How Israel Influences America and the World

Introduction: How Israel’s Influence is Reshaping Global Power Politics

This blog uncovers how Israel influences America and the world through lobbying and diplomacy: Israel.

Over the last few decades, Israel’s influence over American foreign policy, political discourse, and international relations has become one of the most debated and misunderstood topics in modern geopolitics. From multi-million dollar lobbying campaigns to strategic partnerships with global superpowers, Israel’s presence on the world stage is no longer just about survival—it’s about power, strategy, and soft control.

But is this truly a case of “control”—or simply highly effective diplomacy? Why do critics say Israel manipulates global narratives, while others defend its right to protect its interests like any sovereign nation?

In this blog, we’ll unpack the full picture—from AIPAC’s political lobbying in Washington to covert digital influence campaigns, from leaked documents about foreign agent evasion to the shift in global public opinion, especially among younger generations. We’ll also confront the fine line between legitimate influence and conspiracy theories, carefully separating documented facts from speculative claims.

Whether you’re a curious reader, political enthusiast, or someone seeking unbiased clarity, this is your fact-based guide to understanding how Israel influences America—and the world.

1. The Foundation of Influence: Israel’s Strategic Position

To understand how Israel came to exert considerable influence over global affairs—particularly in the United States—we must first examine its origins, historical alliances, and strategic transformation over time.

Historical Context: From Statehood to Strategic Ally

When Israel declared its independence in 1948, it was immediately plunged into conflict with neighboring Arab nations. Initially, the United States offered limited support, driven more by moral obligation and the global sentiment following the Holocaust than by clear strategic interests.

However, by the mid-1960s and especially post-1967 Six-Day War, Israel began proving itself as a regional military powerhouse. During the Cold War, as the Soviet Union aligned with several Arab states (like Egypt and Syria), the U.S. saw Israel as a counterweight in the Middle East—a bulwark for Western interests in a volatile region.

This shift turned the U.S.–Israel relationship from one based on moral support to one rooted in strategic utility.

From Survival to Diplomatic Dominance

Israel’s diplomatic posture evolved rapidly. What began as a young nation focused on mere existence and defense soon transformed into a tech-savvy, militarily advanced, and diplomatically proactive state.

• Survival Era (1948–1973): Constant wars, dependency on external aid, international isolation.
• Strategic Partnership (1973–2000): Post-Yom Kippur War, Israel solidified U.S. military and economic aid. Peace deals like the Camp David Accords boosted Israel’s legitimacy.
• Influence Era (2000–Present): Leveraging lobbying, technology, and intelligence to become an indispensable partner in both regional and global power structures.

Today, Israel is no longer a reactive player. It shapes the diplomatic agenda, influences regional policy, and exports its security model worldwide.

Israel’s Geopolitical Leverage: The 3 Pillars of Power

1. Technology & Cybersecurity Leadership
   Israel is a global leader in tech innovation, especially in cybersecurity, AI, and surveillance. Companies like NSO Group (Pegasus spyware), Check Point, and Cellebrite have made Israel a go-to source for digital security—even for countries with questionable human rights records.
2. Military & Defense Partnerships
   Israel receives over $3.3 billion annually in U.S. military aid—more than any other nation. This has enabled Israel to develop and export weapons, drones, and missile defense systems (like Iron Dome), making it a key arms exporter and trainer for countries worldwide.
3. Intelligence Sharing & Counterterrorism
   Israeli intelligence agencies, particularly Mossad and Shin Bet, are among the most respected in the world. Israel frequently shares critical intelligence with the U.S. and its allies, especially regarding Iran, Hezbollah, and terrorist networks, thus securing strategic favour in return.

Bottom Line:
Israel’s strategic position isn’t built solely on diplomacy—it’s reinforced by its technological supremacy, military credibility, and intelligence assets. These pillars, combined with historical ties and global alliances, form the foundation of its modern influence, especially over nations like the United States.

