In the midst of the firestorm of anti-Jewish and anti-Israeli propaganda that has spread throughout the media, official spokespeople for the Israeli government have been on the frontlines of debunking lies. One spokesmen who has been lauded for his work is Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan Conricus, who served from July of 2017 through June of 2023.
After retiring from the military last June, the war in Gaza brought him back into the spotlight for some time as a reserve officer to once again defend Israel on the international stage. He returned to his private practice public relations agency at the end of December. He is also presently serving as a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies in Washington, DC.
I recently spoke with Jonathan Conricus to understand the inner workings of being a spokesperson for Israel.
You’ve been the voice of reason through maddening times. A lot of people miss you now that you retired.
Thank you. But I’m still active even though I’m no longer in uniform. My most recent interview before this one was yesterday; I did an hour on i24. So I’m still doing things, but the big US networks have kind of moved on. They don’t want IDF interviewees anymore.
You no longer speak in an official capacity, correct?
Correct. I finished my reserve duty a couple of weeks ago and now I’m just me. But I was never the only guy doing interviews with the American and English-language media. There were others as well, and one of them is still there. His name is Peter Lerner. He’s a very good spokesman. He has a lot of experience as well as a lovely English accent. Then there’s Lieutenant Colonel Richard Hecht, who has a Scottish accent. Richard Hecht is the new English-language IDF spokesperson.
How did you get the position of spokesperson in the first place?
When the massacre first happened, I reported for duty, and I told Richard Hecht, who’s a friend of mine, that I wanted him to be able to sleep at night, so I would do the night shift. I ended up doing a lot of interviews and got lots of publicity, and I was very happy about that. One thing led to another and that’s how it evolved. There was a big demand for interviews.
What were you doing before you became an IDF spokesperson?
I served in the army for 24 years, from the age of 18 until the age of 42. I’m 44 now. Since I completed my military service, I’ve been in strategic communications as a private citizen. I have a company that deals with public relations, crisis management and media training, along with a few other things.
You have an interesting accent in English, and it’s not Israeli. I guess you weren’t born in Israel. Is that correct?
I was born in Jerusalem, but you’re right about the accent because I grew up in Sweden. My family made aliyah when I was 13, so other than a few months after I was born, I spent my first 13 years in Malmo, in the south of Sweden.
You used the word “happy,” but I would imagine that being a spokesperson for the IDF isn’t exactly a joyful position, as it puts you on the receiving end of the mostly hostile media. How frustrating was that?
Of course it was frustrating at times. I don’t think that any Israeli spokesperson can do his job without being frustrated by the line of questioning, the tone, the inferences, the subtle and sometimes not-so-subtle allegations and falsehoods, as well as the double standards. Nonetheless, I saw it as a tremendous opportunity to fight for my country.
Both as an infantry soldier and in the court of public opinion.
As I said, I grew up in the IDF. Roughly half of my service was spent in the infantry and the other half as an officer. I have quite a lot of combat experience, both in Lebanon and in Gaza. I served in Gaza for five years as a platoon commander, a company commander, and a battalion operations officer, and I still remember the smells, sounds and feelings of the battlefield. But the battle for the narrative is also important. In fact, in today’s environment, the realm of public affairs can sometimes be even more important
As Netanyahu has vowed, Israel won’t stop until victory in this war is achieved. But how will Israel ever be able to declare victory in the public relations arena? With so many sworn enemies, it seems as if the deck is stacked against Israel.
I don’t like talking about losing, and I definitely don’t like to lose. I agree with your premise that Israel must succeed against overwhelming odds. It is simply a given that there is almost a consensus of animosity against Israel that is reflected in the international media. But you must never work under the assumption that you’re going to lose, because if you think that way, then there’s no point in it.
Then let’s talk about winning by swaying public perception.
What we try to do is focus our efforts where they matter the most, meaning the most important audiences, decision makers and key influencers, to get them to understand our perspective and why we need their help. What are our challenges? What is our rationale? Why do we do what we do? Once you’re able to narrow it down like that, you can have an impact.
I wish that everyone in the world could understand our complex situation, the fact that we are surrounded by murderous enemies, but clearly it never ends. Nonetheless, I believe that the State of Israel—including the IDF Spokesperson Unit—is doing a good job, although there are still many challenges and there isn’t a moment of respite.
