Countermeasures Against UN Influence Operations

As we lose the digital war, we must urgently adopt aggressive tactics against UN individuals who abuse their positions to indirectly support enemy forces, intensifying our information warfare efforts to target their narratives and activities.
Illustration of Recent Social Media Bias
The UN’s inadequate response to Hezbollah attacks, including under Security Council Resolution 1701—contrasted with its vigorous campaign against Israel’s counter-offensive—exemplifies its bias. This is particularly evident in its opportunistic social media narrative, which shifted to intensely advocate for peace solely in response to Israel’s actions.
Furthermore, despite Israel’s repeated warnings about the dangers to peacekeepers and the need for their repositioning, the UN asserted that it was not obligated to heed these warnings, pressuring Israel while disregarding the context of its self-defense. By “pinning” that war is never the answer on its social media account, the UN fails to acknowledge that fighting back is sometimes necessary to avoid greater harm.
UN personnel used social media to amplify claims that ‘attacks on health facilities are a violation of international humanitarian law,’ which lack the necessary legal context. If those facilities are used by Hezbollah for military purposes, they could be considered legitimate military objectives under Article 52 of the Geneva Protocol I. The UN’s failure to conduct thorough legal investigations before amplifying these claims suggests a bias rather than a commitment to neutrality; it underscores that the account is intended to harm Israel’s legitimacy rather than ensure its communications are grounded in verified facts and legal clarity. This is intended to influence international perception against Israel.
Israel Must Exercise Proportionately Aggressive Countermeasures
Responding to biased social media posts from UN accounts or those managed in the name of the Secretary-General is often ineffective, providing only temporary satisfaction. It simply does not scale. There are far too many antisemites using it as an echo chamber to justify disinformation. Technology and AI can be leveraged by both sides, making it a zero-sum game; neither side will decisively control the narrative, and public trust will erode.
For however important it may be to deploy a multi-faceted strategy that combines technological parity, soft power, alliances, and preemptive action, it merely levels the playing field and ultimately results in a resource-depleting arms race. We cannot win a war of attrition any more effectively in the digital realm than on the ground. And this certainly cannot be a strategic priority while they are already significantly impacing Israel’s operational capabilities during an existential Seven Front War.
Our immediate focus must be on launching proportionate but aggressive cyber operations against those misusing their positions at the UN, while assigning personnel to identify and disrupt biased narratives. This could involve temporary disabling their accounts or disrupting communications, altering the content being shared, or leaking internal communications that expose biases. It may involve creating confusion, deploying bots to counteract their messaging in real-time, or ensuring that pro-Israel perspectives gain visibility to counter their tactics.
Israel has the same rights as any other country to use countermeasures against these individuals to take proportionate actions to induce compliance from the United Nations without resorting to outright attacks, especially if UN personnel are promoting narratives to aid adversaries. I urge strictly necessary responses that do not foreseeably cause excessive harm in relation to the military advantage gained.
Israel’s Legal Right to Exercise Proportionately Aggressive Countermeasure
Article 51 of the UN Charter affirms the right to self-defense, a principle grounded in natural law asserting that states and individuals have an inherent right to protect themselves. Philosophers like Thomas Aquinas emphasize that self-defense is a fundamental and universally applicable principle.
Notably, UNWRA recklessly failed to screen a significant number of Hamas terrorists who attacked on October 7. While UN officials generally enjoy immunity under Article 105, this does not exempt them from accountability for serious misconduct, such as sexual crimes, kickbacks, and negligence, such as causing a Cholera outbreak in Haiti that killed over 10,000 people; the International Law Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility asserts that their conduct can lead to state accountability for violations of international law. Additionally, the Rome Statute of the ICC asserts that official capacity does not exempt individuals from criminal liability (Rome Statute, Article 27), reinforcing the necessity for accountability, especially regarding indirect participation in hostilities.
Critics may challenge the legality of these countermeasures, citing UN officials’ immunity. However, this view overlooks natural law, which holds that self-defense is a fundamental right transcending legal boundaries. This reinforces Israel’s moral duty and legal obligation to act decisively when confronted with hostile narratives or actions from UN social-media-influence campaigns.
The evolving nature of international law increasingly recognizes the need for accountability when non-state actors, including individuals affiliated with international organizations, contribute to violations of international norms. This discourse supports the idea that states can and should take countermeasures against individuals whose actions threaten international peace and security.
Thus, targeted and proportionate information warfare tactics, including temporary cyber disruptions against UN personnel supporting adversaries, are legal and justified countermeasures to safeguard national security and ensure compliance from the United Nations. Israel’s stance could, in fact, help to establish a necessary precedent for accountability within international organizations.
Medium Terms Priorities Can Mostly Wait Until After the War
Ultimately, we can and should intensify our diplomatic efforts to lobby UN member states to condemn the actions of specific individuals and apply pressure for their removal or reassignment. This will mean targeting influential states that can sway opinion within the UN and encourage them to call out biased actions, thereby helping to isolate those individuals politically. We should even start now if we can, by launching campaigns to publicly discredit UN officials involved in biased actions by highlighting instances where they fail to uphold their duties. This would demonstrate how their actions contribute to anti-Israel sentiment and significantly impact Israel’s operational capabilities during this just war for its survival.
Israel Must Act Urgently to Combat Antisemitism at the UN