2. Political Lobbying: The AIPAC Factor

If there is one organization at the heart of the conversation about Israel’s influence in America, it is AIPAC—the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. With decades of lobbying experience and deep political ties, AIPAC is often portrayed as the most powerful foreign policy lobby in Washington, D.C.

But what exactly does it do—and how much influence does it really wield?

What is AIPAC? Origins and Mission

Founded in 1951, AIPAC began as a small, pro-Israel advocacy group. Its initial mission was to secure American support for the young Israeli state, promote U.S. aid, and build bipartisan alliances in Congress.

Over the decades, AIPAC evolved into a political powerhouse, shaping U.S. policy in the Middle East through advocacy, education, and direct engagement with lawmakers. Unlike some foreign lobbying entities, AIPAC operates as a domestic organization, not a foreign agent—allowing it greater freedom under U.S. law.

Its official mission: “To strengthen, protect, and promote the U.S.–Israel relationship in ways that enhance the security of both nations.”

Political Donations, Campaign Support & Congressional Access

AIPAC itself doesn’t donate directly to candidates, but it has strong ties to a network of political action committees (PACs), super PACs, and affiliated organizations such as United Democracy Project. These groups spend tens of millions supporting pro-Israel candidates or opposing those seen as critical of Israeli policies.

• In 2024 alone, AIPAC-backed groups spent over $50 million on U.S. elections.
• The organization regularly organizes exclusive conferences and meetings, offering U.S. lawmakers direct access to Israeli officials and business leaders.
• It coordinates trips to Israel for dozens of congressional members each year to foster closer ties and align U.S. interests with Israeli policies.

This access and exposure give AIPAC unmatched influence in shaping congressional opinions, especially on issues related to military aid, anti-BDS laws, and Middle East policy decisions.

Real-World Example: Jamaal Bowman’s Primary Defeat

In June 2024, AIPAC played a central role in the Democratic primary defeat of Rep. Jamaal Bowman, a vocal critic of Israel’s actions in Gaza and a supporter of the Palestinian cause.

• AIPAC-affiliated groups spent $20–23 million to support Bowman’s opponent, George Latimer.
• Bowman was part of “The Squad”—progressive lawmakers known for challenging traditional U.S. foreign policy, including toward Israel.
• His defeat sent a powerful message about the consequences of criticizing Israeli policy within mainstream American politics.

This example underscores AIPAC’s ability to reshape political careers, reward allies, and marginalize dissenters.

Critics vs. Defenders: Influence or Undue Pressure?

Critics argue that AIPAC’s approach:

• Silences legitimate debate about Israel’s policies,
• Pressures lawmakers into pro-Israel votes regardless of ethical considerations,
• Equates criticism of Israel with antisemitism, and
• Undermines democratic pluralism in U.S. foreign policy.

Defenders respond that:

• AIPAC operates like any advocacy group—it educates, lobbies, and supports aligned candidates.
• Israel is a critical democratic ally in a volatile region.
• The funding is legal and transparent, and
• Pro-Israel positions reflect the will of many American constituents, especially among religious and conservative communities.

The FARA Debate: Should AIPAC Register as a Foreign Agent?

One of the most controversial debates surrounding AIPAC is whether it should register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA)—a U.S. law requiring individuals and organizations representing foreign governments to disclose their activities and funding.

While AIPAC claims it does not represent the Israeli government, leaked documents and investigative reporting have revealed close coordination between Israeli ministries and U.S.-based advocacy groups. This raises questions about:

• Transparency,
• Legal definitions of foreign influence, and
• Accountability in democratic processes.

Prominent figures, including Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Thomas Massie, have openly called for greater scrutiny of AIPAC and similar organizations under FARA.

Bottom Line:
AIPAC is not just a lobby—it is a political institution with deep roots in U.S. policymaking. Its ability to influence elections, shape legislation, and define the terms of public debate makes it one of the most powerful non-governmental actors in Washington. Whether that influence is appropriate advocacy or undue pressure remains one of the most polarizing questions in modern geopolitics.