In fact, when I compare our most recent efforts to engage international audiences and fight against the Palestinian-Hamas narrative, I’m very satisfied. We’re putting up a fight, whereas in the past it was often a technical defeat because Israel wasn’t even on the playing field. This time, thanks to many smart and motivated, proud Israelis, I think it’s going better.
Is there any way for you to quantify your impact? When you were serving as spokesperson, did you actually see any changes of hearts and minds, or was it the same uphill battle every day?
Yes, I did, and I’ll give you two important examples. One was the decision made by the IDF Spokesperson Unit to collect, analyze and then stitch together—not edit, because there wasn’t any editing—various parts of the camera footage that the terrorists had on them on October 7, the 47-minute so-called “horror movie” that shows the Hamas massacre. In my opinion that was brilliant, because it went to the heart of the kneejerk reaction by some, whether out of ignorance or laziness, that if there’s fighting in the Middle East, Israel is probably to blame and never mind the details. When we invited people to come and see the film, we saw the effect it had on their subsequent public statements, interviews, tweets and posture in general. Some individuals refrained from criticizing Israel as they had in the past, while others even went from being very nasty to actually supporting Israel after seeing the film.
I know that the UN secretary-general also saw that film. Do you believe that it had any effect at all, or is he completely heartless?
His words were very unfortunate, and I’m sure he regrets his early statements, such as that the attacks didn’t happen in a vacuum. I haven’t done an analysis of all of his tweets since he saw the film, but I think there was definitely a change of tone. It’s not something you can see and remain indifferent to afterwards, and he’s not the only one. I believe that at this point some 15,000 people have seen the film in private screenings around the world, including at Israeli embassies. It has also been shown in newsrooms, including that of The New York Times and CNN. People see it and it has an impact.
And the second example?
The second example, which is a very good one, relates to the Al-Ahli Hospital explosion in October. The Palestinians claimed that 500 people had been killed, then they changed it to 800 people. This led to riots in Amman, Cairo and Beirut, and the president had to cancel a summit. Once we were sure that it wasn’t our bomb that had exploded, the IDF did a relatively quick investigation into what really happened and we were able to deflate the lie that Hamas put out there.
After I had the information that the explosion had actually been caused by an Islamic Jihad rocket that misfired, I went on CNN, looked them in the eye and said so with confidence. If you recall, we even got some serious media organizations—the BBC and The New York Times—to issue apologies and to acknowledge that they shouldn’t have relied on Hamas as a source of truthful information. That was very important.
The media outlets are still reporting the number of civilians being killed in Gaza based on the numbers that are fed to them by Hamas, so the problem continues.
Yes, but the situation itself is rather complex. Yes, it’s bad that they’re using these numbers, but in all fairness, we aren’t providing them with anything else based on our own research. I can understand why they would use whatever is available, as they want to put out some kind of number. Some of them have a bias against Israel and don’t care if they’re accurate as long as they put Israel in a bad light, but not all of the media organizations are like that. Many of them just want a number they can use.
My recommendation to the IDF has been to start counting from day one and have a running tally of enemy combatants and non-combatants killed during the fighting, so at least there’s some competition between what Hamas is claiming and what we understand to be the truth.
What was their response? Why isn’t it being done?
Because it wasn’t done from the beginning, which means that it’s very difficult to have a baseline and find a number you can trust. Also, I don’t think that enough senior people were aware of how important this was. Had they thought about it, I think they would have come up with a mechanism to do it themselves.
How important is public relations for the army’s morale, or is the IDF successfully ignoring all the noise?
It certainly has an impact in an age when social media permeate so much of our lives. If your readers have the wisdom to be less exposed to it that’s a great thing, but most people are heavy consumers. Not only does it have an influence on the soldiers themselves, but it also has an influence on their families as well as our national morale. When Israelis see biased and unfair reporting it’s very frustrating, because they want Israel to be reflected fairly. No one has to think we’re perfect or that we never make mistakes, but we want people to know that we are on the right side of the battle, and we are fighting those who are on the wrong side—to put it in simple terms.
Is there a single target audience?
