Rachel Avraham is the CEO of the Dona Gracia Center for Diplomacy and an Israel-based journalist. She is the author of “Women and Jihad: Debating Palestinian Female Suicide Bombings in the American, Israeli and Arab Media."
Israelis have little reason to believe their country’s political debates take place beyond the reach of foreign powers. American presidents regularly weigh in on Israeli security, Iran seeks to weaken Israel’s regional position, and governments across Europe and the Middle East try to influence how Israeli policies are understood. Yet a new survey points to a more uncomfortable concern: many Israelis believe foreign governments are shaping the debate while their own government struggles to make its voice heard.
Research published by Dor Moriah on October 24 found that 65.7% of respondents believe foreign states operate long-term programs intended to influence Israeli political views and election outcomes. At the same time, 57.4% doubt Israel has a coherent long-term information strategy abroad, and 56.1% describe its international communications as primarily reactive.
The findings suggest a gap between the influence Israelis attribute to other governments and the confidence they place in their own country’s response.
Conducted with the Geocartography Knowledge Group, the survey questioned 1,003 adult internet users in Israel in mid-October, including Jewish and Arab respondents. It measured perceptions, not documented cases of foreign interference. Believing that another country is trying to influence Israeli politics does not establish that it has secretly manipulated an election.
That distinction becomes especially important when examining which countries respondents named.
The United States ranked first, cited by 51.4% of respondents as a country influencing Israeli political views through public statements and communications. Qatar followed at 28.4%, Iran at 28%, European Union countries at 21%, Russia at 20.7% and Turkey at 13.8%. Participants could select more than one answer.
Washington’s position at the top of the list complicates the assumption that foreign information influence comes mainly from adversaries. American decisions affect Israel’s military security, diplomatic relationships and economic confidence. Statements by American leaders can therefore shape Israeli political expectations without involving deception or covert interference.
The distinction between influence and manipulation is not merely semantic. A close ally expressing its preferences, an adversary spreading falsehoods and a foreign government conducting public diplomacy may all affect opinion, but they should not be treated as equivalent threats.
Israel’s difficulty, according to the survey, lies partly in how its citizens judge the country’s ability to respond.
Only 9.5% believe Israel generally takes the initiative and sets the international information agenda. Another 13% see a balance between initiative and reaction. By contrast, 56.1% say the country mainly answers accusations, defends decisions and responds to criticism after it has already gained attention.
For a country whose military and diplomatic decisions receive intense international scrutiny, that perception carries consequences. A government can possess advanced technology, experienced diplomats and substantial intelligence capabilities without persuading foreign audiences that its account of events is credible.
Responding quickly to an accusation is useful. Preventing every new controversy from defining the entire discussion requires something more sustained: relationships with foreign audiences, consistent explanations of policy and evidence that can withstand independent scrutiny.
The findings on long-term strategy reinforce the concern. While 57.4% of respondents doubt Israel has a well-developed information program abroad, 29.6% believe such a program exists. Another 13% are uncertain.
These figures do not prove that Israel lacks a strategy. Some government communications work takes place outside public view, and citizens may not know which institutions are responsible for it. They do show that a substantial share of the public cannot identify a convincing, sustained approach.
Confidence also differs across Israeli society. Among secular respondents, only 18.5% believe Israel has a long-term information strategy. The proportion rises to 35.4% among traditional respondents and 40.4% among religious Zionist and haredi respondents.
Those differences suggest that assessments of government performance are influenced by domestic social and political divisions. Israelis may observe the same international controversies while reaching very different conclusions about whether their country is handling them effectively.
Perceptions of foreign influence also vary between Jewish and Arab respondents. Among Jewish participants, 69% believe foreign governments operate long-term programs targeting Israeli political views and elections. Among Arab participants, the figure is 47%, with uncertainty more common in that group.
Neither response establishes which community understands the information environment more accurately. The differences instead show why a national communications policy cannot assume that all Israelis interpret foreign messages, government statements or international criticism in the same way.
There is a danger in responding to these concerns by treating every unfavorable account of Israel as hostile propaganda. Governments have a legitimate interest in challenging false claims and exposing deliberate manipulation. But criticism of Israeli policy can also be factual, independent and justified. Dismissing it indiscriminately risks undermining the credibility that effective public diplomacy requires.
The same principle applies to Israel’s supporters abroad. Arguments are more persuasive when they acknowledge legitimate questions, distinguish errors from disagreements and offer evidence rather than demanding agreement.
Dor Moriah’s research identifies a public confidence problem that cannot be solved by producing more statements or responding more aggressively on social media. The issue is whether Israel can establish a consistent international presence that remains credible beyond the immediate controversy.
Foreign governments will continue trying to shape opinion about Israel. Some will do so openly, others through less transparent methods. Israel cannot control every message that reaches international audiences, but it can decide how clearly, consistently and credibly it explains its own decisions.
For now, the survey suggests that many Israelis recognize the competition. What they doubt is whether their government has learned how to lead it.