From Goliath’s Servant to David’s Kingdom? Israel’s Sub-Imperialist Transformation in Africa

In 1969, an anti-imperialist report titled “David and Goliath Collaborate in Africa,” published by the Africa Research Group, defined Israel’s role on the continent as that of a “servant of U.S. imperialism.” Half a century later, Israel is back in Africa. But this time, Tel Aviv is not just America's servant; it is evolving into a power striving to architect its own regional and global interests.

Cold War Stage: David in Goliath’s Shadow

When the U.S. provided direct aid to Africa, it faced accusations of “neocolonialism.” The solution? Instrumentalize Israel, a “third country” with no colonial past. America was not visibly on stage, but indirect aid channeled through Israel served both Washington’s and Tel Aviv’s interests. While posing as an “independent development partner,” Israel essentially acted as an interface, blending Western interests with local development rhetoric in Africa.

According to the 1969 report, the lifeblood of this cooperation was military training, intelligence, and counter-guerrilla activities. The “Nahal” settlement model—a militarized structure intertwined with agriculture—was exported to 13 African countries. Through this model, Israel aimed to ideologically shape specific segments of society.

In Congo, Israeli advisors trained on America’s behalf coached Mobutu’s regime’s paratrooper units. In Ethiopia, they directed anti-guerrilla operations to prop up Haile Selassie’s regime. In Tanzania, Togo, and Malawi, programs were implemented under the banner of “Youth Services,” instilling militarist nationalism.

Agriculture, Education, and the Kibbutz Model

Israel exported its agricultural and development model to Africa through MASHAV and the Kibbutz system. Although these models appeared “socialist,” they were fundamentally anti-revolutionary. They prioritized efficiency gains and technical cooperation within the existing capitalist, pro-Western order, thereby reinforcing the status quo.

Israel’s Histadrut union trained African trade unionists, but the curriculum steered clear of class struggle, promoting a conciliatory line of cooperation. Projects directly funded by the CIA aimed to ideologically soften leftist unions in Africa and steer them toward a pro-Western stance.

Without Western support, Israel could not have carried out any of its programs in Africa. The fact that over half the funding for Israel’s aid activities across the continent came from the U.S., France, Germany, and Britain revealed the indirect and sophisticated imperialist architecture behind its Africa policy.

Shifting Balances from Past to Present

From the 1950s to the 1970s, one of the fundamental motivations for Israel’s Africa policy was the quest for diplomatic recognition. During this period, Israel aimed to expand its international legitimacy by building relations with newly independent African states.

The 1973 Arab-Israeli War shattered Israel’s reputation in Africa. Most African leaders, supporting the Palestinian cause, severed ties with Israel. However, the end of the Cold War and the neoliberal transformation reopened doors for Israel. This time, it came armed with the image of a “start-up nation,” high technology, and the security-state experience leftover from the Cold War.

The post-9/11 rise of the “global war on terror” rhetoric provided Israel with an invaluable shield of legitimacy in Africa to justify its own security-state model and occupation policies. From the 2000s onward, Israel sought to redefine its dependency relationship with the U.S., striving to become a relatively autonomous actor within the system.

Emphasis on Theological Alliance

Israel realized its economic and security strategies were insufficient to overcome public support for Palestine in Africa. Therefore, it began systematically exporting its sharpest ideological weapon, honed for years in the U.S.: Christian Zionism.

For years, it has systematically shaped Pentecostal and Evangelical movements through operations ranging from Holy Land tours to media content, aligning them with its interests.

The most striking concrete example of this strategy unfolded at the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Judge Julia Sebutinde, representing Uganda, was the sole judge on the court to vote in Israel’s favor in the genocide case. She later publicly justified her decision with a theological rationale: ‘God expects me to stand with Israel.’

The reopening of its embassy in Lusaka, Zambia, in August 2025—after 52 years—was not merely a diplomatic move. It was a concrete step in the project to transform the continent’s Christian population into a ‘permanent voting bloc’ against Palestinian solidarity.

