MKitch3|Oct. 4, 2025
“When a foreign government treats U.S. civil society as its back yard, democracy loses its fences.”
“One struggles to find a parallel in terms of a foreign country’s influence over American political debate.”— quoted expert in one of the leaks
Introduction
What if I told you there is now substantial evidence that the Israeli government (or its proxies) has been running a multi-pronged influence campaign inside the United States — not just in lobbying Capitol Hill, but in shaping campus debates, social media content, and the very definitions of what counts as “legitimate criticism” of Israel? The three investigations by Lee Fang and colleagues (with support from The Guardian, techinquiry.org, and other outlets) supply that evidence.
These leaks reveal strategy memos, legal opinions, organizational links, and operational schemes. The kind of stuff that’s usually buried behind NDAs, PR spin, and patriotic rhetoric. Below is a guided walk through what those documents actually show — and what it means for discourse, law, and power in the U.S.
1. “Leaked Israeli Docs Reveal Effort to Evade Foreign Agent Lobbying Law”
(Aug 17, 2024) leefang.com
Brief version: Israel was (via clandestine memos and emails) trying to avoid registering under FARA while continuing influence operations in the U.S.
Key revelations:
-
In 2018, legal memos and emails leaked from Israel’s Justice Ministry show internal worry: American nonprofits working with Israel might face registration under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), which forces transparency. leefang.com
-
One strategy: create a U.S. nonprofit that is nominally independent, but remains under “informal coordination” (oral meetings, grants, supervision) to evade FARA’s disclosure requirements. leefang.com
-
That nonprofit would be a shell, or a buffer, between U.S. advocacy groups and the Israeli government. leefang.com
-
The documents mention the group “Kela Shlomo” (“Solomon’s Sling”), later rebranded as “Concert,” then “Voices of Israel,” which is part of the network. leefang.com
-
Law firm Sandler Reiff (Washington, D.C.) was hired to analyze FARA risk; the engagement was meant to remain undisclosed. leefang.com
-
Some American Jewish organizations balked at funding connected bodies because they feared that registering under FARA would stigmatize them. leefang.com
-
The leaks also tie in people like Brig. Gen. Sima Vaknin-Gill (former Israeli censor, later involved in U.S. nonprofits) and the nonprofit Combat Antisemitism Movement, which publicly claims not to be influenced by Israel yet is intertwined in the documents. leefang.com
Implications / What to watch:
-
If a foreign government can orchestrate influence campaigns while evading legal oversight, U.S. policy and public debate can be steered subtly.
-
FARA might not be as strong a bulwark as we assume.
-
The use of “informal coordination” is clever: it exploits the gray zones in U.S. law.
2. “Israeli Documents Show Expansive Covert U.S. Influence Campaign”
(Jun 24, 2024) leefang.com
This is the macro view: how Israel is (according to the leaks) coordinating with U.S. advocacy groups to tilt campus culture, state laws, Congressional hearings, and public perception.
Major takeaways:
-
After the Gaza war began, Israel revived and retooled “Concert / Voices of Israel” as a central instrument. Minister Amichai Chikli reportedly oversaw tens of millions of shekels (≈ $8–12 million USD) in advocacy spending tied to this network. leefang.com
-
One of the most visible outcomes: ISGAP (Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy) played a key role in the December 2023 congressional hearing where universities were grilled about antisemitism and student protests. The hearing was cited widely in media, and Harvard’s president later resigned amid the backlash. leefang.com
-
The reforms pushing the IHRA (International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance) definition of antisemitism—especially versions that equate certain criticism of Israel with antisemitism—feature prominently in the strategy. Some local state laws now incorporate IHRA wording. leefang.com
-
Covert social media operations were funded: fake accounts, content pushing, pro-Israel messaging. These were sometimes denied by official bodies, but the documents suggest involvement by the Ministry of Diaspora Affairs. leefang.com+1
-
The network includes U.S. and Israel-based NGOs, campus groups like Hillel, “public benefit” corporations, and media teams. Many of these don’t have transparent disclosure of donors. leefang.com
-
These operations aren’t just reactive (defending Israel) but proactive: anticipating protests, framing campus speech rules, and shaping legislative efforts in U.S. states and federal levels. leefang.com
Why this matters:
-
This is not “soft diplomacy.” This is influence engineering.
