Dispatch from Israel: Jonathan Conricus

The former international spokesperson for the IDF on the fate of hostages, which news agencies disgraced themselves covering the war, and why you should always respect your enemies

Jonathan Conricus rode his Suzuki V-Strom 650 from his home in Kfar Saba to Tel Aviv.

"It's an hour and a half by car, half an hour by bike," says the former international spokesperson for the IDF, the person much of the world saw explaining the chaos and carnage following the October 7 in Israel. Earlier this month, Conricus became a senior fellow at The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, where he believes he can add "some original perspective" to the Israel-Arab conflict and specifically to UNRWA, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East. (Spoiler: He's not a fan).

From the patio of the Tel Aviv Sheraton Hotel - and with the occasional bomb booming in the distance - Conricus talked about the fate of hostages, which news agencies disgraced themselves covering the war, and why you should always respect your enemies.

The interview had been edited for length and clarity.

Tell me where you were on October 7th.

JC: I was home with my wife and four kids. We were woken by the alarm around 6:30. We are very fortunate to have 90 seconds to run for shelter - unlike the people who live close to Gaza, who allegedly have 15 seconds. That's more of an urban myth than reality; usually they first hear the explosion, then the alarms. We rushed to the bomb shelter in our building, with all of the neighbors in their pajamas.

I, of course, took my phone with me. At around 6:40, I saw something and really understood, this is going to be different. I saw the first clip on Telegram of a white pickup truck with Hamas terrorists on it, inside Sderot. The attack itself was unprecedented - and that was before anybody knew how gruesome the attack really was. We didn't know then what the consequences of Hamas' plan would be; didn't know how many Israeli civilians would be killed, how many would be abducted, and how tremendous the whole event would be. But at 6:40, I think I understood: This will probably lead to war.

I could never have imagined that they would've been able to pull off such an attack that they did. I think it's a watershed moment in Israeli history. It might be in regional history as well. From an internal Israeli perspective, there is a before and after, and there will be tremendous long-term ramifications, in terms of the agreement and commitment between state and citizen. For many people, that was totally ruptured on October 7th.

Because a trust was broken? Meaning, that this could never happen and that citizens were safe.

Yes. But I think that from a regional perspective, when the dust settles, this it could a positive event. If Hamas is defeated - clearly, unequivocally, decisively for other Palestinians to see and for the rest of the world and most importantly other terrorist organizations to see - then it can have a positive calming effect on the region. Calming not because Hezbollah, Islamic jihad and others will become supporters of the Zionist cause, no, but calming in the sense that they'll understand that when you attack Israel as blatantly and as gruesomely as Hamas did, there will be a horrible price to pay, a price that isn't worth paying. I hope that will be what will be written in history books in 10 years is that this was the moment an Iranian proxy attacked Israel and consequently was demolished, ceased to exist at any effective level, ceded control over the area that it controlled before, and was totally abolished, militarily and administratively.

On October 7, you had not been the IDF spokesperson for several years. How soon did you realize, you might again be reporting for duty?

JP: Early on the morning hours, I had already started providing interviews for various networks. I [had] called my friend who is the current IDF international spokesperson and said, "Listen, whenever you need me, I'm here. I've ironed my uniform and am ready to go."

As a journalist I feel it's my job to not inflame things, to try to keep people calm—

JC: That's a rare interpretation.

Right, but it's dangerous to do otherwise. People don't make good decisions when they're afraid or hysterical, and you were in the midst of people who were very afraid and facing something that was, as you said, unprecedented. How do you prepare for this situation? How do you calm people?

JC: It was chaotic times, especially the first days or week. It took us - the mighty IDF, the vaunted IDF - three days to just say carefully and kind of not too loudly, 'Yes, we have regained control over southern Israel.' And of course, the tremendous amount of killed and wounded and the abductees and hostages and so many things going on. So, definitely chaotic times. But I didn't see my job as to calm people. I saw my job as presenting something coherent and rational for the world to see, with the idea that Israel was in command and adjusting to the situation. What are the threats that we're facing? What we are doing, and why are we doing what we are doing?

