Follow us on social

Israel’s covert info bots targeting America met with hypocritical silence

Israel’s covert info bots targeting America met with hypocritical silence

Will Tel Aviv get the same treatment as the Russians and Chinese? Likely not.


Analysis | Washington Politics

On Monday, the Guardian exposed a secret $8.6 million Israeli government campaign to silence its critics in the U.S.

The campaign, known as “Concert,” is, “part of a broader public relations campaign to target US college campuses and redefine antisemitism in US law,” according to the Guardian. This follows a New York Times story on June 5 that offered vivid details of a $2 million covert social media campaign, paid for by the Israeli government, encouraging American policymakers to continue supporting Israel’s military.

If this sounds familiar, it should — this is the same tactic Russian operatives used in an illicit influence operation that targeted the 2016 U.S. election. That campaign also used networks of fake social media accounts, posing as Americans, in an attempt to influence the U.S. political process. The Russian operation led to outrage from policymakers and the media, multiple year’s-long investigations, and the indictment of 13 Russian nationals and three Russian companies for their involvement in the illicit influence operation.

Will Washington respond just as forcefully to a similar campaign orchestrated by an American ally? Don’t count on it.

In the more than three weeks since the Times story ran, only a handful of policymakers have even acknowledged the allegation that the Israeli government was behind an influence campaign targeting U.S. politicians. Just one Member of Congress, Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), has mentioned it on social media. Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), who was targeted at least 88 times by the campaign, told Politico, “I want to know exactly what was done by whom and who was contacted.”

But Blumenthal was alone in his outrage, as Politico reported that “over a dozen other lawmakers targeted in the campaign did not respond to a request for comment.” Similarly, Wired reported earlier this month that with just two exceptions — the White House’s National Security Council denying knowledge of the attack, and the office of Senator Mark Warner (D-Va.)requesting a briefing — ”press inquiries concerning Israel’s attempts to secretly influence US opinion on the war have been met with a stonewall.”

The only time the Biden administration even acknowledged the story was at a State Department press briefing on the afternoon the article ran. Spokesperson Matthew Miller was asked how he saw “this differently from what Iran, Russia, and China all do.” Miller responded that he didn’t have “any comment on the underlying facts. But I will say we have very clear laws on the books in the United States about foreign influence campaigns. We enforce those laws vigorously and we expect everyone to comply with them.”

Miller is, unfortunately, only half right. We do have very clear laws in the U.S. about foreign influence campaigns — most notably the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) — but we do not expect everyone to comply with them. When it comes to regulating foreign influence in America there are, in reality, two sets of laws: one for America’s perceived friends and one for its enemies.

When America’s adversaries commit transgressions on U.S. soil they are justifiably held to account and the perpetrators face stiff punishments. For example, in 2023, a think tank executive who was allegedly covertly advancing Chinese interests in the U.S. and violating U.S. sanctions against Iran was arrested and charged with several crimes, including failing to register under FARA.

If convicted, she could face up to 100 years in prison. As mentioned above, 13 Russians and three Russian firms were indicted for violating FARA and a host of other laws in connection with their 2016 election interference campaign. Most of them remain on the FBI’s most wanted list.

Since their indictment, eleven other individuals connected with illicit Russian influence operations have been indicted for violating FARA or the related 18 U.S.C. § 951 statute, according to the Department of Justice.

The U.S.’s response to the malign actions of America’s “friends” has been quite different.

The United Arab Emirates, for example, has repeatedly been caught orchestrating illicit influence operations in the U.S. The UAE’s meddling has become so pervasive that “U.S. intelligence officials have compiled a classified report detailing extensive efforts to manipulate the American political system by the United Arab Emirates,” according to the Washington Post.

Yet, instead of punishing the UAE for these myriad transgressions, the U.S. has increased military ties with the authoritarian regime. In fact, the UAE has been afforded the opportunity to put more former high-ranking U.S. military personnel on its payroll than the rest of the world — including all actual U.S. allies — combined.