3. Shaping Narratives: Media and Messaging Control

Beyond political lobbying, another key component of Israel’s global influence is its perceived ability to shape media narratives—particularly in the West. Critics argue that mainstream news coverage of Israel–Palestine is often biased, selective, or sanitized, limiting public understanding and suppressing dissenting views.

While some of these concerns are valid, the issue is complex. It involves a combination of media ownership, political affiliations, fear of backlash, and editorial priorities—not outright censorship or control.

Allegations of Media Influence: Lobbyist-to-Journalist Pipeline?

Multiple investigations and reports have suggested that individuals with prior ties to pro-Israel lobbying groups (including AIPAC, FDD, and others) hold editorial or strategic roles within major U.S. news organizations.

For example:

• A 2024 report by MintPress News found that former lobbyists, political operatives, and PR specialists linked to Israeli interests now work at places like CNN, NBC, and The New York Times.
• Critics claim this creates a filtering effect, where certain narratives—particularly those sympathetic to Palestinians—are toned down or excluded altogether.

Though not illegal or necessarily unethical, this overlap raises concerns about conflicts of interest in editorial decisions.

Israel–Palestine vs. Other Conflicts: A Double Standard?

Media watchdogs like FAIR, +972 Magazine, and Al Jazeera have long documented the imbalance in language and framing used when covering Israel–Palestine compared to other global conflicts.

Common issues include:

• Passive language: Headlines often avoid naming Israel as the aggressor (e.g., “Clashes erupt” vs. “Israeli airstrike kills civilians”).
• Disproportionate coverage: Events like the war in Ukraine receive widespread, empathetic reporting; whereas violence in Gaza is often presented in neutral or decontextualized terms.
• Moral framing: Israeli casualties are humanized with names and stories; Palestinian casualties are often presented as statistics.

This skewed representation subtly shapes public sentiment, reinforcing the idea that one side is inherently more deserving of sympathy or legitimacy.

Are Journalists Self-Censoring or Politically Aligned?

In many cases, journalists may not be pressured by editors or governments—but by:

• Career risks: Speaking out against Israel can result in job loss, social media harassment, or blocklisting.
• Institutional fear: Media companies may avoid taking strong stances to prevent accusations of antisemitism.
• Social climate: Pro-Israel narratives dominate in mainstream political culture, especially in the U.S.

High-profile journalists have resigned or been reprimanded for expressing pro-Palestinian views. Meanwhile, those criticizing Israeli policies often face public backlash or are labeled as biased or extremist.

This leads to what many describe as a culture of soft censorship—where journalists self-edit to protect their careers or organizations.

Examples: Coverage of Gaza & Progressive Critiques

During the 2023–2024 Gaza war, multiple progressive platforms and independent journalists criticized U.S. media for downplaying civilian casualties and echoing Israeli government statements without critical scrutiny.

Key examples:

• The Intercept and Democracy Now! highlighted the disproportionate use of force by the IDF.
• Independent media posted satellite images, casualty statistics, and on-the-ground footage that major outlets either delayed or avoided.
• Social media platforms became alternative sources for raw, uncensored content—fueling widespread global protests that didn’t mirror mainstream TV coverage.

This disconnect between corporate media and grassroots reporting exposed deep divides in how the conflict is perceived and portrayed.

Counterpoint: U.S. Media Freedom and Editorial Diversity

Despite the criticisms, it’s important to note that:

• The United States maintains one of the freest press environments in the world.
• Media platforms across the political spectrum—such as The Nation, The Atlantic, The American Conservative, Al Jazeera English, and others—routinely publish critical views of Israeli policy.
• Social media, podcasts, Substack platforms, and YouTube channels have democratized journalism, allowing independent voices to bypass editorial filters.

Not all media is complicit or biased—diversity of opinion still exists, especially in alternative and global platforms. The key issue is not control, but which voices dominate prime-time narratives.

