IHUB
Private Briefings (Webinars)
LeaderSpeak Podcast 
Global Entertainment Digest (Newsletter) 
About Vitrina
About VIQI
Our Story
Our Solutions 🔥
Film+TV Projects Tracker 🚀
Research Israeli partners before you license
VIQI tracks 160,000+ verified M&E companies, including Israeli producers and format distributors.
By Vitrina Research Team | Published: August 19, 2026 | 16 min read
Israeli TV & Film: International Co-Production and Licensing Guide
Israeli-originated formats have been remade repeatedly by major international broadcasters and platforms, “In Treatment,” “Homeland,” and “The Baker and the Beauty” all trace back to Israeli originals, per Screen Daily’s reporting on the pattern, but the underlying financing and treaty mechanics that make this format-export engine work are far less understood than the shows themselves. Producers and financiers evaluating an Israeli partnership need to separate the country’s genuine creative track record from its actual, more constrained funding architecture, since the two are frequently conflated in casual industry conversation.
Quick Answer
Israeli TV formats sell internationally primarily through format-rights licensing deals negotiated by a small number of Israeli studios, chiefly Keshet, whose London and Los Angeles sales offices pitch Israeli-originated concepts directly to US and European broadcasters and streamers for local remake, “In Treatment,” “Homeland,” and “The Baker and the Beauty” all originated this way, per Screen Daily’s reporting. Behind that format-export engine sits a narrower treaty and funding architecture: Israel has a bilateral film and TV co-production treaty with the UK, signed November 3, 2010 and in force since August 19, 2011, per GOV.UK, plus 25 separate feature-film-only treaties including France, Germany, and Canada, per the Israel Film Fund’s own treaty list, but no Eurimages membership, per the Council of Europe. Israel’s own incentive, the Fund for the Promotion of Foreign Productions, offers up to a 30% rebate on qualifying local spend, capped at roughly $4.8 million per production, per Deadline and the Hollywood Reporter.
Key Takeaways
- → Keshet’s “Hatufim” (Prisoners of War) sold format rights to 20th Century Fox in 2009 and became Showtime’s “Homeland,” while the Israeli original itself sold to 65 territories, per Screen Daily and The Hollywood Reporter.
- → The UK-Israel co-production treaty requires a minimum 20% financial contribution from each side and is the only Israeli bilateral treaty independently confirmed to cover television, not just film, per the BFI’s own list of competent authorities.
- → Israel’s treaty network has generated more than $90 million in foreign investment across 105 co-productions since 2001, per the Israel Film Fund’s own figures.
- → Israel is not a Eurimages member; a 2012 discussion about Israel joining alongside Canada never resulted in Israeli membership, per the Times of Israel’s reporting at the time.
- → Israel’s Fund for the Promotion of Foreign Productions disbursed roughly $6.5 million to 12 approved foreign productions in its first round, per the Times of Israel’s reporting, though this program’s current 2026 status should be confirmed directly with Film Israel before relying on it.
Why Has Israel Exported So Many Successful TV Formats?
Israeli producers, led by Keshet International, built a specific international sales infrastructure, a London office opened in 2012 and a Los Angeles studio, Keshet Studios, opened in 2014 following an NBC first-look deal, that turned a string of Israeli originals into some of the most successful format exports in television history, per Screen Daily’s own feature on Keshet’s international expansion.
The Format Export Track Record
“BeTipul,” created by Hagai Levi, Ori Sivan, and Nir Bergman, became HBO’s “In Treatment” in 2008 and was remade in more than 20 countries, marking, per Screen Daily’s reporting, the first Israeli drama format adapted for a major US network. “Hatufim” (Prisoners of War), created by Gideon Raff, sold format rights to 20th Century Fox in late 2009 and became Showtime’s “Homeland” in 2011, co-developed by Raff with Howard Gordon and Alex Gansa of “24,” while the Israeli original itself sold to 65 territories, per Screen Daily and The Hollywood Reporter’s reporting on Raff’s career.
More Recent Format Exports
“The Baker and the Beauty,” produced by Endemol Shine Israel for Keshet 12, was adapted in five territories including the US (ABC), France (TF1), the Netherlands, Russia, and India, per Variety’s and Deadline’s reporting on the various adaptations. “Yellow Peppers” became the BBC’s “The A Word” and subsequently sold into more than 80 additional territories after the BBC adaptation, while “False Flag” aired in 120-plus territories before becoming Apple TV+’s “Suspicion,” starring Uma Thurman, per Screen Daily’s feature on Keshet’s export history. “When Heroes Fly” similarly became Apple TV+’s “Echo 3,” per Screen Daily’s feature on Keshet’s export history.
