Narratives Under Siege: Part V
The Shadow War – Spyware, Disinformation, and Covert Ops
Cold Open
In July 2021, an international consortium of journalists revealed that Pegasus spyware, developed by Israel’s NSO Group, had been used to hack the phones of journalists, human rights defenders, and even heads of state. The scandal rocked governments and led the U.S. Commerce Department to blacklist NSO, citing activities “contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States.”
For many, it was a wake-up call: Israel’s influence on global narratives was not just about junkets or lobbying anymore. It had entered the shadows – the realm of spyware, bots, and clandestine disinformation campaigns.
NSO Group and Pegasus: The Spyware Diplomacy Tool
What is Pegasus? A sophisticated spyware capable of infiltrating smartphones without a user’s knowledge, giving full access to messages, calls, and cameras.
Who was targeted? Amnesty International and Forbidden Stories documented hundreds of cases, from Mexican journalists to French President Emmanuel Macron.
Why it matters: Pegasus was not just sold commercially – it became a diplomatic tool. Israel approved export licenses, often tying sales to foreign policy. Countries that normalised relations with Israel, such as Morocco and the UAE, reportedly gained access.
The effect: spyware as soft power. In exchange for silence or support on Palestine, governments received access to some of the world’s most advanced surveillance tools.
Candiru and Others: A Broader Ecosystem
NSO was not alone.
Candiru, another Israeli cyber firm, was also blacklisted by the U.S. for selling spyware linked to human rights abuses.
Smaller firms, often founded by veterans of Israel’s elite cyber unit 8200, proliferated across the tech landscape. These companies operated in a grey zone: private businesses with state ties, exporting technology with potentially global political implications.
Disinformation Factories: Archimedes and “Team Jorge”
Spyware is only part of the picture. Disinformation has also been industrialised.
Archimedes Group (2019): Facebook banned the Tel Aviv-based company after it ran covert influence operations in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, manipulating elections and spreading propaganda through fake accounts.
“Team Jorge” (2023): An undercover investigation exposed Tal Hanan, a former Israeli special forces operative, offering election interference services – including hacking, bots, and deepfake campaigns – to clients around the world.
These operations were not about Israel/Palestine directly – but they showed how Israeli expertise in information warfare had become a global export business.
Covert Pressure Campaigns
Sometimes the shadow war touched Israel’s critics more directly:
Al Jazeera’s The Lobby revealed embassy-linked officials in the UK discussing how to “take down” MPs critical of Israel.
Activists and NGOs documenting Israeli abuses have reported cyberattacks, phishing attempts, and online harassment campaigns linked to suspected state or state-adjacent actors.
The line between diplomacy and espionage blurred.
The Costs of Secrecy
For human rights defenders: Surveillance erodes the safety of sources, chills activism, and intimidates critics.
For democracies: Covert interference corrodes trust in elections, media, and institutions.
For Israel itself: The exposure of Pegasus, Archimedes, and Team Jorge has undermined Israel’s reputation, painting it as an exporter of authoritarian tools.
Human Rights Lens
International law is unambiguous:
Privacy and free expression are protected under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Articles 12 & 19).
Elections and political participation must be free from manipulation.
When spyware is used against journalists, or disinformation distorts democratic debate, human rights are not collateral damage – they are the primary targets.
Conclusion
Israel’s narrative dominance is no longer maintained only through sympathy, lobbying, or public diplomacy. It has entered the shadows: spyware sold as diplomacy, private firms manipulating elections, embassy-linked plots against critics.
The irony is sharp. Tools of control once justified as protecting democracy are now undermining it.
In Part VI, we will examine the Lawfare Front – how anti-BDS laws, lawsuits, and even international courts have become central to the struggle over Israel’s human rights record.
Further Reading
U.S. Commerce Department – NSO Group and Candiru Blacklisting
Amnesty International – The Pegasus Project
Facebook – Removing Coordinated Inauthentic Behavior from Israel (Archimedes Group)
The Guardian – “Team Jorge” Election Hacking Exposé
Al Jazeera – The Lobby Full Documentary
Narratives Under Siege: Part VI
The Lawfare Front – BDS, Courts, and Human Rights Baselines
Cold Open
In 2019, a newspaper publisher in Arkansas faced a choice: sign a pledge not to boycott Israel, or lose state advertising contracts. The publisher refused, sued, and the case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. In 2023, the Court allowed Arkansas’s anti-BDS law to stand.