Bottom Line:
Israel does not “control” the media, but there is evidence that narrative shaping occurs through indirect influence, editorial bias, and strategic silence. Lobbyist-media overlaps, fear of backlash, and mainstream alignment with U.S. foreign policy all contribute to limited critical coverage. However, an informed public now increasingly turns to independent media for balance—challenging old gatekeepers in real time.

4. Israel’s Use of Digital Influence and AI Campaigns

In the digital age, influence isn’t limited to lobbying or media control. Cyber campaigns, AI-generated content, and social media manipulation have become powerful tools for shaping narratives on a global scale. Recent investigations reveal that Israel has entered this space, deploying covert digital strategies aimed at influencing both public opinion and political discourse in countries like the United States.

The $2 Million Covert AI Campaign: What Happened?

In late 2023 and early 2024, Israel’s Ministry of Diaspora Affairs funded a $2 million covert digital campaign targeting American audiences, particularly amid escalating criticism of Israel’s actions in Gaza.

The campaign was operated through a network of fake social media accounts, AI-generated personas, and bots. These accounts posed as everyday Americans—sharing content that defended Israeli policies, justified military actions, and attempted to discredit critics.

The goal was not merely to spread information but to manipulate perceptions in the U.S. by creating the illusion of widespread grassroots support for Israel.

Fake Personas, Black Voter Targeting, and Platform Shutdowns

A troubling aspect of this operation was the targeted manipulation of Black American voters. The campaign created fake profiles claiming to be Black civil rights activists, pushing narratives that framed Israel’s struggles as parallel to the African American fight for civil rights.

This was a deliberate attempt to:

• Neutralize criticism from Black progressive lawmakers who were vocal about Palestine,
• Create division and confusion within activist communities,
• Shift public discourse in favor of Israel through identity-based persuasion.

Once discovered, Meta (Facebook/Instagram) and OpenAI conducted internal investigations and removed the networks tied to this operation, citing violations of terms related to inauthentic behavior and misinformation.

The Ethical Question: Foreign Influence in Digital Democracy

This incident raises serious ethical concerns:

• Should foreign governments be allowed to use AI and digital manipulation to influence public opinion in other democracies?
• Where is the line between public diplomacy (open influence) and covert psychological operations?
• Are current laws, like the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), adequate to handle AI-driven disinformation campaigns?

As AI capabilities grow, so does the potential for abuse—whether from allies like Israel or adversaries like Russia, China, and Iran. The lack of clear international laws on digital influence means this gray zone remains largely unregulated.

Why It Matters Globally: A New Era of Information Warfare

The Israel AI influence campaign is not an isolated event—it’s a symptom of a global trend where:

• Governments weaponize information,
• Social media becomes a battleground,
• AI accelerates the scale and believability of disinformation.

This form of warfare is subtle but profound. It doesn’t bomb cities—it shapes beliefs, divides societies, and influences elections.

For Israel, mastering digital influence extends its traditional tools of diplomacy and lobbying into the virtual space, ensuring that its narratives remain dominant even as public dissent rises.

Bottom Line:
Israel’s use of AI-driven digital influence campaigns marks a significant evolution in how nations project soft power. While the recent operation was exposed and dismantled, it signals a future where influence wars will be fought less with weapons—and more with algorithms, bots, and AI-generated voices. The ethical, legal, and societal challenges posed by this shift are just beginning to emerge.

5. Legal Grey Zones: FARA Evasion and Leaked Documents

Behind the scenes of lobbying, media influence, and digital manipulation lies a less visible but crucial battlefield: the legal framework governing foreign influence in the United States. One law stands at the center of this debate—FARA (Foreign Agents Registration Act).

While designed to ensure transparency about foreign influence, FARA often fails to hold U.S. allies, including Israel, accountable, thanks to legal loopholes, political sensitivities, and clever workarounds.

