Katharina von Schnurbein's colleagues fail to find flaws in my work.
Katharina von Schnurbein. (Xavier Lejeune/European Union)
A claim by European Union officials that I had practiced “disinformation” can be exposed as completely baseless.
Earlier this year, I learned that such an allegation had been made against me by colleagues of Katharina von Schnurbein, the EU’s coordinator for the fight against anti-Semitism.
Following a data access request, I now have a copy of the dossier compiled to “support” the allegation.
The dossier contains excerpts from 20 articles I wrote for The Electronic Intifada between June 2016 and November 2025. It does not identify even one error in those articles.
The few notes from EU officials in the dossier are sparse on details. They either concern events that von Schnurbein had attended or photographs which accompanied my articles.
For some reason, the officials felt it was important to highlight that articles about von Schnurbein or Ursula von der Leyen, the European Commission’s president, were illustrated with photographs of those individuals. They do not explain how the choice of illustrations could constitute “disinformation.”
The claim that I had written articles about von Schnurbein “amounting to disinformation” appeared in a report on a meeting held between the European Commission (where she works) and the European Ombudsman.
The meeting had been convened by the Ombudsman after I filed a formal complaint about how the European Commission had refused to release basic information about who footed the bill when von Schnurbein visited Israel in May 2025.
In replying to my data access request, the European Commission stated that the list of my articles “was compiled and shared with the Ombudsman inquiry team solely at their request” while that team was conducting an investigation.
The investigation – prompted by my complaint – established that the European Commission itself paid for von Schnurbein’s journey to and accommodation in Israel. The Ombudsman concluded it was “regrettable” that the European Commission did not specify how the trip was funded when I had requested the relevant details.
Although I have not lost any sleep over the “disinformation” claim, I felt it was important to challenge it.
The EU defines “disinformation” as “false or misleading content that is spread with an intention to deceive or secure economic or political gain, and which may cause public harm.”
The articles that I have written about von Schnurbein examine how she has been pursuing a pro-Israel agenda since she took up her post more than a decade ago and how she has weaponized anti-Semitism in order to smear and potentially muzzle Palestine solidarity activists.
Enormous irony
There was an enormous irony in how von Schnurbein’s colleagues accused me of “disinformation.”
Von Schnurbein herself has a record of making false and misleading comments.
One egregious comment was made during her May 2025 trip to Israel. There, she categorized a bake sale which some of her fellow EU officials had held to benefit a humanitarian aid appeal for Gaza as “ambient anti-Semitism.”
Von Schnurbein appears to be more extreme than that of others in the Brussels bureaucracy.
A new EU publication on “fostering Jewish life in Europe” says that “the relationship between European Jews and Israel is diverse.”
While some of those interviewed for the handbook expressed a strong attachment to Israel, others “describe deep discomfort with the current Israeli government,” the handbook notes.
Von Schnurbein is a Bavarian aristocrat from a Christian rather than a Jewish background.
In her work, she has refused to respect how Europe’s Jews have a diverse range of views on Israel. Jews who oppose Israel’s crimes or Zionism – the state’s ideology – have been excluded from the activities which she oversees.
Despite accusing me of “disinformation,” the EU has not threatened any specific measures against me.
I am lucky to have escaped the kind of punishment inflicted on the German journalist Hüseyin Dogru. His life has been turned upside down because of financial sanctions imposed by the EU last year.
Earlier this month, Dogru underscored how the EU’s case was extremely flimsy.
Just two pieces of “evidence” were cited against Red – the website he ran. Some Red staff had previously worked for Russia-funded media and the website covered “politically controversial subjects,” the EU’s sanctions listing argued.
The only “politically controversial” subject singled out was a student protest against Israeli state violence. Red had published images of that protest, which as Dogru has pointed out, means “we did journalism.”
Doing journalism is apparently intolerable for the Brussels bureaucracy in the 2020s.
As the dossier compiled on me does not identify any errors in my work, I have asked the European Commission if it will apologize for accusing me of “disinformation.”
The European Commission replied that “we are working on your request” and “hope to be able to get back to you later this week.”
I am not holding my breath.
•First published by The Electronic Intifada, 15 September 2026.