Publications

On October 24-25, 2021, the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) held the third annual international conference of the Lipkin-Shahak Program on National Security and Democracy in an Age of Post-Truth and Fake News. The conference dealt with the connection between truth, trust, and national security, and included four panels that discussed: regulation of the technology giants in Israel and the United States; the concept of victory in wars over cognition, and which side triumphed in Operation Guardian of the Walls; the connection between the degree of secrecy and public trust in the Israeli security establishment; and the tension between experts and the general public given the possibility of access to information in the digital age. In addition, five interviews were conducted with experts and senior figures from Israel and around the world. Journalist Tali Lipkin-Shahak interviewed incoming IDF spokesman Brig. Gen. Ran Kochav on his role in the cognitive battle and public trust in the IDF, and INSS researchers spoke with Taiwanese Digital Minister Audrey Tang about combating disinformation on the internet; Minister of Communications Dr. Yoaz Hendel about state sovereignty versus the power of the technology giants; former IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. (ret.) Gadi Eisenkot about his concept of the cognitive effort as an element of national security; and Minister of Diaspora Affairs (and former IDF spokesman) Dr. Nachman Shai about the cognitive battle in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Conference Sessions

Israel and the Technology Giants: Who is the Boss?

In the framework of a discussion on the global perspective on regulation of the technology giants in the United States and the rest of the world, the session aimed to determine the steps that Israel must take in order to protect its strategic interests. Participants in the session, which was moderated by INSS researcher Dr. Tomer Shadmy, included Israel Consumer Protection and Fair Trade Authority Director Adv. Michael Atlan, Prof. Michael Birnhack from the Tel Aviv University Faculty of Law, Israel Internet Association CEO Yoram Hacohen, Prof. Orly Lobel from the University of San Diego, Israel Internet Association President Prof. Karine Nahon, "The Big Picture" – Tech Strategy Podcast co-host Nir Sabato, former Ministry of Justice Director General Adv. Emi Palmor, and The Marker editor-founder Guy Rolnick.

The discussion noted that the United States was not striving to completely "dismantle" the technology giants; rather, it was trying to reconceptualize power and competition in order to reduce through business restrictions the power that they can exert. It was noted that while most of the technology giants are currently American companies, TikTok (whose market power is growing) is a Chinese company, which poses a challenge to Western regulation. It therefore appears that the question of the information and technology giants requires broad and profound strategic thinking.

The participants in the session were asked to address the question of self-regulation by the giants: whether it is effective, and the degree of sovereignty retained by Israel with respect to the giants operating within its territory. Most participants felt that regulation should not be left to the technology giants, and that the state should intervene. At the same time, opinions were divided on the question of whether Israel possessed the power to contend with the technology giants. On the one hand, it was argued that Israel was a small country among many in which the giants operate, which limits its power over them, especially following a prolonged period of repeated election campaigns that weakened the regulatory agencies. Others argued that the experience of other countries showed that the technology giants were unable or unwilling to leave local markets and to engage in confrontations, sparked by attempts at regulation, with the governments of the local countries.

Furthermore, various areas were mapped in which the interests and rights of Israel and Israelis were affected by the technology giants, ranging from freedom of expression and extremism to infrastructure – the creation of data centers, underground cables, and their effect on local industry and Israel's strategic interests. The discussion showed that the state agencies in Israel do not address the matters of principle arising from regulation of the technology giants; considerations of immediate economic profit sometimes take precedence over long-term strategic considerations involving the effects on society and the economy as a whole.

Finally, the urgent measures that Israel should take at this time were discussed, in order to protect the rights and interests of its citizens in the digital spheres. The measures mentioned included the establishment of an investigative committee against the technology giants, revision of privacy legislation and the Consumer Protection Law, taxation, cooperation with other countries, and expansion of civil and academic discourse on developing a general strategy for dealing with the information corporations.

Israel's Influence Wars: Who is Winning?

