DistantNews
Support us
🇮🇱 Israel /Conflict & Security

Cognitive warfare is a national security threat to Israel, opinion argues

From Jerusalem Post · () English

Translated from English and summarized by DistantNews. Read the original for the full story.

At a glance

Opinion Named sources Context piece
  • The article argues that the "cognitive war" against Israel, aimed at delegitimizing it and isolating it from allies, constitutes a national security threat.
  • It criticizes the Israeli government's response to MK Zvi Sukkot's participation in demolishing a Palestinian monument, deeming it insufficient given the stakes of cognitive warfare.
  • The author draws a parallel between Sukkot's actions and Mordechai Vanunu's disclosure of nuclear secrets, suggesting both involve individuals taking it upon themselves to decide how sensitive information or actions are used, with potentially severe national security consequences.

The ongoing "cognitive war" waged against Israel must be recognized as a direct national security threat, according to an opinion piece by Ariella Roitman. This campaign, which seeks to delegitimize Israel, isolate it from allies, influence American politics, radicalize university campuses, and endanger Jews worldwide, is described as an "eighth front" that cannot be a secondary priority.

If the campaign to delegitimize Israel, isolate it from allies, influence American politics, radicalize university campuses, and endanger Jews worldwide constitutes what many now call an “eighth front,” then cognitive warfare cannot remain a secondary priority.

— Ariella RoitmanDefining the scope and threat of cognitive warfare against Israel.

Accepting cognitive warfare as a national security issue has significant consequences. Actions that could materially damage Israel on this "cognitive battlefield" must be treated as national security events, regardless of the perpetrator's intentions. This principle is applied to the recent incident involving MK Zvi Sukkot, who participated in demolishing a Palestinian monument near Nablus under IDF protection.

The author expresses greater concern over the Israeli government's response than Sukkot's actions themselves. While the IDF stated Sukkot acted "without authority" and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu condemned the incident, with Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich reportedly reprimanding Sukkot, the opinion piece questions the sufficiency of such responses. "Not to do it again?" the author asks, implying these measures fall short if cognitive warfare is truly a national security concern.

Actions capable of materially damaging Israel on the cognitive battlefield must be judged as national-security events, even when the person taking them believes passionately that he is defending Israel.

— Ariella RoitmanEstablishing the principle for evaluating actions in the cognitive domain.

Drawing a stark comparison, the article likens Sukkot's actions to those of peace activist Mordechai Vanunu, who disclosed sensitive information about Israel's nuclear program. While acknowledging the difference in statutory offenses, the author suggests the underlying violation is similar: an individual taking it upon themselves to decide how entrusted national security assets or information are used. "But the distinction may be more one of degree than kind than we are comfortable acknowledging," the piece states.

Not to do it again?

— Ariella RoitmanQuestioning the adequacy of the government's response to MK Zvi Sukkot's actions.

The core issue, as presented, is that individuals should not have the right to make unilateral decisions that risk Israel's strategic interests. The potential damage from such actions, whether it involves demolishing a monument or revealing state secrets, could be irreparable, far exceeding the impact of traditional public relations efforts like "hasbara."

But the distinction may be more one of degree than kind than we are comfortable acknowledging.

— Ariella RoitmanComparing MK Zvi Sukkot's actions to Mordechai Vanunu's disclosure of nuclear secrets.
About this summary

Originally published by Jerusalem Post in English. Translated, summarized, and contextualized automatically by DistantNews, with a note on how the source frames the story. Not individually reviewed before publishing. How this works.

More Stories

From Our Blog