Why This Matters for Producers Evaluating Israeli Partners
This track record is heavily concentrated in a small number of Israeli production companies and studios, Keshet chief among them, rather than reflecting a uniformly deep bench across the entire Israeli industry, which means a producer evaluating an Israeli format partner should weight a company’s actual export history and international sales infrastructure specifically, not assume the country-level track record applies evenly to every Israeli producer.
Why Keshet’s Infrastructure Investment Was the Real Enabler
The London office and Los Angeles studio weren’t incidental to Keshet’s format success; they were the mechanism that let an Israeli-originated concept reach US and UK buyers directly rather than depending entirely on international buyers discovering Israeli content on their own, per Screen Daily’s feature on the company’s expansion. A production company without comparable international sales infrastructure faces a materially harder path to replicating this kind of format-export success, even with an equally strong creative concept, since discovery and buyer access matter as much as the underlying format’s quality.
What “First-Look Deal” Access Actually Provided
Keshet Studios’ 2014 Los Angeles launch followed an NBC first-look deal, per Screen Daily’s reporting, which gave the studio a structured, ongoing relationship with a major US network rather than a one-off sale. This kind of standing relationship is what allowed Keshet to move from single format licenses toward an ongoing development pipeline with US buyers, a distinction worth understanding for any producer negotiating a first international deal with an Israeli partner, since a single deal and a standing pipeline relationship represent very different levels of commercial commitment: a single successful format sale doesn’t automatically confer the kind of standing buyer relationship that produces repeat success. See our guide on international co-production treaties for the general treaty mechanics that underpin format and rights deals like these.
What Does the Israel-UK Co-Production Treaty Actually Cover?
Israel and the UK signed a bilateral film co-production treaty in Jerusalem on November 3, 2010, which entered into force August 19, 2011, and it is the only Israeli bilateral treaty independently confirmed to extend to television production, not just feature film, per GOV.UK’s official publication of the agreement and the BFI’s own list of international competent authorities.
Key Terms of the Treaty
The treaty requires a minimum 20% financial contribution from each co-producing side, per the BFI’s guidance on qualifying as an official co-production, and the Israel Film Fund serves as the competent authority on the Israeli side, meaning Israeli applications for treaty certification route through that body specifically. Per the BFI’s own co-production guidance, a qualifying UK-Israel treaty co-production is recognized as a “national” film or programme in both countries simultaneously, which unlocks each side’s own local funding, tax incentives, and broadcast quota eligibility for the respective co-producer’s contribution.
Why the Television Coverage Distinction Matters
The multilateral European Convention on Cinematographic Co-Production, which governs many European co-production relationships, is explicitly film-only, per the BFI’s own list of competent authorities, while Israel’s bilateral treaty with the UK is specifically confirmed to allow television co-productions as well. This distinction matters directly for a producer structuring an Israeli-UK TV series co-production, since the correct legal pathway is the bilateral treaty rather than any multilateral framework, and the eligibility criteria and application process differ accordingly.
What “National” Recognition Actually Unlocks
National recognition under the treaty means the UK co-producer’s contribution can access UK tax relief and quota eligibility, per the BFI’s own co-production certification process, on exactly the same basis as a wholly British production, provided the treaty’s minimum 20% contribution threshold and other qualifying conditions are met. This is the core commercial value of treaty status: it isn’t simply a symbolic recognition, it’s a functional gateway to real UK incentive access for the British side of an Israeli co-production.
Applying Through the Israel Film Fund as Competent Authority
Because this body serves as the treaty’s competent authority on the Israeli side, per the treaty’s own terms, an Israeli producer seeking treaty certification needs to route their application through it rather than any other Israeli funding organization, even if the project’s primary Israeli financing comes from elsewhere. Producers structuring a UK-Israel treaty co-production should build that certification timeline into their overall production schedule as an early, non-negotiable step, since treaty status needs to be established before, not after, the UK side’s tax relief claim depends on it, and a late or incomplete certification can jeopardize the UK co-producer’s ability to claim its UK tax relief on schedule. Vitrina’s guide to UK production finance and commissioning covers the UK side of this specific treaty relationship in more depth.
What Other Co-Production Treaties Does Israel Have?