Leaked Israeli Documents & the “Concert” Nonprofit Workaround

In August 2024, leaked documents revealed that Israeli officials used a nonprofit called “Concert – Together for Israel” as a tool to bypass FARA requirements in the U.S.

• Concert received direct funding from the Israeli government but structured its operations to avoid being classified as a foreign agent.
• It funneled money into U.S. media campaigns, grassroots efforts, and political messaging—all without registering under FARA.
• Internal documents show Israeli officials were explicitly concerned about the reputational and legal risks if these activities were exposed.

This strategy highlights a calculated effort to influence U.S. policy and public opinion while sidestepping legal disclosure requirements.

Risks of Foreign-State Advocacy Without Legal Accountability

When foreign governments can:

• Fund advocacy, media campaigns, or lobbying,
• Shape policy narratives, and
• Target specific communities in the U.S.

—without public transparency— it undermines the democratic principle that voters deserve to know who is influencing their lawmakers and media.

This lack of disclosure:

• Skews debates on foreign policy,
• Enables shadow lobbying, and
• Reduces the accountability of both politicians and the organizations they interact with.

The Concert example isn’t isolated—it’s part of a wider ecosystem of gray-zone influence operations.

Legal Loopholes: Why FARA Is Toothless for Allies Like Israel

FARA, enacted in 1938, was primarily designed to counter Nazi propaganda. While effective against overt enemies, the law is rarely enforced against U.S. allies, including Israel.

Why FARA fails:

• Political protection: Israel, considered a vital ally, often receives bipartisan shielding from scrutiny.
• Loophole usage: Organizations claim they’re advocating for shared democratic values, not acting on behalf of a foreign government.
• Enforcement gap: The U.S. Department of Justice rarely prosecutes FARA violations, especially when it involves nations allied with the U.S.

In contrast, FARA has been aggressively applied against entities linked to Russia, China, and Iran, raising questions about double standards in enforcement.

Global Comparisons: Who Else Plays This Game?

Israel is not alone. Several nations employ similar legal gray-zone tactics to influence U.S. politics and media:

Country	Methods of Influence
Saudi Arabia	Massive lobbying; think tank funding; PR campaigns; tied to military sales and oil interests.
China	Confucius Institutes; business influence; academic partnerships; espionage concerns.
Russia	Media (RT, Sputnik); social media disinformation; election interference.
UAE/Qatar	Sportswashing, lobbying on regional issues, think tank funding in D.C.

What separates Israel is the depth of integration into U.S. political culture, coupled with bipartisan protection, making its influence more normalized and less scrutinized compared to adversaries.

Bottom Line:
The FARA loophole represents a critical flaw in how the U.S. governs foreign influence. The case of Israel’s use of the Concert nonprofit, combined with lobbying and media manipulation, shows that even trusted allies exploit these legal gray zones. Without reform, democratic accountability remains compromised, and the line between ally diplomacy and covert influence continues to blur.

6. Global Reach: How the Israeli Model Extends Beyond the U.S.

While much of the global conversation focuses on Israel’s influence over U.S. politics, its strategies extend far beyond Washington. Israel has developed a sophisticated model of global diplomacy, tech-driven influence, and perception management, which it deploys across continents—from India and Africa to Latin America and Europe.

This isn’t just foreign policy; it’s a combination of soft power, cyber influence, military exports, and narrative control that cements Israel’s position as a pivotal player in world affairs.

Israel’s Diplomacy in India, Africa, and Latin America

Israel’s outreach strategy focuses on nations that were historically aligned with the Non-Aligned Movement or the Global South but have since become fertile ground for security, agricultural, and technological partnerships.

