David Cronin
19 February 2026
ELECTRONIC INTAFADA
Cobwebs Technologies (now owned by PenLink) has recommended that its products be used to spy on Black Lives Matter activists. Probal RashidZUMA Press
Israel’s spy technology will be displayed at an exhibition organized by the British government next month.
PenLink – one of the listed participants in the London expo named Security and Policing – is, to put it mildly, a firm that should be shunned.
Five years ago, Meta banned Israel’s Cobwebs Technologies – which PenLink has subsequently acquired – from gathering intelligence across the corporation’s platforms.
Meta, the owner of Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, had found that Cobwebs was using hundreds of social media accounts to surveil activists, civil servants and opposition politicians in Mexico and Hong Kong.
The details provided about PenLink on the website for the Security and Policing exhibition are misleading. They present PenLink as a British company.
PenLink is headquartered in Nebraska and has extremely strong connections to Israel.
Omri Timianker, a founder of Cobwebs, is among several Israelis on PenLink’s senior management team.
Timianker has in the not-too-distant past been promoted as a veteran of the “special forces” within the Israeli military and “Israel’s secret services.”
When speaking at conferences, he has been praised as being a pioneer among “Israel’s secret services” in the use of “tactical SIGINT.”
As signals intelligence (SIGINT) involves the interception of communications, it is really a fancy term for spying. It is highly probable that any innovation which Timianker helped to realize has been tested out on Palestinians living under an illegal occupation.
In January, Timianker hosted a visit to PenLink’s Israel offices by Michael Mann, the European Union’s ambassador in Tel Aviv.
By Timianker’s account, the pair chatted about “how fast reality is shifting and how critical it is to equip people not just with tools but with the ability to think, question and stay aware in a world shaped by algorithms and narratives.”
From a freedom of information request, I learned that Mann had met a PenLink representative during a November event in the city of Herzliya. In follow-up email correspondence, Mann stated that he would be “delighted to arrange a visit” so that he could see PenLink’s offices.
After I sent a query to Mann, the EU’s Tel Aviv embassy described his meeting with Timianker as a “courtesy visit.”
The visit, according to the embassy, “entailed an informal conversation about technology and disinformation.”
The EU, incidentally, is increasingly accusing journalists and academics with whom it disagrees of “disinformation.”
They include the German citizen Hüseyin Dogru, who is subject to EU sanctions that imperil his livelihood for publishing articles critical of Israel and German state violence against Palestine solidarity activists on Red, a media outlet which he set up.
“Ambassador Mann did not discuss concrete business opportunities for the firm in Europe or elsewhere,” the embassy added.
It is nonetheless indisputable that the meeting with Mann took place amid efforts by PenLink to woo Europe’s law enforcement agencies. PenLink, for example, showcased its wares at last year’s Europe Police Congress in Berlin.
Selling to ICE
Cobwebs – the Israeli firm now owned by PenLink – had previously sought to drum up business by illustrating how one of its systems could be used against Black Lives Matter protesters in the US.
Tangles, as the system is called, mines social media posts to find out which events targeted individuals attend and then combines that data with details leaked about those individuals online.
ICE – the notoriously bellicose US Immigration and Customs Enforcement – has spent approximately $5 million on using Tangles, particularly a feature named Webloc.
Long before he was named the EU’s ambassador to Tel Aviv, Michael Mann had developed cordial relations with Israel and its lobbying network.
Prior to taking up his current job, he was one of the leading figures dealing with the Middle East in the Brussels-based administration of the EU’s diplomatic service.
Another senior player in that service is Hélène Le Gal, a former French envoy to Israel and Morocco.
Through a separate freedom of information request, I learned that Le Gal agreed to receive a delegation from the American Jewish Committee (AJC), a prominent pro-Israel group, in November. The delegation had asked for a meeting to talk about “the current situation in the Middle East, as well as Russia’s ongoing war against Ukraine and its increasingly aggressive posture toward Europe.”