Israel maintains official co-production treaties with 26 countries in total, including the UK, France, Germany, and Canada, and these treaties have generated more than $90 million in foreign investment across 105 co-productions since 2001, per the Israel Film Fund’s own published treaty list and figures.
The Full Treaty Partner List
Israel’s treaty partners, per the Fund’s own site, are Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, India, Italy, Kosovo, Lithuania, New Zealand, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Ukraine, and the UK. This is a substantially broader treaty network than many producers assume, spanning Western Europe, Eastern Europe, and beyond, and it is worth cross-checking against the Israel Film Fund’s own current list before assuming any specific country is or isn’t included, since treaty networks can expand over time.
A Critical Scope Caveat: Film Versus Television
The Fund’s own site describes these 26 treaty agreements as applying specifically to feature films, and only the UK treaty is independently confirmed by a third party, the BFI, to explicitly extend to television production. Producers should not assume any of the other 25 treaties, France or Germany included, automatically covers a television co-production the same way the UK treaty does, without confirming the specific treaty text and current interpretation directly with the Fund and the relevant partner country’s own film body first.
What the Foreign Investment Figure Represents, Per the Israel Film Fund
The Fund’s cited figure of more than $90 million in foreign investment across 105 treaty co-productions since 2001 averages to a relatively modest per-project foreign contribution, which reflects the reality that most Israeli treaty co-productions are smaller-scale features rather than large international productions, per the Fund’s own published figures. Producers should calibrate expectations accordingly: Israel’s treaty network is broad and genuinely functional, but the historical scale of individual treaty co-productions has generally been modest rather than blockbuster-sized, which should inform realistic budget expectations for a new treaty co-production entering the pipeline today.
Why Breadth of Treaty Network Beats Depth in Any Single Market
A 26-country treaty network gives Israeli producers meaningfully more flexibility in selecting a co-production partner country than a market with only two or three treaty relationships would, since the choice of partner can be driven by genre fit, financing availability, or distribution strategy rather than being constrained to whichever single country happens to have a treaty in place. Producers evaluating an Israeli co-production should ask specifically which of the 26 treaty countries best matches their financing and distribution goals, rather than defaulting to the most commonly cited partners like the UK, France, or Germany without considering whether a less obvious treaty partner, Poland or Portugal, for instance, might actually fit the project’s budget and distribution needs better. Vitrina’s guide to German film and TV funding covers one of Israel’s more established treaty relationships in more detail.
Confirming Treaty Details Before Committing to a Structure
Given that per-country financial contribution thresholds beyond the UK’s confirmed 20% figure were not independently verified for each of Israel’s 25 other treaty partners, per the available primary sourcing for this guide, producers should treat the specific contribution percentage and qualifying criteria for any non-UK Israeli treaty as needing direct confirmation with both the Israel Film Fund and the partner country’s own film body before finalizing a co-production structure, rather than assuming uniform terms across all 26 treaties.
Can Israeli Producers Access European Funding?
Israel is not a Eurimages member or associate member, and Israeli producers cannot directly access Eurimages co-production support, per the Council of Europe’s own Eurimages membership page, which lists 39 members including Canada as an associate member but not Israel.
The 2012 Membership Discussion That Didn’t Materialize
In 2012, Eurimages executive director Roberto Olla said Israel and Canada were in talks to become the first non-European nations admitted to the fund, per the Times of Israel’s reporting at the time. Canada went on to join as an associate member, but Israeli membership never materialized, and no confirmed current initiative to revisit Israeli Eurimages membership was found for this guide. Producers should treat Israeli Eurimages access as a closed door for now rather than an open, pending application, and should not build a financing plan around the assumption that membership talks might resume without direct confirmation from Eurimages itself. This is a case where the specific historical detail, a named executive, a named year, a named would-be co-applicant, matters more than the general fact that talks once happened, since it lets a producer or financier verify the claim independently rather than taking a secondhand summary at face value.
How Israeli Producers Access European Funds Instead
The practical pathway into European funding for an Israeli-involved project runs through the bilateral treaty network described above: a qualifying treaty co-production, film for all 25 non-UK treaty partners as currently described by the Israel Film Fund, or film and television for the UK specifically, lets the European co-producer’s contribution access that country’s own national funds and tax incentives, even though Israel’s own contribution cannot separately draw on Eurimages. This means an Israeli producer’s European funding strategy is necessarily built around finding the right treaty co-production partner rather than around any direct Israeli access to a pan-European fund, which is a fundamentally different strategic approach than a European producer inside the Eurimages system would take.
