The global war to delegitimize Israel: The war for which Israel built no shelters - opinion

Israel has built one of the most sophisticated national security systems in human history.

We have developed world-class intelligence capabilities, layered missile defenses, cyber expertise, elite special forces, and an extraordinary culture of innovation.

Our enemies have repeatedly discovered that they cannot easily defeat us on the battlefield. So, they have increasingly shifted the battlefield.

It is a coordinated campaign of narratives, disinformation, lawfare, diplomatic isolation, media manipulation, and psychological warfare aimed not at our territory but at our legitimacy.

The accompanying illustration depicts this reality.

The missiles falling over Israel are not explosives. They are accusations: “Genocide,” “war crimes,” “apartheid,” “ethnic cleansing,” “sanctions,” “international isolation,” and “From the River to the Sea.”

They represent the messages, campaigns, and narratives launched through governments, international institutions, media outlets, universities, activists, influencers, and social media platforms.

Unlike conventional missiles, there are no shelters for these attacks.

That should concern every Israeli.

Since October 7, Israel has fought on multiple military fronts. Yet there is another front that receives far less attention despite its strategic significance: what many now refer to as the Eighth Front – the campaign to delegitimize the State of Israel.

It now operates globally and continuously, with significant investment and political support from the likes of Qatar, Iran, Russia, and China, and the “Red Green Alliance.”

Military victories can secure borders.

They cannot by themselves restore legitimacy once it has been eroded.

That is precisely why this front deserves to be treated as a national security issue rather than merely a public relations challenge.

The most troubling part of the cartoon is not the incoming missiles.

It is the dialogue inside the bunker.

One officer remarks: “To be fair, the warning sirens have been sounding for years. No one paid attention.”

There is uncomfortable truth in that observation.

For years, many researchers, diplomats, Jewish organizations, and communications professionals have warned that Israel was steadily losing ground in the battle for international public opinion.

Too often these warnings were viewed as secondary to more immediate military threats. But public opinion is not merely about image.

It influences elections.

It shapes diplomatic alliances.

It affects military assistance.

It influences sanctions, trade, investment, tourism, academic cooperation, and international legal initiatives.

Narratives ultimately influence policy.

Recent polling suggests that attitudes toward Israel have become significantly more negative in several Western democracies, particularly among younger generations.

Surveys have also shown widening partisan differences in the United States, with support for Israel weakening even among Republicans, as has been made overwhelmingly clear with the public statements by the vice president of America, who aspires to be the next president.

Even among some traditionally supportive constituencies, including younger Evangelical Christians, support appears less automatic than it once was.

Reasonable people can debate the causes.

They should not ignore the trend.

Israel’s strategic alliance with the United States rests on shared interests, but long-term democratic support is strengthened when public opinion remains resilient.

If public legitimacy weakens substantially over time, policymakers inevitably operate within a more constrained political environment.

Throughout history, military campaigns have often been accompanied by propaganda. Today’s environment is fundamentally different.

Social media allows falsehoods to spread globally within minutes.

Artificial intelligence enables convincing fabricated content.

Universities, influencers, international institutions, NGOs, television networks, legal forums, and online communities all participate – sometimes intentionally, sometimes unintentionally – in shaping global perceptions.

The objective is not simply criticism of Israeli policy.

Criticism is legitimate in any democracy.

The objective, in many cases, is something broader: to redefine Israel itself as uniquely illegitimate.

That distinction matters.

A democracy can survive criticism.

It cannot easily survive systematic delegitimization.

Nor was it meant to.

While every missile is inherently malicious, not every criticism of Israel is unfair or malicious.

Rather, we need to acknowledge that democracies, especially ours, require a government institution with the same prioritization as our Defense Ministry, capable of competing effectively within the modern information environment, and ever more so, as we are under attack.

Israel invested decades in developing missile defense.

Have we invested comparably in defending truth, credibility, strategic communications, digital influence, and international engagement?

The answer is embarrassingly far less clear.

It would be unfair to suggest that government ministries, NGOs, universities, think tanks, Diaspora organizations, and volunteers have done nothing. Many people have devoted enormous effort to defending Israel internationally.

The problem is not the absence of commitment.

Too often, initiatives operate independently, responding tactically rather than strategically.

There is no widely recognized national framework that aligns research, communications, diplomacy, civil society, technology, and international partnerships around common objectives.

Israel coordinates military campaigns across multiple fronts.

It should aspire to coordinate its cognitive defense with a similar discipline.

Several months ago, I wrote that Boaz Bismuth, the chairman of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, should examine this challenge as a matter of national security.

I addressed him, knowing that he had the right extensive communications background and drive to make a difference.

Since then, in the midst of all the other pressing matters, he has agreed to make this an issue to be reviewed by the committee.

Whether we reach a proposal in the first attempt is less important than acknowledging that the discussion itself is overdue and must eventually reach a conclusion.

This conversation should not belong to one political party.

Nor should it become another ideological battleground.

Israel’s legitimacy belongs to every Israeli.

Protecting it should be viewed as a national mission.

We are challenged.

We adapt.

We innovate.

We learn.

We grow.

When faced with new military threats, we developed new capabilities.

The challenge before us now is different but no less consequential.

We need institutions that monitor narrative threats as seriously as missile launches. We need greater cooperation between government, academia, civil society, technology experts, the media, and Jewish communities worldwide.

We need better measurement of influence, improved coordination, and sustained investment in long-term strategic communications. Most importantly, we must recognize that this is not merely a communications problem.

It is a strategic existential one.

The cartoon’s title captures the central message: “The War for Which Israel Built No Shelters.”

The good news is that shelters can still be built.

The good news is that we know how to defend ourselves, lessening the need for shelters.

But only after we acknowledge that the missiles are already falling can we demand that the government build us the needed shelters and take this fight for our legitimacy seriously.