The session focused on Israel's influence wars, specifically in Operation Guardian of the Walls in May 2021, in order to clarify what victory in wars consists of beyond the physical battlefield, and how each of the sides understands, defines, and measures it. Participants in the discussion, moderated by INSS researcher David Siman-Tov, included former IDF Operations Directorate Commander Maj. Gen. (res.) Nitzan Alon, Deputy Director General of Public Diplomacy in the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs Noam Katz, former head of the National Information Directorate in the Prime Minister's Office Yarden Vatikay, American Jewish Committee Jerusalem Director Lt. Col. (res.) Avital Leibovich, digital cognition researcher Noam Manella, former Ministry of Strategic Affairs Brig. Gen. (res.) Yossi Kuperwasser, Reichman University Head of Digital Influence & Perceptions Specialization Dr. Moran Yarchi, and Dr. Or Barak from the National Security Studies Center at the University of Haifa.

The consensus in the discussion was that there was a conceptual gap between Israel and Hamas about what war is, and about the attitude toward the cognitive war. In theory, it appears that Israel conducts military operations with cognitive aspects, while Hamas conducts cognitive operations that also have military aspects. Although Hamas has utilized this strategy for years, Israel has neither adapted its combat doctrine to Hamas's mode of operation nor gathered good intelligence in this context, and is therefore unable to provide a suitable response. As part of this strategy, Hamas, unlike Israel, tailors its messages to its different target audiences, and delivers them effectively. Israel, on the other hand, has no "single voice"; it has many voices, which sometimes broadcast conflicting messages. For example, an IDF spokesman addresses the Israeli audience in Hebrew, but these messages are translated into other languages, and sometimes reach other audiences in a way that detracts from Israel's efforts. The question of the IDF spokesman's role was also discussed. It appears that he is subject to a concept of military victory, whose messages do not constitute a response to Hamas's messages aimed at the civilian, emotional, and personal aspect (a "David and Goliath" narrative). Furthermore, it appears that Hamas has been able to leverage the social media platforms, and has gained expertise in recruiting and utilizing personnel.

Thus it appears that Hamas, to its great satisfaction, has derived considerable accomplishments from the campaign, while Israel was disappointed with the cognitive aspects of the operation. With time, however, some of Hamas's achievements have faded, specifically the linkage between Israel’s Arab citizens and the issue of Jerusalem, while the Gaza Strip is resuming its place as the focus of attention for both sides.

The discussion also noted that Israel must assess what achievements are viable for it, because it is possible that the expectation of victory is unrealistic. The gaps in personnel, building the narrative, the concept of victory, expertise in the use of various platforms, and the way that the international theater behaves all require a sober evaluation of the constraints imposed by Israel's situation. No specific actions can narrow the gap between Israel and Hamas or lead to a convincing victory; it is necessary to abandon any expectation that such actions can be found or created.

The lessons proposed for Israel include: increasing coordination between government ministries, the IDF, and civil organizations; changing terminology, so that it will not play into Hamas's hands; networked and decentralized action that will enable civilians in Israel and around the world who support Israel to take part; periodic revision of Israeli concepts in the cognitive realm; formation of an overall strategy that combines the cognitive aspect with other efforts (e.g., it was agreed that the destruction of the AP building in the Gaza Strip during Operation Guardian of the Walls was a mistake; this act was also described as a "cognitive attack").

Transparency versus National Security: Whom Should We Believe?

The session focused on the question of whether Israeli society suffers from excessive secrecy. The participants were asked to delineate the optimal balance between preservation of national security and the growing demand for democratic transparency in Israel. The social effect of security affairs that have had a public impact in recent years was also discussed. Participants in the discussion, which was moderated by INSS Deputy Director for Research and Analysis Brig. Gen. (ret.) Itai Brun, included INSS Senior Research Fellow and former MK Ofer Shelah, former Chief Military Censor Brigadier General (res.) Sima Vaknin Gil, Israel Democracy Institute senior fellow Dr. Tehilla Shwartz Altshuler, Union of Journalists in Israel chairman and Galei Tzahal journalist Nurit Canetti, Haaretz journalist Noa Landau, publicist and criminal and human rights lawyer Adv. Avigdor Feldman, and independent journalist and activist Or-ly Barlev.