Russia’s ongoing war against Ukraine is undoubtedly a serious issue – as well as being a consequence of the West’s aggressive posture towards Russia (something that EU and NATO representatives would never acknowledge).
Achieving a fair and sustainable resolution of that war is not, however, foremost on the AJC’s agenda.
Rather, it exploits Russia’s invasion of Ukraine to try and distract attention from the genocide which Israel is committing in Gaza.
Lobbyists know very well, too, that the rapid growth in Western military spending prompted by the Russia-Ukraine conflict presents opportunities to boost Israel’s weapons exports.
Israel and its support network thrive on war. As the EU’s leading players are dedicated to building a war economy, it is grimly logical that they are looking to Israel and its advocates for inspiration and assistance.
Why is the EU accusing me of “disinformation”?
David Cronin
David Cronin
25 February 2026
Katharina von Schnurbein, an EU official who has been praised as an “unwavering partner” by Israel. Xavier LejeuneEuropean Union
The European Union is accusing me of “disinformation” for reporting accurately about how it works in tandem with Israel to weaponize anti-Semitism.
The accusation was made after I filed a formal complaint about how the Brussels bureaucracy was keeping secret details of who paid for a May 2025 trip to Israel undertaken by Katharina von Schnurbein, the EU’s coordinator for combating anti-Semitism.
The complaint was made to the European Ombudsman, which sent me a report of a meeting it held with several Brussels officials while assessing my complaint.
That report refers to “articles about the coordinator amounting to disinformation, written by the complainant” – i.e. me.
It says that the officials representing the European Commission – the EU’s executive – at the meeting “shared a sample of relevant articles” with the Ombudsman’s “inquiry team.”
The EU is increasingly using “disinformation” claims to try to muzzle or otherwise punish journalists and academics with whom it disagrees.
Victims of such claims include Hüseyin Dogru, a German citizen who is unable to travel or access his bank account because the EU has imposed sanctions on him over material published on Red, a website which he founded.
The content on Red to which the EU took umbrage concerned the Gaza genocide, the Russia-Ukraine conflict and protests against Israel in Germany.
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.”
I have been investigating and writing about the activities of Katharina von Schnurbein for The Electronic Intifada since 2016. In the ensuing decade, the European Commission has not once pointed out a factual inaccuracy in my articles on von Schnurbein or sought a clarification.
The meeting report sent to me by the European Ombudsman is the first document I have seen in which I am accused of “disinformation.”
The report suggests that the European Commission previously referred to articles written by me, while handling the freedom of information request I had made concerning von Schnurbein’s Israel trip.
However, the European Commission’s reply to an appeal I had lodged following the initial rejection of my request did not directly or explicitly make accusations against me.
That reply claims “there is a real and non-hypothetical risk that the processing of the person mentioned in your request’s data and its public disclosure would harm her privacy and subject her to unsolicited external contacts. Indeed, the person, even though she is not a high-level official and does not form part of the senior management of the EU, has already been the subject of journalistic articles attacking, not only her professional capacities, but also her personal character.”
The reply does not specify who wrote the “journalistic articles” in question.
Racist endeavor
Having learned that the allegation apparently concerned my own work, I strongly object to the insinuations made by the European Commission.
The articles I have written about von Schnurbein have not involved ad hominem attacks.
Rather, they have examined how she conflates bigotry against Jews based on their religion or ethnicity with opposition to Israel’s crimes and Zionism, the ideology underpinning those crimes.
That von Schnurbein resorts to such conflation is implicitly confirmed by the meeting report from the European Ombudsman.
Citing arguments made by von Schnurbein’s colleagues at the European Commission, the report says that she “engages in the global fight against anti-Semitism in all its forms as defined by the definition of anti-Semitism by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance.”
The IHRA definition was drafted by pro-Israel lobbyists. At least one of its drafters – Kenneth Stern, a former staff member with the American Jewish Committee – has opposed how it is being invoked to suppress free speech.
