No politician has the right to risk Israel’s national security - opinion

Israeli politicians must understand that their decisions carry profound implications for the nation's security, according to a prominent opinion piece published by The Jerusalem Post. The author argues that the cognitive battle, encompassing efforts to delegitimize Israel, isolate it from allies, influence American politics, radicalize university campuses, and endanger Jews globally, has evolved into a critical national-security concern. The writer emphasizes that actions on this front, even if motivated by a desire to protect Israel, must be treated as matters of state. The controversy centers around MK Zvi Sukkot, who recently led a group in demolishing a Palestinian monument in Kafr Madama near Nablus. According to reports, Sukkot entered the area under the protection of the Israeli military and participated in the destruction of the structure, which was perceived as honoring terrorists. The Israeli Defense Forces stated that soldiers were temporarily diverted from operational duties for what they believed was an authorized tour. However, Sukkot allegedly exceeded his authority and acted independently. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu publicly criticized the incident, while Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich reportedly warned Sukkot against repeating such behavior. The writer draws a parallel between Sukkot’s actions and the case of Mordechai Vanunu, a peace activist who disclosed classified information about Israel’s nuclear program. Vanunu was convicted and served over a decade in prison for violating national security protocols. While Sukkot did not expose sensitive intelligence, the writer suggests the underlying principle remains similar: individuals within the national-security apparatus must not unilaterally determine how state power is applied. The argument extends to the cognitive battlefield, where decisions made by officials can impact Israel’s international standing, diplomatic relations, and global legitimacy. The writer highlights that the issue transcends political affiliations. In May 2025, Yair Golan, leader of the Democrats Party, expressed concerns that Israel was moving toward becoming a "pariah state." Such statements underscore the growing perception that certain political figures are undermining Israel’s strategic interests through rhetoric and action. The writer stresses that elected officials, especially those with access to national-security resources, must recognize the broader ramifications of their choices. The incident raises questions about accountability and oversight within the Israeli government. If cognitive warfare is considered a legitimate national-security concern, then individuals acting in this domain must be held to the same standards as those operating in traditional military or intelligence roles. The writer argues that no citizen, particularly an elected representative, should assume unilateral authority over decisions that could compromise Israel’s relationships with key allies, its diplomatic standing, and the safety of Jewish communities worldwide. The situation also reflects deeper tensions within Israeli society regarding the balance between national security and civil liberties. While the government has historically maintained strict control over military and intelligence operations, there appears to be increasing pressure on officials to act independently in areas perceived as critical to national identity and survival. The writer warns that such autonomy risks eroding the institutional safeguards designed to protect the state from internal threats. As the debate continues, the focus remains on whether the Israeli government will adopt a more unified approach to managing both physical and cognitive security threats. The incident involving Sukkot serves as a catalyst for further discussion on the responsibilities of public officials and the mechanisms in place to ensure that national-security decisions are made collectively rather than individually. The outcome of these discussions could shape the future direction of Israel’s foreign and domestic policies.