Creative Europe MEDIA Status Is Genuinely Uncertain
Israel achieved partial participation in the EU’s Creative Europe MEDIA sub-programme starting with 2017 calls, covering training, festivals, film education, and market access schemes, per Screen Daily’s reporting on the announcement at the time. Israel’s current MEDIA participation status could not be confirmed against a clear, current primary EU source for this guide, and producers should verify Israel’s current eligibility directly with the European Commission’s Creative Europe office rather than assuming the 2017 arrangement remains unchanged, since third-country participation lists in EU programs have shifted in recent years.
Why This Uncertainty Should Change How Producers Plan
A producer building a financing plan that assumes Israeli MEDIA sub-programme access, training grants, festival support, market-access funding, is taking on real execution risk if that access has in fact changed since 2017. Third-country participation lists are reviewed periodically by the European Commission, so producers should not assume the 2017 arrangement is still current without direct confirmation. The safer planning assumption is to treat any Israeli MEDIA access as unconfirmed until directly verified with the European Commission’s Creative Europe office, and to build a financing plan that doesn’t depend on it unless and until that verification happens.
How Does Israel’s Own Production Incentive Work?
Israel’s Fund for the Promotion of Foreign Productions, launched in August 2022, offers up to a 30% rebate on qualifying local spend for international productions filming in Israel, with a program-wide cap of approximately $13 million and a per-production cap of roughly $4.8 million (NIS 16.6 million), plus an additional 10% available for post-production and animation work, per Deadline’s and the Hollywood Reporter’s reporting on the launch.
Administration and Payment Structure
The scheme is jointly administered by Israel’s Ministries of Finance, Culture and Sport, Economy and Industry, Foreign Affairs, and Tourism, through a special grant track at the Investments and Development Authority for Industry and the Economy within the Ministry of Economy and Industry, per Variety’s reporting on the program. Payment follows an 80/20 structure, per Variety’s reporting: 80% of the rebate is paid during filming against submitted invoices, with the remaining 20% paid after the production completes.
Why the Multi-Ministry Structure Matters for Approval Timelines
A rebate scheme jointly administered by five separate ministries, per Variety’s reporting on the program’s structure, inherently involves more coordination than a single-agency incentive, which can affect how quickly an application moves through approval relative to a simpler one-ministry scheme elsewhere. Producers planning an Israeli shoot should build extra buffer into their pre-production timeline for this specific administrative step, rather than assuming the approval process will move at the same pace as a more streamlined single-agency rebate in another country. Vitrina’s guides to Nordic co-production and Benelux production and distribution cover how multi-agency and single-agency administration compare in two other European markets.
What the 80/20 Payment Split Means for Cash Flow Planning
Because 80% of the rebate is disbursed during filming against actual invoices rather than as a lump sum at project completion, per the program’s own structure, a production still needs to carry the full cost of Israeli spend upfront and get reimbursed progressively, rather than treating the rebate as pre-financing available before spend occurs. This is a meaningful distinction from incentive structures elsewhere that allow the rebate itself to be borrowed against before it’s disbursed; an Israeli shoot’s financing plan needs to account for carrying that cash flow gap directly or arranging bridge financing against the expected reimbursement schedule.
First-Round Results and Current Status
The program’s first application round approved 12 foreign productions, disbursing approximately NIS 23 million (roughly $6.5 million) in government support, per the Times of Israel’s reporting on the results. These figures reflect the 2022 launch terms specifically; no confirmed 2024-2026 renewal or update to the program’s terms was found for this guide, so producers should verify current eligibility windows, caps, and application deadlines directly with Film Israel before building a financing plan around this incentive.
The Israel Film Fund’s Separate Domestic Role
Separately from the foreign-production rebate, the Israel Film Fund, established in 1979 with an annual budget of roughly $6 million, invests in 12 to 15 Israeli feature films per year selected from around 140 submissions and has supported nearly 500 features since its founding, per the Israel Film Fund’s own site. A second body, the New Fund for Cinema and Television, also supports Israeli productions, meaning international producers exploring an Israeli co-production should be aware there is a small ecosystem of Israeli funding bodies rather than one single gatekeeper, each with its own selection criteria and application cycle.