That definition is accompanied by 11 “examples [which] may serve as examples” of anti-Semitism. Seven of those “examples” concern Israel.
Among them is the assertion that “the existence of the state of Israel is a racist endeavor.”
It is a simple fact that Israel is a racist endeavor.
The quasi-constitutional Law of Return allows Jews throughout the world to live in Israel and be granted Israeli citizenship. Palestinians and their direct descendants forced out of historic Palestine by Zionist forces in the 1940s are, by contrast, denied the right to go home solely because they are not Jewish.
Discriminating against people based on religion or ethnicity is the very epitome of a racist endeavor.
After initially declining to release any details of who paid for von Schnurbein’s May 2025 Israel trip, the European Commission is finally being a little more forthcoming.
A note from the Ombudsman says that the European Commission’s representatives have “confirmed that the work trip in question was an official mission, the costs of which were covered by the Commission.”
The European Commission has still not released any of the receipts or other documentation relating to the visit’s expenses. In particular, it has not spelled out whether von Schnurbein enjoyed any meals or refreshments paid for by Israel or its lobbying network.
To “justify” its secrecy, the European Commission says that freedom of information requests are processed if they concern its senior management or a “public figure acting in a public capacity.”
According to the European Commission, von Schnurbein is not part of its senior management. The argument is deceptive.
Von Schnurbein is the most senior civil servant in Brussels handling the anti-Semitism dossier. She works in the European Commission’s core administration, under the political leadership of Ursula von der Leyen, the institution’s president.
Furthermore, von Schnurbein is demonstrably a public figure.
She has been on numerous public platforms, representing the European Commission.
In late January, she was the main speaker during an event at the European Parliament. The event was held in public.
I asked the European Commission to explain why it is now accusing me of “disinformation” when it has never once identified a factual error in my articles about von Schnurbein.
The European Commission did not answer the question. A spokesperson said, “In the European Union, individuals, political, media and other actors have the right to express themselves freely. The Commission upholds the rights to freedom of expression, which is enshrined in the Charter [of Fundamental Rights].”
“As your requests relate to an ongoing Ombudsman inquiry, we are not in a position to provide further comments,” the European Commission spokesperson added.
Ali Abunimah, the executive director of The Electronic Intifada, roundly rejects the European Commission’s claims.
“The Electronic Intifada’s reporting on the European Union, particularly on the pro-Israel activities of Katharina von Schnurbein, is done with the highest attention to accuracy and journalistic best practices,” he said.
“At no time has the European Commission challenged our reporting and when we asked the Commission to point us to any examples that qualified as ‘disinformation,’ its spokesperson was unable to do so.”
He added: “We will be unyielding in defending our truthful journalism and our right to report on matters of public interest despite such smears or any attempts at censorship.”
There is a sordid irony behind how the European Commission is alleging that I have practiced “disinformation.”
Von Schnurbein has herself been responsible for making false and misleading claims.
During the May 2025 Middle East trip, she dismissed the voluminous evidence that Israel had been carrying out massacres in Gaza as “rumors about Jews.” She even sought to smear fellow EU officials by contending that a bake sale they organized for a Red Cross Gaza appeal risked causing “ambient anti-Semitism.”
Her comments during that trip followed earlier slurs on the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement.
In 2019, von Schnurbein spread the fake and patently malicious allegation that BDS activists targeted the American singer known as Matisyahu solely because he was Jewish.
Matisyahu had actually been denounced by activists because he took part in fundraising for Israel’s military.
Back in 2020, I reported how von Schnurbein’s formal job description does not mention Israel at all.
Despite lacking a mandate to act on Israel’s behalf, she has consistently pursued a pro-Israel agenda.
Her bias has been applauded by the Israeli government. A new feature on von Schnurbein in the Tel Aviv newspaper Haaretz reminds us that Israel’s foreign ministry has called her an “unwavering partner.”