• India:
• One of Israel’s largest defense clients, purchasing drones, missile systems, and cybersecurity tools.
• Strong ties in agriculture (water management, drip irrigation) and AI development.
• Political alignment with India’s right-wing government has led to mutual narratives of nationalism and security.
• Africa:
• Israel offers military training, surveillance technology, and agricultural aid to African nations.
• It seeks to counter Palestinian influence in the African Union and improve its diplomatic standing.
• Deals are often pragmatic—focused on security and development rather than ideology.
• Latin America:
• Growing partnerships with countries like Brazil, Colombia, and Mexico.
• Focus on cybersecurity, counterterrorism, and agricultural technology.
• Political ties often transcend left-right divides based on economic interests.

The Role of Diaspora and “Hasbara” in Global Perception Management

“Hasbara” (Hebrew for “explanation” or “public diplomacy”) is Israel’s global narrative management strategy, designed to promote a positive image of Israel and counter criticism.

Key components include:

• Diaspora engagement: Mobilizing Jewish communities globally to advocate for Israeli policies.
• Campus campaigns: Supporting pro-Israel student groups and combating the BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) movement.
• Media training: Funding programs that teach supporters how to effectively communicate Israeli narratives.
• Social media operations: Coordinating online efforts to amplify pro-Israel content and combat misinformation—or criticism perceived as hostile.

This soft power complements Israel’s hard power in defense and technology, creating a multi-dimensional influence model.

Weapons, Tech, and Cyber Exports as Influence Tools

Israel’s global influence is heavily bolstered by its role as a leading exporter of defense technology and cyber weapons.

• Arms Exports:
  • Israel ranks among the top 10 arms exporters globally.
  • Clients include countries with questionable human rights records—such as Myanmar, Rwanda, and several Gulf States.
• Cyber Warfare Tools:
  • Companies like NSO Group (Pegasus spyware) have sold surveillance technology to both democratic and authoritarian regimes.
  • This technology enables governments to monitor journalists, dissidents, and activists, drawing criticism from human rights organizations.
• Dual-Use Technologies:
  • Israeli companies lead in AI, facial recognition, and surveillance, often marketed as tools for both security and commercial use.

These exports not only bring economic benefits but also secure political leverage and strategic partnerships worldwide.

Building Strategic Alliances with Authoritarian and Democratic Regimes

Israel’s foreign policy is unapologetically pragmatic—rooted in national interest over ideology. It builds relationships based on mutual benefits, whether with democracies like India and Germany or authoritarian states like Hungary, Rwanda, and the UAE.

• In the Middle East:
  • The Abraham Accords normalized relations with UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan—boosting arms deals, cybersecurity cooperation, and intelligence sharing.
• In Europe:
  • Ties with nationalist leaders in Hungary and Poland reflect a shared interest in border security, nationalism, and anti-immigration policies.
• In Asia and Africa:
  • Engagement is often driven by security collaboration, natural resource access, and technological cooperation.

This approach allows Israel to circumvent diplomatic isolation, outmaneuver BDS campaigns, and enhance its global footprint—even in regions historically sympathetic to Palestine.

Bottom Line:
Israel’s model of influence is no longer confined to the United States. By blending military exports, cyber technology, diaspora networks, and strategic diplomacy, Israel has created a globally scalable influence strategy. Whether dealing with authoritarian governments or liberal democracies, the Israeli approach prioritizes security, economic gain, and narrative dominance, often with remarkable success.

7. Influence vs. Control: Distinguishing Fact from Fiction

The conversation about Israel’s role in global affairs—particularly in the U.S.—often blurs the lines between influence and control. But where exactly does that line exist? At what point does legitimate diplomacy and lobbying turn into something resembling undue control? And how can we engage in this discussion without falling into the trap of harmful conspiracy thinking?

When Influence Becomes Control: Where Is the Line?

All nations, including allies, engage in influence operations. Lobbying, diplomacy, public relations, and media engagement are standard tools of international relations.

However, the line becomes blurry when:

• Financial influence directly shapes domestic policy decisions against the public’s interest.
• Politicians face career-ending consequences for dissent, as seen with figures like Jamaal Bowman.
• Media narratives are systematically skewed, not merely influenced.
• Covert campaigns, like the recent AI manipulation targeting U.S. voters, are deployed.