There are three, actually. The first and most important is the domestic audience. Then we also have the Arabic audience, meaning anyone who speaks Arabic, but particularly our closest enemies in Gaza, Judea and Samaria, Lebanon and Syria. Then there’s the international audience, and the IDF Spokesperson Unit has to balance the messaging between all three.
What would you say is the area in which you and your unit had the most impact?
My contribution was in focusing on the international audience. The Israelis were happy to finally see CNN showing how Hamas was building tunnels under Al-Shifa Hospital or hiding weapons in one of the clinics.
But in terms of being a household name in Israel, that would be Rear Admiral Daniel Hagari, the spokesperson for the IDF. Everyone recognizes him, and he’s had a tremendous impact on the State of Israel. People trust him and find him very honest and forthcoming, which are very important qualities for a spokesperson.
As if it didn’t have enough on its hands, Israel is now defending itself in The Hague from charges being brought by South Africa. What are your thoughts about fighting what might be a losing battle?
I don’t think that Israel will lose. Israel has a very strong case, and the allegations being brought against it are preposterous and abhorrent. It’s the theater of the absurd for Israel to be dragged to court when we are fighting to defend our civilians after we were attacked. I hope that the court will be fair. I know that the State of Israel is taking the challenge seriously. I understand that some of the best legal minds in the world are representing Israel, and I am comforted by that. Hopefully, we will be able to utilize the opportunity to tell the world—or at least those who are honest enough to listen—what it is that we are facing.
In truth, not only is it crucial that Israel win but it’s crucial for all of Western civilization that a terrorist organization that attacked a sovereign, democratic country be dismantled. Otherwise, in the same way that Israel has often been the first to contend with airplane hijackings, suicide bombers and other such things, the rest of the world will follow.
How would you say the war is going at the moment?
Let’s separate the southern and northern fronts. In the south, I believe that the IDF has done a tremendous job overall. They have faced the most challenging conditions that any Western military has ever faced in a densely-populated urban terrain fighting against an entrenched enemy. No other terrorist organization has ever used civilian infrastructure to fight against the military of a sovereign country. There is no comparison, not Mosul, not Ramadi, not Deir ez-Zor, Raqqa, Suez, or any of the battles in Afghanistan.
After the failings of October 7, a win is of utmost importance.
I am as proud of our actions during this war as I am ashamed of the horrible failure of October 7. It’s a mirror image. October 7 is a giant stain on the track record of the State of Israel and specifically the IDF, which we will have to work very hard to remove.
And in the north?
As far as the north is concerned, I think we are nearing a time when decisions will have to be made by the Israeli Cabinet on how to proceed so that Israeli citizens can go back to their homes. So far, it’s more of a diplomatic and statesman-level issue than a military one. We’ve been giving diplomacy a very long time to work, but if it doesn’t, Israel will have to take matters into its own hands and shape the environment.
One component that I think is missing has to do with Egypt. In my opinion, Israel has been much too lenient and accommodating of Egyptian dictates instead of demanding that they take responsibility for having allowed all of the weapons that were used to murder 1,200 Israelis on October 7, as well as all of the fighting since then, to come through their country. They bear at least partial responsibility for what happened.
Israel has said that Hamas must be totally destroyed. But the same logic would seemingly apply to Hezbollah, which is actually a more formidable threat to Israel’s security. Either you believe that you can’t live with terrorists on your borders, or you can.
I agree with your premise. I don’t think that we should live with terrorists on our borders, and I don’t think that Jews in the homeland of the Jewish people should be afraid of jihadi thugs coming into their homes and attacking them. I am of the belief that we should have a different strategy in the future, one that won’t tolerate the presence of jihadi extremists who openly work towards annihilating the State of Israel and killing Israelis in such close proximity. Then, of course, comes the question of what’s the best strategic environment in which to implement that. There are also other considerations, such as the availability of troops, timing, international events and political support, but it all starts with the principle of not having terrorists at our doorstep. Frankly, we shouldn’t tolerate it.
Now there’s another Iranian proxy, the Houthis in Yemen, who have been attacking other nations that also have an interest in defeating them. What are your thoughts on that?