Monitoring how the EU-Israel partnership manifests itself involves putting information into the public domain.
The information is undoubtedly embarrassing for EU officials such as von Schnurbein. But there is a marked difference between information and disinformation.
I refuse to be silenced or intimidated by Katharina von Schnurbein or any other EU representative. If they keep on accommodating Israel’s crimes, then I will continue to chronicle how they do so.
Katharina von Schnurbein, an EU official who has been praised as an “unwavering partner” by Israel. Xavier LejeuneEuropean Union
The European Union is accusing me of “disinformation” for reporting accurately about how it works in tandem with Israel to weaponize anti-Semitism.
The accusation was made after I filed a formal complaint about how the Brussels bureaucracy was keeping secret details of who paid for a May 2025 trip to Israel undertaken by Katharina von Schnurbein, the EU’s coordinator for combating anti-Semitism.
The complaint was made to the European Ombudsman, which sent me a report of a meeting it held with several Brussels officials while assessing my complaint.
That report refers to “articles about the coordinator amounting to disinformation, written by the complainant” – i.e. me.
It says that the officials representing the European Commission – the EU’s executive – at the meeting “shared a sample of relevant articles” with the Ombudsman’s “inquiry team.”
The EU is increasingly using “disinformation” claims to try to muzzle or otherwise punish journalists and academics with whom it disagrees.
Victims of such claims include Hüseyin Dogru, a German citizen who is unable to travel or access his bank account because the EU has imposed sanctions on him over material published on Red, a website which he founded.
The content on Red to which the EU took umbrage concerned the Gaza genocide, the Russia-Ukraine conflict and protests against Israel in Germany.
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.”
I have been investigating and writing about the activities of Katharina von Schnurbein for The Electronic Intifada since 2016. In the ensuing decade, the European Commission has not once pointed out a factual inaccuracy in my articles on von Schnurbein or sought a clarification.
The meeting report sent to me by the European Ombudsman is the first document I have seen in which I am accused of “disinformation.”
The report suggests that the European Commission previously referred to articles written by me, while handling the freedom of information request I had made concerning von Schnurbein’s Israel trip.
However, the European Commission’s reply to an appeal I had lodged following the initial rejection of my request did not directly or explicitly make accusations against me.
That reply claims “there is a real and non-hypothetical risk that the processing of the person mentioned in your request’s data and its public disclosure would harm her privacy and subject her to unsolicited external contacts. Indeed, the person, even though she is not a high-level official and does not form part of the senior management of the EU, has already been the subject of journalistic articles attacking, not only her professional capacities, but also her personal character.”
The reply does not specify who wrote the “journalistic articles” in question.
Racist endeavor
Having learned that the allegation apparently concerned my own work, I strongly object to the insinuations made by the European Commission.
The articles I have written about von Schnurbein have not involved ad hominem attacks.
Rather, they have examined how she conflates bigotry against Jews based on their religion or ethnicity with opposition to Israel’s crimes and Zionism, the ideology underpinning those crimes.
That von Schnurbein resorts to such conflation is implicitly confirmed by the meeting report from the European Ombudsman.
Citing arguments made by von Schnurbein’s colleagues at the European Commission, the report says that she “engages in the global fight against anti-Semitism in all its forms as defined by the definition of anti-Semitism by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance.”
The IHRA definition was drafted by pro-Israel lobbyists. At least one of its drafters – Kenneth Stern, a former staff member with the American Jewish Committee – has opposed how it is being invoked to suppress free speech.
That definition is accompanied by 11 “examples [which] may serve as examples” of anti-Semitism. Seven of those “examples” concern Israel.
Among them is the assertion that “the existence of the state of Israel is a racist endeavor.”
It is a simple fact that Israel is a racist endeavor.
