Origins: From Air Force R&D to Global Strategy Hub
Established in 1948 as “Project RAND” under the Air Force and Douglas Aircraft Company, RAND was tasked with modeling future war scenarios and the emerging Cold War defense apparatus rand.org Wikipedia. Over time, it evolved into a global nonprofit think tank guiding policy across fields—from nuclear deterrence to education—while maintaining deep ties to U.S. defense clients and strategic goals Wikipedia.
Funding and Influences: A Dual-Track Network
Though RAND projects itself as nonpartisan, its funding sources reveal dual allegiances:
-
Substantial support comes from U.S. Department of Defense contracts and military-industrial grants.
-
RAND has received dedicated funding to conduct planning for Israel’s economic future and civic infrastructure—often commissioned by Israeli government bodies or Privileged think‑tank alliances rand.org Wikipedia. These ties have given RAND exceptional access inside Israeli policy planning, while also translating its findings into U.S. executive and legislative decision‑making.
Strategic Alignment with Israel
RAND’s research often dovetails with Israeli security narratives, dovetailing U.S. policy with Israeli territorial, defense, and economic agendas:
-
RAND proposals have repeatedly centered on demilitarized Palestinian autonomy under Israeli supervision, a vision that mirrors right-wing Israeli frameworks for “managed” Palestinian territories rather than full sovereignty rand.org
-
Settlements and “security buffers” are discussed in RAND’s policy plans as strategic infrastructure, rarely noted for their illegality or humanitarian impact rand.org.
-
RAND’s wargaming and AI simulations—used by both the Pentagon and the Israeli Defense Forces—inform operational strategies in Gaza and the West Bank, modeling civilian movement, conflict escalation, and collateral damage thresholds.
Gaza Strategy: Sanitizing Occupation
In the midst of conflict, RAND messages reinforce operational legitimacy:
-
A 2017 RAND review of Israeli Gaza campaigns emphasized military shortcomings while implying civilian harm was inevitable—designed as brutal but necessary rand.org.
-
RAND publicly stated: “Gaza is the land of no good options.” This framing normalizes high civilian casualties as unavoidable collateral, shifting debate from legality to strategy rand.org.
-
RAND’s recent “Pathways to a Durable Peace” report echoes this rationalization: security-first roadmaps under Israeli control, with economic rebuilding only within frameworks acceptable to Israel and U.S. stakeholders rand.org
Project ‘The Arc’: Utopian or Unrealized?
A RAND‑backed plan from the early 2000s known as “The Arc” envisioned robust Palestinian urban infrastructure—rail links, economic zones, housing—for a post-conflict future Vanity Fair. Though technically visionary, the project was never realized. Its collapse points to RAND’s tendency to propose architectural fixes while contributing little to actual political reconciliation.
Policy Influence Without Transparency
Unlike explicit lobbying groups, RAND operates invisibly:
-
Its analysts sit on advisory panels inside the Pentagon, State Department, and Israeli ministries, shaping pre‑decision research.
-
RAND’s studies are regularly cited in congressional hearings, often by pro-Israel lawmakers to justify military aid or security legislation Wikipedia, The New Yorker.
-
Its language—“governance models,” “long‑term stabilization,” “security cooperation”—cleanses aggression, displacement, and occupation from discourse.
A Quiet Conveyor Belt of Policy, Not Activism
RAND does not petition or protest. Instead, it sells strategy dressed as science:
-
In 2016, The U.S.–Israel Advanced Research Partnership Act institutionalized formal research and counterterrorism cooperation—areas where RAND has been deeply embedded Wikipedia.
-
Analysts like Shira Efron—RAND‑trained and later advisers in Israel’s civil governance of Gaza—help blend policy with bureaucratic logic, often sidelining humanitarian voices The New Yorker.
Conclusion:
Think Tank or Strategic Arm of Occupation?**
The RAND Corporation presents itself as detached, academic, and neutral—but its alignment with Israeli strategic, defense, and security priorities is unmistakable. Through well‑positioned research, predictive models, policy proposals, and advisory panels, RAND amplifies certain voices and silences others.
RAND doesn’t lobby publicly, but it sets the frame. It doesn’t fund wars, but its research drives them. And it doesn’t wear a uniform, but it drafts the blueprint.
True academic independence demands transparency—especially for institutions whose models define the lives and futures of millions. In RAND’s case, that transparency is long overdue.