When we rewind a bit and look at how and when the Houthis got involved, I see it as a reflection of Iran’s frustration that we were going to dismantle everything they had built in Gaza. Their response was to send the Houthis and try to throw Israel off balance through them. Fortunately, we have effective defense mechanisms. The Iranians probably thought that they would be able to be much more successful with attacks on Eilat and perhaps hit strategic targets, but baruch Hashem, we’ve been able to defend ourselves.
This is a good time to mention the tremendous importance of US troops in the region and specifically the USS Carney, which was the first ship to intercept incoming missiles and long-range drones from Yemen. The fact that US troops are deployed here adds another layer of security and is a stabilizing force that prevents further escalation. The fact that the Iranians are now actively threatening global trade is something that is detrimental to their image and will be held against them in the future. It may also lead to direct consequences, not necessarily by Israel but by other countries that are affected.
Iran in particular seem to be showing a lot of restraint in not engaging in direct conflict.
The Iranians excel—I think they’re the best in the world—at sending other ethnic groups to die on behalf of their interests. They’re happy to send expendable Palestinians, Sunnis, Azeris and even Shiites—whomever they have in their arsenal of proxies—to try to kill Israelis. And if they die in the process, the Iranians don’t get concerned. When you connect the dots of all of the violence, instability, suffering and misery in the Middle East, almost all of it goes back to Iran. They’re actually quite cowardly when it comes to fighting on their own. So I don’t believe that the Iranians have been showing restraint, they’re just extremely calculated. Their whole system is based on sending others to their deaths for them. Hopefully, in the future, we will see Israel take a much more proactive stance.
We’ve been talking about the past and the present; now let’s talk about the future. What will the “day after” look like?
I won’t say what I think will happen; instead, I’ll say what I hope will happen in Gaza. I hope that Israel will be able to totally dismantle Hamas militarily and take responsibility over rebuilding and cleansing the Gaza Strip of extremism. That’s a long-term project that will require establishing a structure and a functioning society. I hope that an international community led by the US but with the active buy-in and participation of the Saudis, the UAE and possibly Egypt will say, “Enough is enough with this heap of misery that has been the Gaza Strip. Let’s all help build something positive and turn Gaza into a role model. Let’s invest in local leadership. Let’s invest in infrastructure. Let’s invest in education for democracy, human values and tolerance. And let’s invest in the workforce and in hope for the future.”
If that starts to happen, there’s a chance that in a few years we will be living in a different environment. There will be prosperity for Gazans and it will be excellent for Israel. It will also send a very strong message to extremists around the world: “If you attack Israel, you will lose, and something very good will be built in your stead.” There are many moving parts involved, so it might not happen exactly like that. But I’m optimistic that the relevant powers will find the resources to pull this through. If it doesn’t happen, it will mean a long period of misery and suffering for everyone involved.
Some media outlets were reporting that Israel wants to set up some sort of tribal emirate in Gaza. Is there any accuracy to that?
The idea of relying on the traditional Arab model of governance—as currently exists in the UAE and existed in many areas before the nation states were founded—is an interesting option that should be given a fair hearing rather than automatically being taken off the table just because it doesn’t involve the Palestinian Authority.
Maybe the Palestinian Authority will be replaced as well.
Maybe, and it might be a very good thing for the Palestinians. We’ve been trying to work with the PA for 30 years, ever since Oslo, and so far they’ve been a complete and abysmal failure. They haven’t brought prosperity, statehood or even a functioning society. They are corrupt and despised by their own people, and at this stage they are certainly not a partner for building a positive future.
The option you referred to is an interesting one, as it relies on the cultural foundations of Arab society, which is based on the extended family and the clans. That is how they have governed for centuries. I don’t think it should be written off. There should be an honest discussion about it. My concern is that there are many people who are so heavily invested in political solutions that they aren’t able to think about anything else.
Most Westerners can only see the world from their own perspective. They have difficulty understanding that some cultures operate differently.
Yes, and they refuse to see what works and what doesn’t. When you impose a foreign structure on a society, the chances are very high that it won’t last. Afghanistan and Iraq are prime examples, and there are many other failed states where foreign ideas were imposed—nice ideas, good ideas, benign ideas, but ideas that were foreign to the culture—and they didn’t succeed.