At this point, influence begins resembling soft control, where the free flow of democratic debate is distorted, not merely shaped.

Democratic Systems Allow Lobbying—But Who Gets Heard?

Lobbying is a legally protected activity in democracies like the U.S., meant to give diverse groups—from environmentalists to corporate interests—a voice in the legislative process.

But the critical question is:
“Whose voice dominates?”

• When an organization like AIPAC can spend tens of millions to influence elections, while grassroots groups struggle for basic funding, the playing field is no longer level.
• Access to power becomes pay-to-play, raising serious concerns about the health of democratic processes.

This imbalance is not exclusive to Israel-related lobbying—it reflects a broader crisis in how money shapes politics. But Israel’s case is one of the most visible and controversial examples.

The Danger of Conspiracy Thinking vs. Legitimate Criticism

It’s vital to navigate this issue carefully because it sits at the intersection of legitimate foreign policy critique and the risk of reinforcing harmful stereotypes or conspiracies.

• Antisemitic tropes historically revolve around myths of Jewish global control. Therefore, critics must avoid framing their arguments in ways that echo these falsehoods.
• The distinction is clear:
  • Critiquing a nation-state’s foreign policy (Israel) is valid.
  • Blaming an ethnic or religious group is not only wrong but dangerous.

This nuance is often lost in heated debates, especially on social media, leading to a weaponization of accusations on both sides: critics being labeled antisemitic, and defenders being accused of enabling oppression.

Progressive Pushback: A Changing Conversation in the West

The political landscape is shifting, particularly among:

• Younger voters (Gen Z and Millennials) who increasingly sympathize with Palestinians.
• Progressive politicians like Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and formerly Jamaal Bowman, who are challenging the traditional U.S.–Israel relationship.
• Academic spaces, labor unions, and activist groups pushing back against what they perceive as unquestioned U.S. support for Israel.

Mainstream media no longer fully controls the narrative, thanks to:

• Social media, podcasts, independent journalism, and grassroots movements.
• Open debates about topics like military aid, human rights, and digital manipulation.

This growing progressive pushback signals that the era of unquestioned alignment with Israel is ending—replaced by a more contested and transparent discourse.

Bottom Line:
Influence becomes control when it distorts democratic choices, silences opposition, or operates in secrecy. While Israel’s influence in the U.S. and globally is substantial, calling it “control” requires careful framing to avoid exaggeration or falling into conspiracy narratives. At the same time, the growing wave of progressive dissent reflects a critical shift toward a more balanced, transparent, and fact-based conversation about the role of foreign influence in democratic societies.

Public Opinion: Is the Narrative Changing?

Despite decades of lobbying, media influence, and diplomatic pressure, the public narrative around Israel is undeniably shifting—especially in the United States and Western countries. Data from reputable sources like Gallup, Pew Research, and Harvard CAPS reveal growing divides in how different generations and political groups perceive Israel’s policies, particularly regarding Palestine.

This change is not just academic; it’s manifesting on the streets, in classrooms, on social media, and increasingly, in elections.

Gallup and Pew Data: Measuring the Shift

Surveys over the past decade show a clear trend:

Gallup (2023):

For the first time in Gallup’s history of polling on the issue, Democratic voters now sympathize more with Palestinians than Israelis.

• 49% sympathize with Palestinians vs. 38% with Israelis among Democrats.
• Among Republicans, support for Israel remains strong at 78%, showing a clear partisan divide.

Pew Research (2022–2024):

• Younger Americans (18–29) show greater sympathy for Palestinians than older generations.
• Trust in mainstream narratives about the Israeli government is declining, especially among progressives and people of color.

This shift is amplified during periods of heightened conflict, such as the 2023–2024 Gaza war, where graphic images and alternative media heavily influenced public perception.

