental transparency and accountability.
Teresa Anjinho, the European ombudswoman, has now concluded the investigation she and her team opened as a result of the complaint.
The probe established that von Schnurbein’s visit was considered a “work trip” which the European Commission – the EU’s executive – had funded. As the European Commission is publicly financed, this means that ordinary taxpayers footed the bill for a trip during which von Schnurbein almost certainly held discussions with representatives of Israel, a state committing a genocide in Gaza.
According to Anjinho, it is “regrettable” that the European Commission did not specify how von Schnurbein’s trip was funded when I submitted a freedom of information request about it.
Von Schnurbein bears the title of “coordinator for combating anti-Semitism and fostering Jewish life” in the European Commission. A “coordinator” is apparently not viewed as part of the European Commission’s management and the institution invoked data protection rules to avoid providing basic details about her Israel trip.
While claiming that von Schnurbein “does not hold a political office,” Anjinjo agreed that the coordinator against anti-Semitism “role entails a relatively high degree of public visibility.”
It is to be expected, Anjinho added, that von Schnurbein’s activities will attract “public scrutiny by third parties, particularly journalists.” The European Commission “should be open to such scrutiny,” Anjinho contended.
Observing that the details which the European Commission discloses about von Schnurbein’s work are “relatively limited,” Anjinho recommended that it “proactively make public” more information. The European Commission, she suggested, should publish summaries of von Schnurbein’s “professional activities, including work trips, speeches and other public engagements.”
The conclusion by the Ombudsman – the EU’s citizens’ watchdog – can be considered a defeat for von Schnurbein and her supporters.
The European Commission had sought to defend its secrecy about von Schnurbein’s trip by making a false accusation against me.
When contacted by the Ombudsman in an earlier stage of the investigation, the European Commission claimed that articles I had written about von Schnurbein amounted to “disinformation.”
The allegation was baseless.
I have no doubt that it was made to try and discredit me as a reporter and analyst. The EU has a penchant for claiming “disinformation” – which it defines in broad terms – so that it can impose sanctions on journalists and academics who express views that differ from those of the Brussels bureaucracy.
Unlike a preliminary report drawn up by her team earlier this year, Anjinho’s conclusions – see below – do not contain the word “disinformation.”
Significantly, she mentioned my assertion that the European Commission “had never sought corrections to or clarifications of any of the media articles” which I have written about von Schnurbein’s activities. Anjinho’s paper does not say anything that contests or contradicts my assertion.
Echoing propaganda
This week, I emailed the European Commission asking if it will publish greater details of von Schnurbein’s work – as Anjinho has urged. A spokesperson replied that the European Commission “will carefully consider the recommendation of the Ombudsman.”
The spokesperson nonetheless tried to justify the so-called “core transparency concerns” about von Schnurbein by insisting that her post is a “civil service function, not a political function.”
That argument might have merits if von Schnurbein stayed within the confines of her contractual duties. As I learned in 2020 – after a separate Ombudsman following a complaint I had filed – von Schnurbein’s formal job description does not contain the word “Israel.”
Despite having no actual mandate to handle matters concerning Israel, von Schnurbein has consistently sided with that state and echoed its propaganda.
During her May 2025 trip to Tel Aviv, she warned that the EU could be influenced by “rumours about Jews.” That was clearly an effort to dismiss the voluminous evidence about Israel’s crimes and to infer that those gathering the evidence – including some of the world’s most reputable human rights organizations – had an ulterior motive.
Von Schnurbein routinely conflates opposition to Israel’s racist and genocidal conduct with hostility towards Jews based on their ethnicity and religion.
She recently contended that what she called “Israel-related anti-Semitism” has “become the most important – in terms of volume – form of anti-Semitism that we see.” Von Schnurbein regards the slogan “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” as a call for annihilating Israeli Jews even though it is widely – and accurately – interpreted as voicing a desire for equality and justice.
Over the past several weeks, she has sought to smear the organizers of Rome Pride.
If von Schnurbein is to be believed, the group Keshet Italia was excluded from this year’s Rome Pride solely for being Jewish.
“Today the Jews – who will be next?” she wrote in a social media post. “It’s a slippery slope.”
Her post omitted the real reason why Keshet Italia was not able to enter a float in this year’s parade: The group would not endorse the stance taken by Rome Pride’s organizers against Israel’s genocidal war in Gaza.
By failing to provide proper context, von Schnurbein was clearly playing politics.
It is perfectly reasonable to expect that participants in Pride – a human rights festival – should be horrified by the Gaza genocide. The only people who could object to such an expectation are pro-Israel lobbyists.
Von Schnurbein is, in effect, a pro-Israel lobbyist on the EU’s payroll. As her bias is apparent, all attempts to shield her from scrutiny will ultimately prove futile.
David Cronin is an associate editor of The Electronic Intifada; his books include Balfour’s Shadow: A Century of British Support for Zionism and Israel and Europe’s Alliance with Israel: Aiding the Occupation
