The decision by police in the British region of West Midlands to ban Israeli fans from the Nov. 6 Aston Villa soccer match with Maccabi Tel Aviv triggered widespread condemnation from a refreshingly broad political spectrum. U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer called it “the wrong decision,” while Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch lambasted it as a “national disgrace.” In the days that followed, government officials and members of civil society demanded answers.
The absurd policy, amounting to a de facto ban on Jews from a Western sporting event, was neither independent nor a fluke. Per a Daily Mail report, it was orchestrated by the Hind Rajab Foundation, a highly opaque NGO chaired by a self-described member of the “Hezbollah resistance” against Israel, who is “proud” of his military training with the proscribed terrorist group. The Hind Rajab Foundation, launched in September 2024, is the project of Dyab Abou Jahjah, who is based in Belgium and banned from entering the United Kingdom. He is infamous for praising Al-Qaeda’s Sept. 11 attacks as “sweet revenge,” has a history of homophobic vitriol and a refrain of Holocaust denial for which he was censured by Belgian authorities.
The sources of the necessarily significant funding consumed by Jahjah’s numerous worldwide projects are carefully hidden. Moreover, according to a February report in The Jerusalem Post, Jahjah is linked by family and business ties to several actors designated as part of Hezbollah’s vast terror funding network. He is also allegedly included in the U.S. government’s “No Fly” list due to terror ties.
Jahjah’s apparent influence with an institution like the West Midlands police raises specific questions about the contrast between its internal processes and its external pronouncements. Publicly, the department cited “security concerns” in banning Israeli supporters. However, the Hind Rajab Foundation’s accusations, which reportedly “laid the groundwork” for the police verdict, had little to do with security. Instead, they consisted of a political word salad waxing about the “systematic instrumentalization of football culture in genocide,” and the apparently obvious threat of Jewish-Israelis setting foot in “a diverse and predominantly Muslim community.”
NGO Monitor, the research institute where we work, has documented a number of examples in which U.K. officials cooperated with terror-affiliated, anti-Western or violently antisemitic actors in making decisions and crafting policy. Perhaps unsurprisingly, many of these choices have appeared since the Hamas atrocities of Oct. 7, 2023, and promote demonizing propaganda against Israel.
In another instance, just days after the Hamas attacks, Palestinian NGO Al-Haq, sanctioned by Israel as a front for the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine terror organization and by the United States for anti-Israel lawfare at the International Criminal Court, launched a campaign demanding that the United Kingdom suspend weapons export licenses to Israel, especially F-35 fighter jet components. For two years, the group pursued this attack in British courts. In accusing Israel of genocide, the NGO argued that it is wrong and illegal for the United Kingdom to be party to Israel’s operations against Hamas in Gaza by providing military hardware.
Despite formally and correctly dismissing the genocide claims and maintaining F-35 component exports, the then-U.K. Foreign Secretary David Lammy affirmed the suspension of certain other materiel transfers and moved to channel F-35 parts through third countries. His official statement also acknowledged and legitimized the Al-Haq campaign, reflecting the NGO’s malign influence within U.K. government circles. The Hind Rajab Foundation-led football fiasco is another example of the pernicious role.
Indeed, some British voices have belatedly recognized the need to confront the machinations of political advocacy NGOs. Last year, the then communities secretary, Michael Gove, introduced a policy restricting central government access for groups with “extremist … orientation and views,” a definition that included “Islamist” organizations and those threatening the “fabric of a civilised society.” Polling suggests that about one in three Labour Party and two in three Conservative members of Parliament find the “charity” and NGO sector overly political.
Certainly, with regard to Israel and the Middle East, NGOs like Hind Rajab Foundation and Al-Haq exploit British and Western systems of justice to compromise the security of Israel and British Jews. Jahjah and his peers likely see barring Jews from sporting events or allegedly arresting them for wearing Jewish symbols as part of a campaign to marginalize “Zionists,” a euphemism for Jewish people.
In its own interests, the United Kingdom should review the free hand it has given activist groups to influence policy. Surrendering sensitive decisions to terror-linked propagandists is increasingly unpopular and a bad strategy. Furthermore, Starmer frequently indicates his interest in playing a central role in contemporary diplomacy, especially regarding “day after” plans for Gaza. Bowing to NGO propaganda interferes with these goals; conversely, ending abuse of judicial and law enforcement bodies would broadcast the strength and problem-solving required by complex diplomatic fora.
The United States, the Gulf states, Israel and the Palestinians are ready to include a pragmatic United Kingdom in regional stabilization. But to bring law and order to Gaza, London must first repair its own moral and legal frameworks, institutions and democracy. Its policy manipulation by secretly funded, highly concerning NGO networks must end.