The Digital Sphere and Security Circle

In addition to these ideological maneuvers, Israel has deployed two other concrete and current tools to consolidate its influence in Africa: exporting high technology and creating security dependency.

Leveraging its “Start-up Nation” image, Israel sells Africa not just weapons, but also water-irrigation management, cybersecurity, and digital surveillance technologies.

Under the guise of “development aid,” Tel Aviv is building a new network of influence through digital programs. With hundreds (some sources say 800) of companies on the continent and MASHAV’s significant budget for Africa, it collects the most strategic national security data of African countries—land fertility, water resources, food production—through smart irrigation systems. This collected strategic data also forms a critical infrastructure for the very “security solutions” Israel sells. In other words, while gaining access to a country’s sensitive data, Israel sells its own weapons and surveillance systems to address the security vulnerabilities identified by that data.

From the Sahel to East Africa, Israeli-origin private security companies and intelligence connections function as a de facto “shadow army.” While intelligence sharing with its strategic ally, the U.S., continues, Israel increases its operational autonomy by acting on a ‘whoever pays, I work with’ principle. For instance, it reinforces this autonomy by providing private security services to governments in countries like Kenya and Ethiopia and working with regional actors. However, it remains dependent on the U.S. for diplomatic and military guarantees.

The Limits of Autonomy

Israel’s rise in Africa brings with it the contradictions of its “strategic autonomy” claim. As seen in the war in Gaza, Tel Aviv’s most reckless moves are only possible with the geopolitical guarantee provided by the U.S. This shows that all of Israel’s tactical maneuvering capability in Africa exists in constant tension with its deep dependency on America.

This dependency is not a one-way chain of command. Israel occasionally tests America’s limits, demonstrating how it tries to extract benefits from this relationship. The case of Israeli billionaire Dan Gertler, accused of plundering Congo’s resources, is concrete proof of this wiggle room. Despite Gertler’s shady mining deals bringing huge gains to Israel’s economy and making him a target of U.S. corruption sanctions, his never being brought to trial showcases the Israeli state’s reflex to protect its own spheres of interest, independent of global rules.

One could also argue that Israel has a strategy of making Washington bear the political and military costs of its own regional hegemony project.

Explaining the Dual Character: Sub-Imperialism

This dual character of Israel—dependency on the U.S. on one hand, and efforts to expand its own sphere of interest on the other—can be explained by the concept of “sub-imperialism,” developed by Brazilian Marxist thinker Ruy Mauro Marini.

According to Marini, sub-imperialist states remain economically and militarily dependent on a central imperial power while developing a form of local imperialism by establishing exploitation and influence relations in their own regional peripheries.

This definition fits Israel’s current geopolitical behavior pattern almost perfectly:

• Operating under the U.S. security guarantee and financial support.
• Creating its own spheres of interest in Africa and the Middle East.
• Reshaping local economies through both security and technology dependency.

Therefore, Israel today is transforming from a peripheral country on the edges of imperialism into a sub-imperialist state exhibiting imperialist practices within its own mini-system.

A Dependent and Dangerous Kingdom

Yesterday, Israel was a “third country,” the loyal servant of Goliath (the U.S.). Today, it is pursuing its own regional kingdom. However, the harsh reality of history and geopolitics remains unchanged: without the armor and spear provided by Goliath, David cannot enter the battlefield. On the other hand, it is clear this relationship is no longer one of simple servitude. Under the shadow of this massive protection, Israel has learned to use America’s military budget, diplomatic credit, and global reputation for its own regional interests.

Africa, meanwhile, faces a dual game. The policy Israel pursues is depicted as ostensibly independent, but at its core, it is nothing more than a dangerous and insidious extension of a broader Western hegemony, tailored for Africa.

This article was originally published on Fokusplus, on 11/12/2025.