The quasi-constitutional Law of Return allows Jews throughout the world to live in Israel and be granted Israeli citizenship. Palestinians and their direct descendants forced out of historic Palestine by Zionist forces in the 1940s are, by contrast, denied the right to go home solely because they are not Jewish.
Discriminating against people based on religion or ethnicity is the very epitome of a racist endeavor.
After initially declining to release any details of who paid for von Schnurbein’s May 2025 Israel trip, the European Commission is finally being a little more forthcoming.
A note from the Ombudsman says that the European Commission’s representatives have “confirmed that the work trip in question was an official mission, the costs of which were covered by the Commission.”
The European Commission has still not released any of the receipts or other documentation relating to the visit’s expenses. In particular, it has not spelled out whether von Schnurbein enjoyed any meals or refreshments paid for by Israel or its lobbying network.
To “justify” its secrecy, the European Commission says that freedom of information requests are processed if they concern its senior management or a “public figure acting in a public capacity.”
According to the European Commission, von Schnurbein is not part of its senior management. The argument is deceptive.
Von Schnurbein is the most senior civil servant in Brussels handling the anti-Semitism dossier. She works in the European Commission’s core administration, under the political leadership of Ursula von der Leyen, the institution’s president.
Furthermore, von Schnurbein is demonstrably a public figure.
She has been on numerous public platforms, representing the European Commission.
In late January, she was the main speaker during an event at the European Parliament. The event was held in public.
I asked the European Commission to explain why it is now accusing me of “disinformation” when it has never once identified a factual error in my articles about von Schnurbein.
The European Commission did not answer the question. A spokesperson said, “In the European Union, individuals, political, media and other actors have the right to express themselves freely. The Commission upholds the rights to freedom of expression, which is enshrined in the Charter [of Fundamental Rights].”
“As your requests relate to an ongoing Ombudsman inquiry, we are not in a position to provide further comments,” the European Commission spokesperson added.
Ali Abunimah, the executive director of The Electronic Intifada, roundly rejects the European Commission’s claims.
“The Electronic Intifada’s reporting on the European Union, particularly on the pro-Israel activities of Katharina von Schnurbein, is done with the highest attention to accuracy and journalistic best practices,” he said.
“At no time has the European Commission challenged our reporting and when we asked the Commission to point us to any examples that qualified as ‘disinformation,’ its spokesperson was unable to do so.”
He added: “We will be unyielding in defending our truthful journalism and our right to report on matters of public interest despite such smears or any attempts at censorship.”
There is a sordid irony behind how the European Commission is alleging that I have practiced “disinformation.”
Von Schnurbein has herself been responsible for making false and misleading claims.
During the May 2025 Middle East trip, she dismissed the voluminous evidence that Israel had been carrying out massacres in Gaza as “rumors about Jews.” She even sought to smear fellow EU officials by contending that a bake sale they organized for a Red Cross Gaza appeal risked causing “ambient anti-Semitism.”
Her comments during that trip followed earlier slurs on the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement.
In 2019, von Schnurbein spread the fake and patently malicious allegation that BDS activists targeted the American singer known as Matisyahu solely because he was Jewish.
Matisyahu had actually been denounced by activists because he took part in fundraising for Israel’s military.
Back in 2020, I reported how von Schnurbein’s formal job description does not mention Israel at all.
Despite lacking a mandate to act on Israel’s behalf, she has consistently pursued a pro-Israel agenda.
Her bias has been applauded by the Israeli government. A new feature on von Schnurbein in the Tel Aviv newspaper Haaretz reminds us that Israel’s foreign ministry has called her an “unwavering partner.”
Monitoring how the EU-Israel partnership manifests itself involves putting information into the public domain.
The information is undoubtedly embarrassing for EU officials such as von Schnurbein. But there is a marked difference between information and disinformation.
I refuse to be silenced or intimidated by Katharina von Schnurbein or any other EU representative. If they keep on accommodating Israel’s crimes, then I will continue to chronicle how they do so.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment