Israel’s arms manufacturers benefit from EU funding for cutting edge civilian research

The EU has funnelled millions of euros’ worth of funding meant for civilian research programmes to Israeli arms manufacturers and other defence firms despite a ban on the funding of military and dual-use research.

Public records show Israeli companies, central to the state’s military industry, have repeatedly participated in EU-backed research, including as part of the Horizon Europe and its predecessor Horizon 2020 programmes.

Funding data reviewed by Middle East Eye shows that between 2014 and 2025, Horizon 2020 and Horizon Europe allocated nearly more than $15m to projects involving Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI), a state-owned defence company and one of Israel’s largest weapons manufacturers.

IAI produces drones, missile systems and surveillance technology used in the genocide in Gaza and the occupation of the West Bank.

Since the mid-1980s, EU member states have pooled research funding in successive schemes, the most recent of which is Horizon Europe, which runs between 2021 and 2027 and has a budget of €800bn ($937bn).

Countries not part of the EU can also participate by paying an association fee, which gives their universities and companies access to grants.

Israel has been one of the biggest beneficiaries among the associated members, particularly in security research.

The EU has maintained strict restrictions on the nature of the research allowed under the scheme and has a ban on “dual use” research that can be applied to military uses in order to ensure publicly funded civilian projects cannot be repurposed for warfare.

Unlike the EU, Israel does not maintain strict separation between civilian and military research, as its research ecosystem is structurally intertwined with its defence sector.

Speaking on condition of anonymity, a European expert in financing for research and technological development at an Italian university, described dual use for military purposes  as “the malignant application of good intentions”.

A turn towards military use

EU programmes provided $2.58m to projects involving Elbit Systems, another major Israeli defense contractor.

Elbit not only supplies weapons and surveillance equipment to the Israeli military, but recently signed a $2.3bn deal with the UAE, which is accused of funding the Rapid Support Forces in Sudan, which have been accused of widespread massacres, rape and other human rights abuses.

More broadly, EU databases show that the two Horizon programmes have funded close to 2,500 projects involving Israeli partners, amounting to approximately $2.55bn in total.

In Israel, even seemingly benign projects, such as data analysis, pharmaceutical research, or environmental technologies, can be utilised for the benefit of the country’s defence sector. 

Slovenia sanctions Israel’s Netanyahu in an EU first

Read More »

As a result, any EU-funded research bears the risk of complicity in the abuse of Palestinian human rights.

Rather than enforce the separation of civilian and military research use, the EU has signalled moving in the opposite direction.

In 2024 and 2025, the bloc effectively dismantled long-standing restrictions on dual-use research that had been embedded in the Framework Programmes since their inception.

“The European Commission is not a neutral administrative body,” the Italian academic who spoke to Middle East Eye said. 

“Its decisions are strategic and political, and they do not necessarily reflect the will of European citizens.”

In 2024, a series of high-level policy reviews, including the Draghi report and the Heitor group report, argued that Europe’s research and innovation policy needed to serve defence goals more directly. 

Shortly after their publication, the European Commission signalled that the civilian-only ethos of Horizon Europe was no longer fit for purpose.

When the next Framework Programme launches in 2028, the reversal of the dual-use ban will be structural. 

According to Commission plans, an entire pillar of the programme will be devoted to military research. 

At the same time, the remaining pillars will no longer exclude projects simply because their results could be used for both civilian and military purposes.

Criticism from MEPs

Concerns about the EU’s research funding have also been raised inside the European Parliament.

In a parliamentary question submitted by a group of MEPs, lawmakers highlighted that between 7 October 2023 and October 2024 alone, Horizon Europe funded 130 projects involving Israeli partners, amounting to approximately $147m.

The MEPs asked whether the Commission had assessed the risk that these projects could contribute to Israel’s military industry during the ongoing war in Gaza. 

The Commission did not disclose how many of the funded projects had direct or indirect military implications. Nor did it indicate that screening procedures had been tightened in response to the conflict.

Marc Botenga, a Belgian MEP who has repeatedly pressed the Commission to take firmer stances on Palestine, said it refused to clarify whether sensitive information had been transferred to Israel.

“They basically told us to trust them,” Botenga said. “We might have transferred the information, we might not have.”

“The militarisation of Horizon Europe, both in intentions and in outcomes,” said Botenga, “necessitates a rethinking of the European scientific and academic landscape.”

“Three times more explosive power has been dropped on Gaza than was used in the Hiroshima bomb.”

Former EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell strongly criticised Israel, accusing its government of committing genocide in Gaza. pic.twitter.com/s8FOLeuH8J

— Middle East Eye (@MiddleEastEye) May 13, 2025

According to a report by Investigate Europe, the European Defence Fund (EDF), a programme formally distinct from Horizon Europe but drawn from the same overall EU budget, allocated at least $16.4m to IntraCom Defense, a Greece-based military research company that is 95 percent owned by Israel Aerospace Industries.