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has similarly evaded punishment for its transgressions on U.S. soil. Despite compelling evidence of the Saudi government’s complicity in the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the U.S. government has, for more than two decades, refused to publicly release all information related to the Saudi government’s involvement. More recently, the government of Saudi Arabia has allegedly been operating a ring of “fixers” around the U.S. that whisks Saudi citizens accused of crimes — including possession of child pornography, rape, and even murder — out of the U.S.

Saudi Arabia has also been repeatedly caught operating bot networks on social media platforms — not too dissimilar from those used by Russian operatives in 2016.

Given these myriad slights, how is the Biden administration preparing to hold the Kingdom accountable? By offering the Saudis a security pact, which would ask U.S. service members to fight and die for the Kingdom, as part of a normalization deal with Israel.

If history is any indication, a U.S. ally like Israel is unlikely to face any real punishment for allegedly financing an illicit influence operation in the U.S. And that is a problem. If America does not effectively punish and discourage illicit influence operations orchestrated by America’s so-called friends, we embolden America’s enemies to adopt these same tactics.

For this reason, if we’re committed to combating malign foreign influence in the U.S., we must hold our enemies and allies accountable when they illegally meddle in our nation’s business. No country, including Israel, is above the law.

Thanks to our readers and supporters, Responsible Statecraft has had a tremendous year. A complete website overhaul made possible in part by generous contributions to RS, along with amazing writing by staff and outside contributors, has helped to increase our monthly page views by 133%! In continuing to provide independent and sharp analysis on the major conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East, as well as the tumult of Washington politics, RS has become a go-to for readers looking for alternatives and change in the foreign policy conversation. 

 

We hope you will consider a tax-exempt donation to RS for your end-of-the-year giving, as we plan for new ways to expand our coverage and reach in 2025. Please enjoy your holidays, and here is to a dynamic year ahead!

Laptop with binary computer code and an Israel flag on the screen. Internet and network security. (Aleksandar Malivuk / shutterstock)

Analysis | Washington Politics
F35
Top image credit: Brian G. Rhodes / Shutterstock.com

The low hanging DOGE fruit at the Pentagon for Elon and Vivek

Military Industrial Complex

Any effort to suggest what Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy’s Department of Government Efficiency should put forward for cuts must begin with a rather large caveat: should a major government contractor with billions riding on government spending priorities be in charge of setting the tone for the debate on federal budget priorities?

Musk’s SpaceX earns substantial sums from launching U.S. government military satellites, and his company stands to make billions producing military versions of his Starlink communications system. He is a sworn opponent of government regulation, and is likely, among other things, to recommend reductions of government oversight of emerging military technologies.

keep readingShow less
war profit
Top image credit: Andrew Angelov via shutterstock.com

War drives revenue increases for world's top arms dealers

QiOSK

Revenues at the world’s top 100 global arms and military services producing companies totaled $632 billion in 2023, a 4.2% increase over the prior year, according to new data released by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).

The largest increases were tied to ongoing conflicts, including a 40% increase in revenues for Russian companies involved in supplying Moscow’s war on Ukraine and record sales for Israeli firms producing weapons used in that nation’s brutal war on Gaza. Revenues for Turkey’s top arms producing companies also rose sharply — by 24% — on the strength of increased domestic defense spending plus exports tied to the war in Ukraine.

keep readingShow less
Biden Putin Zelenskyy
Top Photo: Biden (left) meets with Russian President Putin (right). Ukrainian President Zelenskyy sits in between.

Diplomacy Watch: Will South Korea give weapons to Ukraine?

QiOSK

On Wednesday, a Ukrainian delegation led by Defense Minister Rustem Umerov met with South Korean officials, including President Yoon Suk Yeol. The AP reported that the two countries met to discuss ways to “cope with the security threat posed by the North Korean-Russian military cooperation including the North’s troop dispatch.”

During a previous meeting in October, Ukrainian President Volodomir Zelenskyy said he planned to present a “detailed request to Seoul for arms support including artillery and air defense systems.”

keep readingShow less

Election 2024

Latest

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.