The first question raised was how the limits of secrecy versus the principles of transparency and public discussion of defense issues are established. The discussion showed that there was a need to examine the discourse on the subject of transparency and secrecy as part of a broad Israeli culture in which information is relayed only on a “need to know” basis. It was asserted that the authorities in Israel and elected officials commonly believe that the professional information in their possession is private, not public, property. A number of public watchdogs whose work reflects this idea were mentioned. It was proposed first of all to reconsider the model whereby military censorship operates in Israel, because the "near certainty" criterion (the legal test determined in a Supreme Court ruling on the need for near certainty of damage to state security in order to restrict freedom of expression) is subjective, and therefore subject to the military censor's interpretation and personal taste. Second, it was argued that many spokesmen in the public sector regard it as their duty to defend the good name of the institutions to which they belong, instead of providing the public with factual information. The IDF spokesman was cited as an example of this. The method for accessing the right to information, which requires the investment of substantial resources (such as time and money) by civilians and media seeking to establish professional information, was also mentioned. This method basically categorizes the information as belonging to the government, and puts the responsibility for requesting it on private citizens. It thereby enables the authorities to disregard transparency, which they have no motive to increase.

Another issue raised was whether secrecy in Israel was excessive. On the one hand, the speakers agreed that extra secrecy was necessary in certain areas, meaning "core secrets." On the other hand, it was asserted that the establishment unnecessarily treated many matters as secret, for example IDF human resources. At the same time, it appears that the public itself is not demanding more transparency from the establishment, and takes a nationalistic attitude toward concealment in the name of security considerations. In the context of protecting the public's right to know, an attitude toward secret information as serving a political function and creating an exclusive "members club" was mentioned. The gap between lauding preservation of "the secret" and the way in which those aware of the secret keep the information for which they are responsible was cited as evidence.

Another subject of discussion was the role of the media in covering and publishing sensitive affairs. It was asserted that there was an Israeli tradition of cooperation between the media and security elites. It was proposed that the media's voluntary cooperation with military censorship was in some sense an Israeli phenomenon, possible due to the fact that Israel is a “nation in arms” – in sociological terms, a society that sees itself as mobilizing in service of national objectives, whatever they may be – as well as the personal background of journalists in the IDF. It was also stated that the media's compliance with military censorship was related not only to journalists, but also to the nature of the media themselves – the Galaei Tzahal (Army Radio) station, for example, which refrains from violating military censorship, while failure to comply with such censorship is liable to damage the public image of other platforms.

Finally, the ability to maintain secrecy in the digital age was discussed. Many speakers agreed that secrets could still be kept, despite the challenges posed by the digital age, given the means and readiness to do so. Nevertheless, some occurrences and events are bound to surface eventually, and the effort to censor them has a negative impact on public confidence and casts the censoring institutions in a bad light. This point raised the question of whether censorship enhances or detracts from public confidence in the establishment, since excessive and unrealistic secrecy when the facts will inevitably be exposed generates the opposite of confidence. Furthermore, it was mentioned that in many cases, the politicians themselves are actually the biggest threat to maintaining secrecy in Israel.

Democratization of Information: Who Knows What?

This session dealt with the question of the data needed for making decisions, the effect of transparency of data on public trust, and the growth of civil social entities engaging in the gathering, analysis, and sharing of knowledge. Participants in the discussion, which was moderated by INSS researcher Inbal Orpaz, included former Ministry of Health Director General Moshe Bar Siman Tov, "Little Moiz" Twitter Account Manager Eldad Sitbon, "Fake Reporter" enterprise CEO Achiya Schatz, former Israel Association of Public Health Physicians Chairman Prof. Hagai Levine, Movement for Freedom of Information CEO Adv. Rachely Edri-Hulata, Haaretz military correspondent Amos Harel, and Israel Coronavirus National Information and Knowledge Center founder Colonel Nir Saad.

At the outset of the session, two new models of concerns of this type were presented – the Little Moiz Twitter account, which analyzes data related to the COVID-19 pandemic, and Fake Reporter, which exposes fictitious users and foreign influence networks that use the social networks, based on reports from the public at large (i.e., through the use of wisdom of the crowd).

