Who Shapes Public Opinion in Israel — And Who Pays for It?

The story of the "Russian institute" in Haifa unexpectedly raised a far more interesting question — who shapes public opinion in Israel, and with whose money?

Photo: flickr.com by StateofIsrael, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/

Haifa, Israel

It appears that Israel's election campaign has begun before it has even been officially announced. And, as often happens during such periods, an old and familiar storyline has returned to the information space — Russian influence, the Kremlin, covert operations and, of course, Benjamin Netanyahu.

The trigger was an investigation by OCCRP, which was later picked up by the Israeli project Shomrim. According to documents allegedly leaked from the Kremlin, the Russian Social Design Agency (SDA), described as the Kremlin's main executor of information operations in the West, developed a plan to create a fictitious research institute in Haifa that would produce analytical materials and promote a Moscow-friendly agenda in the Israeli media space.

At first glance, it sounds alarming. But once the initial emotions subside, an inevitable question arises — how realistic is the picture being described?

According to the published information, the entire project was supposed to receive around $125,000. Even if one accepts that figure without reservation, it amounts to roughly $10,000 per month. According to the publications, that sum was supposed to pay researchers, produce analytical materials, build expert networks and influence public opinion in one of the most politically engaged countries in the world.

Anyone familiar with the Israeli media market understands local pricing very well. The cost of sponsored publications, PR services, conferences and promotion in leading media outlets is no secret. This raises an entirely natural question: does anyone seriously believe that $10,000 a month can change public opinion in Israel?

The Second Scare Story From the Same Folder

If memory serves, this scare story has already appeared in the Israeli information space. In September 2024, Shomrim published an article titled "Russian Influence Campaign in Israel: Creating a New Party, Fueling Social Divisions and Promoting Anti-Ukrainian Narratives."

Back then, the focus was not a "research institute" in Haifa but a more elaborate plot involving the fight against fascism, outreach to Russian-speaking voters, promotion of Russia's position on Ukraine and even the idea of creating a new Russian-speaking political party that was projected to win three or four seats in the Knesset.

Then, as now, everything revolved around leaks, documents, "internal materials" and various schemes of Russian influence. Only the scenery changed: yesterday it was a political party and the Russian-speaking electorate; today it is a research institute and an academic agenda. The overall storyline remained the same: somewhere behind the scenes sits Moscow, trying to influence Israeli politics with relatively modest resources. As the saying goes, everyone sings the song of the leak they happen to receive.

But let us leave the scare stories aside and talk about the present day. More specifically, about money. Although first, it is worth looking at those who tell us these stories.

Who Investigates the Investigators?

The story first appeared in OCCRP, an international investigative journalism network that has existed for many years and enjoys a strong reputation within the profession. Its funding structure is equally well known.

Over the years, OCCRP's donors have included:

• USAID;
• the U. S. State Department;
• the National Endowment for Democracy (NED);
• George Soros' Open Society Foundations;
• the European Commission;

as well as various Western government agencies and major private foundations.

The organisation itself does not hide this information.

Receiving grants is, of course, not a crime and does not automatically make an investigation unreliable. However, critics of OCCRP have long pointed to one particular feature. Many of the organisation's most high-profile publications focus on states, political movements and leaders that find themselves in conflict with the United States or the European Union. Russia, Serbia, Hungary and various Eurosceptic forces regularly appear at the centre of such investigations. This is not proof of bias. But it is an important political context that often remains outside the frame.

The Israeli Partner and Its Sponsors

In Israel, the story is being promoted by Shomrim — the Center for Media and Democracy. The organisation was established in 2019 with the active involvement of the Laura and Gary Lauder Family Venture Philanthropy fund.

Shomrim itself states that one of the project's founders is Gary Lauder, a member of the family that built the Estée Lauder cosmetics empire and managing partner of the Silicon Valley venture capital firm Lauder Partners. The foundation operates according to a venture philanthropy model: launching new public-interest projects, providing seed funding and expanding them through a network of donors.

According to financial reports published in Israeli registries, Shomrim's annual income has exceeded 6 million shekels in recent years. More than 90 percent of that funding comes from abroad.

In 2024 alone, the organisation received approximately 6.3 million shekels, of which around 5.6 million came from foreign donors. In more familiar terms, that amounts to roughly $1.5-2 million per year, or about $150,000 every month.

And here an interesting comparison emerges. We are being urged to fear a hypothetical Russian institute with a budget of around $10,000 a month. At the same time, the organisation warning us about this threat operates with resources of approximately $150,000 per month and receives them on a permanent basis. The difference is not measured in percentages or multiples. It is an order of magnitude. This naturally raises the question: who actually possesses greater capacity to shape public opinion?

But that is not all.

Among Shomrim's donors are the Lauder family foundation, the Charles H. Revson Foundation, the Jewish Federations of North America, the UJA-Federation of New York, the Leon Levy Foundation, the Taube Foundation and several other American charitable organisations.

All of these institutions openly declare their support for liberal democratic values, civil society development, human rights, independent journalism and the institutions of Western democracy. There is nothing illegal about this.

But it does mean that the money does not come from a political vacuum. It comes from a very specific ideological environment that has its own vision of what Israel should be, what its democracy should look like and what political future is desirable for the country.

Which raises another question. If Russian money automatically counts as interference in democratic processes, why does American money automatically count as defending democracy? Where is the line between influence and support? And who gets to draw that line?

Which Media Outlets Are Spreading the Story?

It is equally interesting to examine the media environment through which these investigations spread.

Shomrim actively cooperates with journalists and editorial teams traditionally associated with the liberal and centrist segments of the Israeli media landscape. Among its partners and participants are journalists and contributors linked to Haaretz, TheMarker, Calcalist, Times of Israel, Channel 12 and other platforms.

That in itself is not a problem. Yet it is difficult not to notice that these connections are concentrated largely within one section of the political spectrum. We do not see a similar density of ties with conservative or nationally oriented media outlets.

Therefore, when yet another investigation unexpectedly leads readers to conclusions about the dangers of Netanyahu, the risks posed by the right-wing camp and the need to save democracy, one gets the impression that this is not merely a journalistic investigation but part of a broader political debate.

"Another League" Returns to the Field

Perhaps the most revealing aspect of the entire story is the speed with which a discussion about Russia became a discussion about Netanyahu.

Almost immediately, the famous election posters featuring Vladimir Putin and the slogan "Liga Aheret" — "Another League" — resurfaced. Israelis were once again reminded of images that political opponents of the prime minister have used for years.

Netanyahu standing beside Putin.

The curious detail is that Donald Trump also appeared on those same posters. Yet current publications prefer not to mention Trump. Because then the necessary association falls apart. Putin and Netanyahu must remain together. Everything else becomes unnecessary.

That is how modern political communication works.

Perhaps the main question raised by this story has nothing to do with Russia at all.

The real question is this: if foreign influence truly threatens democracy, are those who defend democracy prepared to apply that principle equally to all foreign money? Or are there "good" funds and "bad" funds?

Because if $10,000 a month from Moscow represents a mortal threat to Israeli democracy, while $150,000 a month from New York and San Francisco represents its salvation, then perhaps this is no longer a discussion about democracy.

Perhaps it is a discussion about who gets to define its rules.