Israel is always a controversial and divisive country and media coverage of the war has reflected this. I was surprised and sometimes disappointed by some of the coverage, especially the beginning of the war, when media seemed overly credulous and ready to blame Israel for events as they unfolded.

JC: I've been working with media now for quite a few years, and I don't remember the BBC issuing two official apologies within less than a month on the same topic. They were forced to apologize and walk back their coverage of the Al-Ahli Hospital bombing. I think their coverage reflected very poorly on their professional standards - that's a diplomatic phrasing; I could say some less polite things. Also, their style guide specifically referred to Hamas not as "terrorists"; they're not to be called terrorists.

What were they calling them?

JC: Militants, gunmen, fighters, just not terrorists, because terrorists is a politically charged word and God forbid you call someone what they are, especially if they're fighting against Israel. I think it's one part of a big story, where Israel and Israeli spokespeople are confronted with the most bizarre questions, allegations, and condescending tones.

Of course there are differences between different anchors and media institutions. The least professional are BBC. I think that their coverage has been one-sided, lazy, and biased against Israel. I think that they are very quick in general to take Palestinian information from dubious or unconfirmed or even partisan sources presented as truth... The way that they took Hamas information [about Al-Ahli hospital] and just blasted it out as if that was the truth, instead of checking, verifying, assessing the veracity of reports, I think that's appalling. And I think they should be held accountable for fanning flames, for inciting and destabilizing and the fact that there were mass demonstrations and violence in ten cities around the Middle East and around the world the night of the incident.

And they don't understand how they are fanning the flames.

JC: Actually I think they do understand that they fan the flames, and I think that they're totally okay with it. And I think that as long as nobody holds them accountable, as long as editors aren't fired for how they handled it, then why should they do differently?

But what's the end game? That a rocket hitting a hospital is a more interesting story than it hitting a parking lot?

JC: Yeah, maybe - or that it was a Palestinian rocket that hit.

The New York Times also had to walk back some of its coverage of the incident. Do you see the paper as doing a fairer job since then?

JC: I'll tell you an interesting story, which I think is reflective of the New York Times. They have the biggest and most well-funded visual investigations team of any media outlet, lots of very talented people who are good with graphics, and with a trustworthy British accent to tell a story on a video. So there were two mysterious explosions in Gaza in the period between when Israel informed people in Northern Gaza that we are going to operate there, and that they should evacuate. Two mysterious explosions, with lots of Gazans killed.

The first blame, of course, was Israel. 'Israel, you bombed the convoy of refugees, how dare you!' And then we said, ‘we definitely didn't do so on purpose, but it's war, maybe something happened, please let us check.’ We checked and checked and checked and checked and made sure that it wasn't us. And then we started looking at videos from the event, and the videos looked very odd. It didn't look like what it looks like when we drop a 500- or 1000-pound bomb, many of the videos showed basically what looked like a roadside IED that was detonated, not like a bomb that had been dropped from the air. Also how the casualties looked; they were burnt and not with the smoke and gray color [of a bomb].

I had four hour-long conversations with the New York Times investigative journalist. She was in Cairo at the time, and all of the things she was asking indicated that she was out to prove it was an Israeli strike on a convoy of poor Palestinian evacuates. And the deadline was always, 'I'm filing tonight. I'm filing tomorrow.' This was for two and a half weeks. But she never filed, or I haven't seen a story. Why? Because I don't think that she was able to prove that Israel did it. She said she had hundreds of hours of video footage from social media compiled. And where did it all go? It went to the censored bin of, 'We wanted to write a story that condemns Israel, but we don't have enough info.'

Sure, I've seen interesting stories written [in the Times] about the sexual violence and about hostages, but even if they do a touching sincere story about the suffering of the hostages, in 30% of it, they feel compelled to use a battering ram against the IDF, or against Israeli government, or Bibi specifically. They can't just do a story that portrays Israelis in a humane and good light. It's almost as if they can't help themselves. There always has to be a swipe.

And making equivalence with what's happening in Gaza, which is terrible.