Later in the discussion, speakers from the media and civil society spoke about the effects of breaking the official organs' information monopoly, and attempted to understand whether this was a positive development or an inevitable one liable to pose a danger to the public. Most of the participants agreed that it was a positive and healthy result from the standpoint of public confidence that was making good use of digital age developments and the power of the masses. At the same time, changes resulting from the irrelevance of concepts such as "censorship" and "gag order" in the digital age, including in sensitive security matters, were emphasized. It is clear that Israel has not yet adapted its public relations efforts to the current era. For example, how are casualties reported to families at a time when rumors are spread immediately through the social networks?

In sum, the question of how the next war will appear was discussed, given the fact that civil parties also gather and share information on matters pertaining to national security, sometimes to the detriment of state needs and the preferences of the official institutions.

Interviews

Former IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. (ret.) and INSS Senior Research Fellow Gadi Eisenkot: INSS Deputy Director for Research and Analysis Brig. Gen. (ret.) Itai Brun spoke with former IDF Chief of Staff Gadi Eisenkot about the IDF's influence efforts and what can be achieved through them. Eisenkot emphasized that a distinction should be made between "public diplomacy" and "cognition." While public diplomacy refers to mediation of reliable and real information for the Israeli public, "cognition" describes efforts directed against the enemy for the purpose of strengthening deterrence, in which manipulation is likely to be legitimate. The discussion showed that it was necessary to design the IDF's influence strategy, particularly in view of the information revolution and the tensions between the question of influence and the set of concepts in a democratic country. It was also emphasized that cognitive efforts should be accompanied by physical measures, and cannot be maintained independently of the latter.

Minister of Diaspora Affairs and coronavirus cabinet member Dr. Nachman Shai: The interview by INSS Deputy Director for Research and Analysis Brig. Gen. (ret.) Itai Brun and INSS researcher Inbal Orpaz with Minister of Diaspora Affairs Dr. Nachman Shai showed that the loss of the information monopoly in the digital age was beneficial to civil society, because access to information is a democratic development. At the same time, this development poses a challenge to the state, which does not control the information reaching the public, and must therefore find new ways to consolidate relations of trust with it. It was proposed that full transparency was a means of dealing with this challenge in order to gain support for the government from most of the public. Such a policy, however, collides with principles such as privacy, and this tension should be addressed. According to Shai, public confidence is the key to handling the national challenges facing Israel, and it is necessary to find a solution for the general problem of how to achieve it in the information era.

IDF spokesman Brig. Gen. Ran Kochav: Galei Tzahal journalist Tali Lipkin-Shahak spoke with Brig. Gen. Ran Kochav about the tension between telling the truth, telling all of the truth, and distorting the truth in the framework of cognitive efforts – tension that affects the IDF spokesman. The IDF spokesman emphasized that this job was to tell only the truth, rather than any particular manipulative cognitive effort. The IDF spokesman also emphasized he was the spokesman for the army, and that his role was to bring the army's voice to the relevant target audiences in Israel and worldwide.

Taiwanese Digital Minister Audrey Tang: In the interview, which was conducted by INSS Deputy Director for Research and Analysis Brig. Gen. (ret.) Itai Brun and INSS researcher Dr. Tomer Shadmy, Taiwan's strategy for handling disinformation on the web was discussed. It was emphasized that Taiwan regarded national security and transparency as complementary, not conflicting; its motto is "national security through transparency." A governmental network was accordingly established for inviting citizens to be involved in the budget and regulation, and to write to and visit government ministers and organize social initiatives and petitions. It was also revealed that the Facebook network was not a suitable platform for proper civil discussion; this should not be expected from it, and alternatives to it should be created.

Minister of Communications Dr. Yoaz Hendel: In the interview, conducted by INSS Deputy Director for Research and Analysis Brig. Gen. (ret.) Itai Brun, the relationship between Israel and the technology giants was discussed. Addressing the question of regulation, Hendel stated that a more basic question that should be analyzed was exactly what media were, because it appeared that the technology giants meet this definition. They must therefore obey the laws applying to the other media, including those concerning the published content. The minister added that together with his hopes that regulation of the social networks would be with their consent, in the tension between the interests of the technology giants and those of Israeli citizens, the latter were his highest priority.