Generational Divides: The Gen Z and Millennial Factor

Younger generations, raised on the internet and exposed to a broader array of global perspectives, are far less influenced by traditional pro-Israel narratives.

Gen Z and Millennials:

• More likely to view the Israel–Palestine conflict through a human rights lens, rather than as a purely geopolitical issue.
• Less swayed by narratives of Israel as a perpetual victim, instead focusing on occupation, displacement, and civilian casualties.
• Highly engaged in online activism, using platforms like TikTok, Instagram, and Twitter/X to spread awareness.

• Older generations (Boomers, Silent Generation):
  • Tend to retain more traditional views shaped by Cold War alliances and mainstream media narratives.

This generational divide is driving a profound shift in academic spaces, progressive politics, and grassroots activism.

Rise of Palestine Solidarity, Campus Protests, and Dissent

The shift isn’t just theoretical—it’s materializing in:

• University campuses with growing support for the BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) movement, pro-Palestinian student groups, and divestment campaigns against Israeli-linked companies.
• Labor unions, churches, and activist networks calling for ceasefires, arms embargoes, and an end to U.S. military aid to Israel.
• Mass protests in cities like New York, London, Paris, and Sydney demanding justice for Palestinians.

Political dissent is growing within Congress, particularly among progressive lawmakers, even as they face pushback from groups like AIPAC and their donors.

How Israel Is Responding: PR, Soft Power, and Rebranding

Aware of this narrative shift, Israel has invested heavily in public relations and soft power campaigns, both domestically and globally.

• Hasbara 2.0:
  Modernized digital campaigns designed to counter viral pro-Palestinian content.
  • Use of influencers, AI-generated content, and sponsored posts.
  • Partnerships with pro-Israel think tanks and media outlets.
• Cultural diplomacy:
  Promoting Israeli innovation, LGBTQ rights, and technological achievements to reshape its global image.
• Legal warfare (Lawfare):
  Efforts to criminalize BDS activism in various U.S. states and European countries.
• Targeted outreach:
  Focused campaigns toward communities of color, LGBTQ groups, and younger voters, attempting to reframe Israel as a progressive ally.

Despite these efforts, the momentum of grassroots dissent continues to grow, particularly among younger demographics less susceptible to traditional influence tactics.

Bottom Line:

The narrative around Israel’s global image, particularly in the U.S., is no longer uncontested. Generational change, growing awareness of Palestinian rights, and the democratization of media have empowered a new wave of activism and skepticism toward traditional pro-Israel narratives. While Israel fights back with PR and soft power, the question remains whether these efforts can match the scale and passion of an increasingly informed and mobilized public.

FAQs

Conclusion

The question of whether Israel controls America or the world is more complex than any conspiracy suggests. In reality, Israel employs a sophisticated mix of influence tools—lobbying, diplomacy, media management, and digital campaigns. Through powerful organizations like AIPAC, it shapes U.S. policy and elections. Its diplomatic reach spans both democratic and authoritarian regimes, while narrative management extends through media partnerships and subtle framing. More recently, Israel has embraced AI-driven digital campaigns and social media manipulation, further expanding its global influence.

However, these tactics aren’t unique to Israel. Many nations, including Saudi Arabia, China, and Russia, engage in similar influence operations. What makes Israel stand out is how effectively it combines legal lobbying, diplomatic leverage, media influence, and technological tools into a seamless, highly effective strategy, especially within the U.S.

This isn’t about secret control but about understanding how modern influence works in global politics. The problem isn’t influence itself; it’s the lack of transparency, weak enforcement of laws like FARA, and insufficient media literacy among the public.

To navigate this, citizens must stay informed, think critically, and push for greater transparency in foreign lobbying, digital influence, and media narratives. It’s crucial to distinguish between legitimate criticism of a nation-state and the spread of harmful conspiracies. Ultimately, whether influence turns into control depends on how engaged, informed, and vigilant we are. An empowered, media-literate public is the best defense against hidden influence shaping democracy.