JC: Yes, and it's sad what's happening. But what do you suggest we do? How do you suggest we defend ourselves? By asking them nicely not to butcher us?

"Ceasefire now."

JC: There was a ceasefire on October 6th. Hamas broke it.

It's been three and a half months since the October 7 massacre. What is the situation now?

JC: I think we are nearing the cusp of a regional war. That's what I am mostly concerned with. Iran is trying to frame this - and they're getting help from various entities and organizations - as Israel against the Palestinians, and to have regional players like the Houthis and Hezbollah apply pressure on Israel. And up until now, Israel has only been defending itself and really containing the situation up along the northern border, vis-a-vis Hezbollah, as well as very defensive with regards to the dozens of missiles and UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles] fired from the Houthis in Yemen towards Israel. I think that we are nearing, unfortunately, a kind of point of no return... Those are sounds of explosions.

Was it?

JC: Far off, yeah. So I think that we're nearing the point of no return when it comes to the north, because the diplomatic efforts so far are not yielding anything of substance, despite the fact that Israel is containing the situation and deciding not to retaliate with strong force against Hezbollah.

Up until now, Israel has been waiting for, pleading for, hoping that there will be some kind of diplomatic solution that will push Hezbollah and the worst of Hezbollah's capabilities further away from the border. That hasn't happened yet.

... was that two more bombs?

JC: Yes, far, far away. Could be large explosions in Gaza, really large. So I think we're seeing Iran escalating the situation through their proxies. My concern is that neither the U.S. nor Israel will be able to contain the situation and it will become a regional or even bigger than that.

Regarding Gaza, it'll take a very long time to stabilize the situation there and to start a process of rebuilding, of de-radicalizing the population, of finding another way for them to govern and to run their affairs without allowing any type of extremist a foothold there. It'll take time.

If it's even possible. It seems to me that radicalism is like a virus; you can drive it underground but you can't kill it. And there will always be a moment when it gets reactivated.

JC: I agree with you. It's an idea that is very, very difficult to defeat. At this stage, what I think Israel should be focused on is regional assistance and global assistance: the U.S., Saudi Emirates, perhaps other countries, to start building something in Gaza that, with a lot of patience and investment and time, will be a different system in terms of education and of governance, that will push out that type of thinking and those types of ideas.

It'll also require for UNRWA to be dismantled and phased out. I think UNRWA is an extremely cynical organization. Although it was founded to alleviate suffering of Arabs that fled the fighting in 1948, what they are doing now is internalizing the conflict, perpetuating the suffering of Palestinians, and fueling the conflict under the symbols of the UN. And those who speak about Palestinian statehood and self-definition, et cetera - I have my doubts about it personally, if that's a viable thing. But let's say for the sake of dialogue that's something that should be pursued. It won't happen as long as there's an UNRWA.

And if I were a Palestinian, I'd say, 'Thank you, please go away as fast as possible because you're keeping my people dependent. You're keeping my people reliant on aid and handouts. And as long as there's an UNRWA, we are not independent. We won't run our own affairs, and we're not masters of our own faith.' I look at UNRWA and see a very, very negative organization, an ecosystem of perpetuating a lost narrative. All other parties, all other populations and parties that lost in war, they accepted defeat and they moved on in life, right?

Whereas you see UNRWA as continuing the suffering?

JC: They're continuing the suffering. And there's no parallel to it. There's no other entity that cares for one small ethnic group and doesn't care about all of the others in the world. There's the UN High Commissioner for refugees who deals with all of the refugees in the world. And then there's UNRWA, which deals with one specific ethnic group that made stupid decisions in the run up to 1948, attacked another ethnic group, and lost.

It's almost as though UNRWA is holding them hostage.

JC: Yes, they are. Palestinians are also held hostage. You go to above Nablus today, right? It's governed by Palestinians. There's no Israeli security control over it. The Palestinians run day-to-day affairs. They are in control. You have a modern Palestinian city, you have the historical part, and then you have the sprawling growing city of Nablus, which up until October 7th was active and financial and etcetera.

