Why the US-Israel Tech Fund Must Be Bilaterally Governed
In my last post, I made the case for why the United States urgently needs a dedicated, government-backed venture fund focused on Israeli innovation. The strategic logic remains: Israel is an engine of dual-use technology, a close ally, and a natural partner in securing the future of Western national security. But there’s another key piece we need to get right from day one: governance.
An IQT International–like organization focused on Israel cannot simply be a branch office of Washington. IQT (formally In-Q-Tel) was founded by the CIA to bring cutting-edge technology into government solutions. It has shown how strategic venture capital can bridge innovation and national security. But for such a model to work in the Israeli context, and for it to earn trust, move fast, and make real impact, its governance must reflect the true spirit of the alliance it seeks to serve. This means a bilateral structure, not an American one.
It must be designed from the ground up to operate as a joint venture between equals: Americans who deeply understand Israel, and Israelis who deeply understand America.
I say this as someone who spent years working in US national security. Many well-intentioned American officials I worked with never visited Israel. They hadn’t walked the streets of Herzliya or met the 25-year-old veterans of Unit 8200 running AI companies out of shared offices. They respected Israel, but they didn’t really understand it. That gap matters.
Without direct experience, it’s easy to misread Israel’s entrepreneurial culture, its speed, its informality, its preference for relationships over process. It’s easy to get caught up in bureaucratic habits or political baggage that hinder action. A purely American-led board might replicate the same blind spots that have made existing US technology engagement with Israel too slow, too rigid, and too risk-averse.
Instead, this fund needs a joint board, composed of Americans who know Israel intimately, whether from military exchange programs, venture capital partnerships, or deep diplomatic service and Israelis who have both the technical acumen and strategic judgment to spot high-impact innovation.
Importantly, this does not mean diluting the fund’s American mission. On the contrary, co-governance sharpens it. Israeli leaders on the board bring battlefield knowledge, technical context, and networks that US counterparts simply don’t have. American leaders bring visibility into defense procurement priorities, export controls, and intelligence gaps. Together, they build the connective tissue between ecosystems that otherwise speak past each other.
The governance model must also protect the fund from the kinds of political volatility that have increasingly paralyzed cross-border collaboration. It should be established through a formal MOU or even legislation that spans administrations. It must operate transparently, with built-in guardrails to avoid conflicts of interest. And it should be explicitly mission-driven, with a published charter that keeps the fund focused on advancing technologies that enhance the strategic advantage of both nations.
Too often, American institutions expect Israeli cooperation while offering limited inclusion in return. If we want Israeli innovators to see this fund as their own, not just another source of American oversight, we have to give them real seats at the table.
The success of this fund will be determined by the quality of the people involved. Get it wrong, and it becomes a diplomatic gesture. Get it right, and it becomes the engine of technological deterrence for a new era of warfare.
We are not dealing with a hypothetical threat. China and Russia are already pouring money into early-stage Israeli companies, hoping to co-opt them before the US even notices because they want access to advanced Israeli technology. The only way to counter that is by moving with equal speed.
To do that, we need a fund governed by those who know both sides of the equation. That means Americans who understand the urgency of the battlefield and the rhythm of the startup. And it means Israelis who understand not just the technology, but the geopolitical stakes.
A binational fund for a binational mission. Anything less won’t work. If we don’t act, America risks being shut out of the technology developed by its closest ally.