Simulation – The "Deepfake" Threat

The results of a simulation conducted as part of an INSS study about the use of deepfake technology, led by Dr. Liran Antebi, were presented at the conference. As part of the simulation, experts from various fields were confronted with a scenario of distribution of a deepfake social networks video clip leading to violence in Israel. The discussion focused on the effectiveness of possible responses to this scenario in real time, and on formulating recommendations for handling it in the future. Some of the participants believed that the truth was the strongest tool for dealing with a forgery, and that it should be presented to the public with the help of evidence. In contrast, others doubted the effectiveness of this approach, and proposed using deepfake attack tools in order to demonstrate how easy it is to use this tool for fraudulent purposes, and in order to ridicule the attackers. The main insight gained from this simulation was that the country was currently not prepared to cope with such a scenario. Nevertheless, it is unclear whether this lack of preparedness results from the newness of the challenge posed by deepfake technology, or whether the challenge results from familiar aspects of disinformation, i.e., unstoppable methods of dissemination. Given the complexity and severity of the threat, there is a need for advance preparation in education, law, and regulation, which has not yet taken place in Israel.

Conclusion

The main insights gained from the discussions at the conference sessions are as follows:

Relations between Israel and the technology giants: Self-regulation by the technology giants should not be relied on; state regulation of the social networks is necessary in order to reach a balance between the interests of the information corporations, the state, and ordinary people. It is possible that specific regulation of emerging phenomena on the social networks (among them revision of the privacy and consumer protection laws) will be more effective than an attempt to deal with the information giants as a single bloc, especially in view of the difficulty in formulating a general strategy for this. Breaking the challenge up into its different elements in order to map Israel's important interests will facilitate negotiations with the information corporations on specific issues, and will lead to cooperation on the relevant matters with other countries.

Victory in the influence wars: The significance of the concepts in influence efforts is not completely clear, resulting in a lack of uniformity in approaches and practices by those engaging in such efforts. Indeed, the lack of coordination in Israel's efforts creates dissonance between the messages that it seeks to deliver, and has a negative impact on its efforts. It appears that there is a need to develop a holistic and measurable approach to influence efforts that will enable groups in civil society, the security forces, and the various government bodies to work together in order to amalgamate physical and cognitive efforts into effective influence. This approach must also address the issues arising from the influence discipline, which can collide with democratic principles.

Tension between transparency and national security: There is a need for a better balance between secrecy and transparency in security matters. At the same time, it appears that the security establishment enjoys a high degree of trust among the public, despite (and perhaps because of) the absence of transparency, even in the face of assertions that keeping a secret sometimes serves political interests. It is therefore possible that instead of a direct attempt to reduce the power of the secrecy mechanisms, the mechanisms and players seeking to challenge them can be strengthened. For example, encouraging independent media, social involvement, and academic discourse on the subject will pose an alternative to the existing national security ethos by presenting and examining new ideas as part of the discourse taking place in a democratic country.

Democratization of information in the digital age: Public access to information is a positive and healthy development in a democratic country, despite the challenge that it poses to state agencies. It may be possible to increase it by imparting data and digital information skills to the public in order to enhance its involvement in democratic life. Guarding sensitive information, which is now more exposed than ever before, will also contribute to better education in this context, and will instill principles for responsible use of information. It is possible that the state will find it necessary to address the question of how to communicate with the public, and which mechanisms to develop in order to guard sensitive information (for example, certain search engines provide access to aerial photographs of military bases).

Questions for further research formulated at the conclusion of the conference: How can a strategy be built that amalgamates cognitive efforts tailored to different target audiences and the different state bureaucracies? In which areas can and should Israel cooperate with other countries and with the technologies giants in order to promote regulation of the giants in a way that will serve their interests? How can Western democracies in general, and Israel in particular, establish relations of confidence with their citizens, given the challenges of the information age? Is transparency really a significant factor in the confidence that the public has in the security agencies, and what other factors also play an important role in this?