And then you have two so-called refugee camps inside this Palestinian city, and the refugees are Palestinians - same as the ones that live around them - only these people are branded as refugees. They and their descendants are Palestinians, they cannot marry out of it, and they cannot get out of being a so-called refugee. They're the only ones in the world who have the hereditary title of refugee. All over in the world, you're a refugee for a few years. You are in the wrong place at the wrong time, but then you move somewhere and you start building in life, and you have memories of your old home and the old country, but you build a safer future. And if you're fortunate, and if things calm down, you can go back. Or you can't and you're in the new place. That's what my grandparents did. They were from Morocco and Poland and they came to Israel. They were refugees after a few months and after a year, they weren't refugees anymore, they carried on with life. Nothing unique. The only ones that are unique are the Palestinians. And I think that your wording is very correct: Many of them are held hostage by, I'd say, Arab countries who are using UNRWA as a tool against Israel, and by a UN system that is institutionally vested in there being a Palestinian state. Never mind that it isn't viable, never mind that they have failed so far in their own self-governance and corruption. Never mind that half of them at least are espousing extreme ideology very far from democracy. These are irrelevant to UNRWA. At the end of the day, they have an institution that keeps the conflict alive, and nowhere more than in Gaza.

Let's talk about the hostages in Gaza. I've spent the past week with hostage families. It's obviously an excruciating situation, and their position is Israel has to bring them home and then end the war. Others say, you can either bring them home or end the war; you cannot do both. Is the idea of bringing the hostages home now and ending the war later a fantasy?

JC: I cannot imagine what they're going through, these families. It must be the worst, worst thing. And I totally understand that they demand their loved ones back. Now, sadly, I am very pessimistic about that happening. I think that the way our enemies are leveraging the hostages, I don't know how we would be able to bring them back home alive.

I know that the IDF is trying to. I know that there are tremendous efforts being done, collecting intelligence from different sources and trying to get the pieces of the puzzle in order to understand where they're being held in order to breach the areas and get them out. And many attempts have been many soldiers have been killed and wounded in those rescue attempts. None of them sadly have been successful.

I wish I'd be totally wrong, and tomorrow the IDF pulls off an amazing rescue operation and gets all of them back home, and all of the bodies back home. As much as I would want it to happen, it's difficult to see how. Also, because I think that Hamas leaders understand now that their days are numbered - that that's also part of the equation. In the beginning, I think they perhaps thought that they'd be able to stop the fighting and emerge alive at the end of the war.

Are you surprised and perhaps impressed at how effective Hamas has in some ways been, not only the initial massacre and attack, but the fact that we now know there are between 350 and 450 miles of tunnels, and how difficult it's been for Israeli intelligence to find the hostages?

JC: I think it's always a healthy thing to respect your enemies. And I think one of the things that we failed to do was to respect this enemy and to adequately fear their focus, their commitment, and their willingness to pay a price. I think we fell in love with the image of our own power and our ability to deter them. And I think that we applied our rationale and way of thinking on their thought process. And that is what led us to believe that they were more concerned with alleviating economic and humanitarian situation in Gaza than actually conducting jihad against Israel.

That will be assessed, and many containers of ink will be used on that. Wherever our troops go and expose infrastructure, you can see and the amount of terrorists that they fight and kill; the amount of weapons that are exposed, the amount of storage and manufacturing facilities of weapons, just the whole both scope and quality of Hamas infrastructure that we expose. It is indeed on a professional level, and it is impressive to see the kind of determination and how busy they have been, preparing for this fighting, of course in a twisted and subhuman way. And I think that many, many terrorists will be learning from this and mimicking this. And many militaries in the future will be facing similar challenges that we are facing now in the battlefield.

Israel in many cases is the off-Broadway that becomes Broadway. We are the fringe of Western civilization. We face the of monsters that only after years the West sees them up close and personal in the ways of killing Americans or French or English or Germans. So yes, to answer your question, it's impressive, but at the end of the day, it won't help them.

***

Your paid subscription allows me to do my work - thank you. Venmo and CashApp work too.