-
U.S. institutions—universities, state legislators, social media companies—become nodes in a foreign influence network.
-
The line between “civil society” and arm of a foreign state is blurred.
-
When protests over Gaza or Israel-Palestine boil over on campuses, these campaigns are already primed to shape narratives and legal pressure.
3. “Pro-Israel Group Censoring Social Media Led by Former Israeli Intelligence Officers”
(Jul 11, 2024) leefang.com
This piece digs into the digital front: how an organization named CyberWell is attempting to police social media discourse under the banner of fighting antisemitism, while having deep ties to Israeli intelligence networks.
What the leaks show:
-
CyberWell lobbies Meta, TikTok, and X to remove content. It claims that certain criticisms of Israel or use of slogans like “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” qualify as hate speech or Holocaust distortion. leefang.com
-
Leaders of CyberWell have backgrounds in private intelligence firms (e.g. Argyle Consulting) and former Israeli intelligence agencies. leefang.com
-
CyberWell shares staff, financial connections, and overseer relationships with entities like Voices of Israel / Concert / Keshet David (an Israeli research/intelligence arm) leefang.com
-
The group pushes to adopt the IHRA definition, not just in content moderation but in law. It pressures platforms to interpret criticism of Zionism as discrimination. leefang.com
-
In practice, it has succeeded in influencing Meta’s and TikTok’s policies, and is listed as a “trusted partner” in content moderation. leefang.com+1
-
In response to exposure, CyberWell has scrubbed executive bios and denied official links to Voices of Israel, insisting on their independence. But the financial, personnel, and operational overlap seems strong. leefang.com
The digital danger:
-
Social media is a public square. If a foreign-aligned group can influence what stays or goes, it changes what millions see and think.
-
The excused namespace of “hate speech / antisemitism” provides a rhetorical lever to suppress dissenting views—even true ones.
-
Transparency is missing. Users have almost no insight into who is curating what they see when it comes to Israel/Palestine content.
Synthesis & Observations:
Networks, not isolated acts.
These leaks point to a concerted ecosystem. Lobbying, content moderation, campus influence, legal structuring — it's all part of one strategy. The same strings connect multiple nodes.
Law as obstacle and target.
FARA is shown here not just as a law to be obeyed, but one to be circumvented. The reliance on “informal coordination” is cunning. Meanwhile, redefining antisemitism (via IHRA) becomes a tool to shrink legal and rhetorical space for critique.
Opaque intermediaries.
Lots of smoke. Nonprofits, shell organizations, “public benefit corporations”—the kind of structural opacity that shields actors from scrutiny. If a U.S. nonprofit takes foreign money, but claims academic status or independence, how do we know how much is true?
Narrative control as power.
If you control campus speech, social media algorithms, and political framing, you shape the Overton Window. Critics become extreme voices; supporters become moderate voices.
Comparisons to other foreign influence.
We worry about Russia or China meddling. Here’s a case where a U.S. ally is doing influence work — and its closest allies in DC and media may look the other way. Hypocrisy isn’t just petty, it’s structural.
Risks & counters:
-
Legal reforms / enforcement: Strengthen FARA enforcement. Close loopholes around “informal coordination.”
-
Transparency demands: Force donor disclosure, organizational link disclosure, government-contract transparency.
-
Platform accountability: Platforms should audit third-party “trusted partners” influencing content moderation, especially those with foreign ties.
-
Campus and civil discourse defense: Universities and student groups must guard editorial and speech independence.
-
Public awareness: The first line of defense is an informed public. Leaks like these are weapons — we need to treat them as such.
Closing Thoughts
When public debate can be quietly rewritten by lawyers, censors, and shell nonprofits serving a foreign ministry, the First Amendment becomes performance art.
America’s institutions—universities, social media, legislatures—aren’t occupied; they’re leased.