Why the Domestic Fund and the Foreign-Production Rebate Serve Different Purposes
The Israel Film Fund’s roughly $6 million annual budget, per the Fund’s own site, is aimed at developing and financing Israeli-originated feature films specifically, while the separate Fund for the Promotion of Foreign Productions exists to attract international productions to shoot in Israel. A co-production combining Israeli creative talent with international financing may in principle draw on both, provided the Israeli side of the project independently satisfies the domestic Fund’s selection criteria while the international side separately satisfies the foreign-production rebate’s eligibility requirements, since the two programs don’t share a unified application process.
The Competitive Reality Behind the Submission Numbers
Selecting 12 to 15 features from roughly 140 submissions annually, per the Israel Film Fund’s own figures, means the Fund’s domestic selection process is genuinely competitive, with an acceptance rate in the range of 10%, which producers seeking Israel Film Fund backing for the Israeli side of a co-production should factor into their timeline and backup financing plans rather than treating domestic Israeli funding as a reliable, close-to-guaranteed layer of the budget.
Working With the New Fund for Cinema and Television as an Alternative
The existence of a second domestic body, the New Fund for Cinema and Television, per NFCT’s own guidance for foreign producers, gives Israeli-side applicants a genuine second track if their project doesn’t clear the Israel Film Fund’s competitive selection process, rather than a single point of failure for domestic Israeli financing. International producers structuring an Israeli co-production should ask their Israeli partner which of the two domestic funds, or both, the Israeli side of the project is realistically positioned to access, since a producer’s track record and genre focus often fit one of these two bodies’ selection criteria better than the other.
How Does Vitrina Help Producers Navigate Israeli Partnerships?
Vitrina’s VIQI platform tracks 160,000+ verified media and entertainment companies, including Israeli production companies, format distributors, and financiers, giving international producers a way to identify which specific Israeli partner actually has the export infrastructure and treaty experience a given deal requires. Given how concentrated Israel’s format-export success has been among a small number of companies, verifying a potential partner’s actual international sales track record matters more than relying on Israel’s country-level reputation alone.
Distributors and financiers evaluating an Israeli format acquisition or co-production use VIQI to research a company’s prior treaty co-production history and format sales record before negotiating, rather than taking claimed international success at face value. Given how concentrated Israel’s genuine format-export success has been among a small number of companies like Keshet specifically, verifying whether a given counterparty actually has that kind of international sales infrastructure, rather than simply operating in the same national market as a well-documented format exporter, is a meaningful part of counterparty diligence for any deal referencing Israel’s format-export reputation, and is exactly the kind of check that catches a mismatch between a company’s actual track record and its pitch materials. Our guides on international co-production treaties and international licensing deals cover the adjacent legal and commercial mechanics that typically apply alongside an Israeli partnership, and our entertainment deal negotiation playbook covers the broader negotiation fundamentals that apply across any of these deal types.
Conclusion: A Format Powerhouse With a Narrower Funding Path
Israel’s format-export track record is genuinely exceptional, and its treaty network genuinely spans 26 countries, but neither fact translates into unrestricted funding access the way a producer might assume from the headline success stories alone. Israel’s exclusion from Eurimages, the film-only scope of most of its treaties beyond the UK agreement, and the uncertain current status of its Creative Europe MEDIA participation all narrow the practical funding pathways relative to what the format success stories might suggest. None of these constraints make Israel a difficult market to work with; they simply mean the funding architecture looks different from what a producer accustomed to full European fund access might expect walking in, and planning around that difference from the outset avoids most of the friction international partners encounter.
Producers structuring an Israeli co-production or format acquisition should build their financing plan around the specific, verified mechanisms, the UK treaty’s confirmed TV coverage, the other 25 treaties’ film-only scope, Israel’s own foreign-production rebate, rather than assuming Israel’s overall reputation as a format powerhouse implies broader funding access than what these specific mechanisms actually provide.
The most reliable approach for a first-time Israeli partnership is sequencing due diligence around the specific mechanism in play: confirm treaty status and its film-versus-television scope with the Israel Film Fund directly if structuring a co-production, verify current terms with Film Israel if targeting the foreign-production rebate, and separately assess a potential Israeli partner’s actual international sales track record if the deal depends on format export success rather than domestic Israeli production alone. Producers who treat these as three distinct verification tracks, rather than one general “Israel is a strong media market” assumption, build financing and rights structures that hold up under real scrutiny from co-producers, financiers, and legal counsel alike. The same discipline, verifying the specific mechanism rather than trusting a market’s general reputation, applies to co-production risk terms covered in Vitrina’s guide to rights reversion clauses and production insurance.