This was no isolated dispute. Across the United States and Europe, laws, lawsuits, and definitions have turned the Israel/Palestine debate into a legal battlefield. For critics of Israeli policy, the risks are not only smear campaigns or censorship – but real financial and legal penalties.
The Anti-BDS Wave
The Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement, launched in 2005 by Palestinian civil society, calls for nonviolent economic pressure on Israel until it complies with international law. In response:
United States: More than 30 states have passed anti-BDS laws requiring contractors to pledge not to boycott Israel. Civil liberties groups, including the ACLU, argue these laws violate the First Amendment.
Germany: The Bundestag declared BDS antisemitic in 2019, chilling cultural and academic events. Several German courts have since ruled aspects of the resolution unconstitutional, but the stigma remains.
France & UK: Attempts to restrict boycotts or equate them with antisemitism have sparked legal and political disputes, with varying success.
What began as a grassroots campaign has been redefined, in many jurisdictions, as discriminatory or even unlawful.
Lawsuits and Legal Intimidation
Lawfare Project: A New York–based group that files lawsuits against activists, NGOs, and cultural institutions accused of antisemitism for supporting BDS or Palestinian rights.
Defamation suits: Journalists and academics critical of Israel have faced costly defamation threats, even when their claims rested on credible evidence.
These tactics do not always succeed in court, but they drain resources and create a chilling effect.
International Courts: Turning the Frame
While domestic laws restrict criticism, international courts have moved the other way:
International Criminal Court (ICC): In 2021, the ICC confirmed it has jurisdiction over the occupied Palestinian territories. In 2024, the prosecutor sought arrest warrants for Israeli officials over alleged war crimes.
International Court of Justice (ICJ): In 2023, South Africa filed a genocide case against Israel over Gaza. The ICJ ruled that genocide allegations were “plausible” and ordered provisional measures to prevent further harm.
UN Human Rights Council & NGOs: Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and B’Tselem have all designated Israel’s system as one of apartheid, reframing the global legal baseline.
Here, the human rights framework born from the Holocaust is being wielded against the state once most shielded by it.
Competing Legal Narratives
Pro-Israel framing: Boycotts = antisemitism; BDS = discrimination; ICC/ICJ = biased or politicised.
Human rights framing: Boycotts = protected political speech; BDS = legitimate nonviolent resistance; ICC/ICJ = neutral accountability mechanisms.
Which frame prevails depends not only on law but on political will.
Human Rights Compass
The principle is clear:
Freedom of expression and association (protected under the UDHR and ICCPR) includes the right to boycott.
Accountability for crimes under international law (war crimes, apartheid, genocide) is not optional but binding.
Suppressing speech or boycotts undermines democracy. Ignoring accountability undermines human rights.
Conclusion
The legal battlefield cuts both ways. At home, anti-BDS laws and lawsuits aim to silence critics. Abroad, international courts and rights groups increasingly hold Israel accountable under the very laws born from “never again.”
The irony is sharp: the tools of law that once shielded Israel are now exposing it.
In Part VII, we will step back to see how Israel’s influence strategies have been copied by other states – from Saudi Arabia’s sports washing to China’s global media buy-ins – and why this makes the fight for universal human rights even more urgent.
Further Reading
ACLU – Arkansas Times v. Waldrip
ACLU – Anti-Boycott Laws Violate First Amendment
DW – German Court Rules Against BDS Motion
The Lawfare Project
International Criminal Court
International Court of Justice
Amnesty International – Israel’s Apartheid Against Palestinians
Continued tomorrow…
Link to Part 2:
Narratives Under Siege: Israel, Media Power, and the Struggle for Human Rights (Part 2)
Dear reader, we need your support
Independent sites such as The AIMN provide a platform for public interest journalists. From its humble beginning in January 2013, The AIMN has grown into one of the most trusted and popular independent media organisations.
One of the reasons we have succeeded has been due to the support we receive from our readers through their financial contributions.
With increasing costs to maintain The AIMN, we need this continued support.
Your donation – large or small – to help with the running costs of this site will be greatly appreciated.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
Be the first to comment