Under EDF rules, military research and sensitive information are not supposed to be shared with third countries unless explicitly authorised and subject to strict safeguards. 

However, because IntraCom is majority-owned by IAI, any military research it produces would ultimately be accessible to Israel

Israel benefits from rule changes

As the Commission moves to normalise dual-use research, academics who believe they are engaged in civilian projects may lose control over how their work is ultimately deployed.

“The harm of dual use is often underestimated,” the expert said. “It is not only about obvious military technologies like drones or facial recognition.”

Even research that appears benign, such as geolocation tools, agricultural innovation, green energy systems, or archaeological methods, can be repurposed in the contexts of occupation and territorial control, as Israel has already done in Palestine.

Both Botenga and the expert said Israel stands to gain disproportionately from the EU’s policy shift, as a country whose research and innovation ecosystem is already structured towards military research.

“The more blurred the distinction becomes between civilian and military research,” the expert said, “the more usable the results become in a military context. Especially for a country like Israel, whose economy is deeply reliant on the military industry.”

‘The harm of dual use is often underestimated…It is not only about obvious military technologies like drones or facial recognition’

– Marc Botenga, Belgian MEP

“Personally, I find this very worrying,” the expert added. “Frankly, it’s frightening. I fear that this is the current and future direction of the European Union.”

Some MEPs have attempted over the past two years to halt the Commission’s militaristic turn and its inherent harmonisation with Israel, but with limited success.

Beginning in October 2024, a group of MEPs submitted a formal parliamentary question asking whether it was legally permissible for the EU to continue funding a state accused of genocide. 

The question explicitly referenced Israel’s actions in Gaza and the EU’s obligations under its own legal and ethical frameworks.

The Commission’s response, delivered in February 2025, avoided the substance of the accusation. 

It stated that the EU was complying with its rules because Horizon projects did not involve dual-use research and argued that suspending funds to an entire country would amount to discrimination.

The answer stood in sharp contrast to the EU’s treatment of Russia, whose participation in EU research programmes was frozen within weeks of its invasion of Ukraine.

Botenga raised this discrepancy in a follow-up question later that year; the Commission offered no detailed justification. 

Instead, it quietly shifted its position. For the first time, it acknowledged that the potential for dual use would no longer be considered a violation of EU research rules, but only the actual application of research for military purposes would trigger concern.

“Did this effectively mean changing the rules to accommodate Israel?” Botenga rhetorically asked in an interview.

Future challenges

The Commission did, at one point, signal a more critical stance. In July 2025, it floated the possibility of temporarily suspending Israel’s participation in one specific component of Horizon Europe: the European Innovation Council (EIC) Accelerator, which funds startups and cybersecurity firms. 

The proposal was tied to Israel’s alleged violations of its agreements with the EU over human rights abuses.

But the suggestion was limited in scope and short-lived. 

After the fragile ceasefire in Gaza was announced months later, the Commission dropped any public reference to the proposed suspension.

Even if it had gone ahead, experts say the impact would have been marginal.

“The real benefit Israel gains from Horizon is not just the money,” the Italian research-financing expert said. “It is the systematic integration into European research networks and unrestricted access to knowledge.”

Israel’s arms industry thrives on genocide and the world keeps buying

Read More »

Over the past three decades, Israel’s association with the EU’s Framework Programmes has enabled deep institutional ties with European universities. 

Israeli students, researchers, and professors, many of whom move between academia and the military, have thus become embedded in European scientific and intellectual communities.

European universities technically have the option to sever those ties, but, in practice, disengagement is difficult. 

Horizon grants bind participating institutions together for the duration of a project, preventing researchers from unilaterally withdrawing once funding has been approved.

As a result, collaborative projects with Israeli institutions continue, even at universities that have publicly condemned Israel’s actions or formally rescinded exchange programmes with Israeli universities. 

Still, Botenga argues that the policy trajectory is not irreversible.

The next Framework Programme will not take effect until 2028, leaving a window, however narrow, for political intervention.

Paradoxically, he said, the EU’s turn toward defence-oriented research could justify placing stricter conditions for participation, making Israel’s association in the programme harder.

“If the EU is choosing to become more militarised,” Botenga argued, “then it should exclude a state like Israel from this privileged network, given its record of human rights violations, war crimes and crimes against humanity.”

He pointed to ongoing cases before the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice as further grounds for exclusion.

In the meantime, responsibility does not rest solely with governments, Botenga added.

Universities and research institutions, he said, must come under public pressure to scrutinise how their work is used.

“This would be a good moment to exclude Israel from the programme. Absolutely.”