I’ve always been impressed by your ability to be an articulate spokesperson, primarily because your answers are nuanced and people can detect the truth in them. You don’t dismiss the facts; you address them, and I appreciate that.
Thank you.
I see that you’re a scholar as well. Have you studied the Middle East from an academic perspective?
I have. In fact, I don’t know if this qualifies as a scoop, but I’m very excited about it and you’re the first journalist I’m telling: I’m going to be a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, the FDD, in Washington, DC. I’ll be researching and writing about many things related to the Middle East, including the Iranian axis of violence and terror, Israeli strategy, Middle Eastern politics and terrorist organizations. Hopefully, I’ll be able to share new and interesting perspectives with people. I studied Middle Eastern and Security Studies at Hebrew University, and I can read, write and speak Arabic. I’ve also studied the Koran, Islamic teachings and Muslim history and culture.
During my military service, I was the first Israeli officer to be seconded to the UN. I served on behalf of Israel at UN headquarters in New York City. I lived with my amazing wife and four children in Forest Hills during that time, which was great. I provided strategic military analysis of various areas in the world where the UN had peacekeeping missions, so I got to learn about other conflicts, which provided me with additional information and context for our own challenges.
As a scholar, are you surprised by the world’s reaction to the atrocities of October 7?
Which part of that reaction are you referring to?
The fact that Israel still has to defend itself in The Hague. That you had to deal with pushback on a nightly basis when so many innocent people were slaughtered so mercilessly.
I’m not surprised because I’ve been working in public affairs for quite a few years, but I am saddened. And what saddens me the most is when I see young people taking to the streets, chanting genocidal slogans against Jews and supporting a murderous terrorist organization. Many of these people are convinced that they are supporting the right side of the conflict, which only leads me to deduce how morally corrupt, confused or ill-informed they are. When people can openly identify with and support an organization that butchered, massacred and mutilated civilians and took men, women and children hostage, it’s truly appalling.
I’m not a historian, but to me it seems that the post-Holocaust era came to an end on October 7.
That’s very interesting. Why do you feel that way?
Up until then, there was a certain sympathy for Jews, or at least an attempt to conceal open anti-Semitism. But ever since October 7, it’s become not only acceptable but fashionable to express it.
That’s a very thoughtful and correct way of labeling it. I think we’ll be able to say that more definitely a few years from now, because eras can usually only be identified in retrospect, but I think your theory has a lot of merit.
I know that Israel has tried to draw a distinction between Hamas and the people of Gaza, but would you have drawn the same distinction between the Nazi regime and the German people during World War II? I’m not sure if that approach is correct.
It’s a complicated question. It’s possible that this war will eventually ignite a debate over who should be considered a noncombatant in a scenario like this. What we’re seeing in Gaza is an extreme example. When we compare it to the Taliban in Afghanistan or ISIS in Iraq, the level of support that Hamas receives from the local population and how intertwined they are with it is unprecedented. The laws of armed conflict, which were canonized at the end of World War II, define a different kind of environment. In classical warfare, there are warring parties and people in uniform who are combatants, and then there are people who are not in uniform who are noncombatants. By contrast, the situation in Gaza is the most blurred that any sovereign nation has ever faced.
For example, let’s say that a Gazan family’s sons went into Israel and butchered some Israelis. They then came back and were sheltered by that family, while other family members held some Israelis hostage or did other things to support the operations of Hamas. How would you define those people? Are they civilians, or are they combatants? The truth is that Hamas is almost totally embedded within the civilian population, which is why I think that there will probably be an evolution in the laws of armed conflict as a result of the October 7 massacre.
But again, you’re making a distinction between Hamas and the population. Would you draw the same line between the Iranian government and the Iranian people? Hamas isn’t just a terrorist organization, it’s actually the government of Gaza.
If and when there’s a war between Israel and the Islamic Republic of Iran, Israel’s targets will be the military and governmental facilities, as well as the infrastructure and personnel that are part of the Iranian regime. That doesn’t mean that there will be people who aren’t part of the government who are also to blame, but in terms of fighting, you usually focus on the enemy’s fighting capabilities.
This has been a very fascinating conversation.
Thank you. It’s been fascinating for me as well.
To read more, subscribe to Ami
