Netanyahu's UNGA Speech Escalated Digital Warfare in Gaza

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered a fiery speech last month at the United Nations General Assembly, where he vowed to continue military operations against Hamas and called for their disarmament and the return of hostages. More than 100 diplomats from over 50 countries reportedly walked out as Netanyahu took to the podium.

But those in the assembly hall were not Netanyahu’s only audience. During his remarks, Netanyahu claimed that, thanks to “special efforts by Israeli intelligence,” his speech would be broadcast into Gaza, both through “massive loudspeakers” surrounding the Strip and by streaming the speech directly onto the cellphones of civilians living there. In a statement, an Israeli government spokesperson confirmed that the prime minister’s office “directed civilian elements, in cooperation with the [Israel Defense Forces], to place loudspeakers on the backs of trucks on the Israeli side of the Gaza border so that Prime Minister Netanyahu’s historic UN general assembly speech will be heard in the Gaza Strip.”

While it does not appear that the Israeli military actually took control of the cellphones of Gaza residents to broadcast the speech, Netanyahu’s threatened loudspeaker operation was reportedly carried out with speakers not only positioned along the Gaza border but also inside the Strip.

Israel’s use of digital tools in Gaza — including for tracking, surveillance and military planning — has been a serious issue for years and the subject of extensive documentation by human and digital rights organizations, including the United Nations’ Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Yet the loudspeaker operation presents novel risks and profound dangers for consideration by the tech policy community, amidst an already untenable humanitarian disaster:

Information warfare and psychological operations

Threatening to broadcast directly into civilian devices is a striking act of messaging: it aims not just to inform but coerce, intimidate and demoralize an opposition population. The same is true of the operation surrounding Gaza with loudspeakers blasting Netanyahu’s speech, which aims to signal power and military command over the people of Gaza by a foreign government.

Control over telecommunications infrastructure

Israel’s claim that Netanyahu’s speech would be broadcast directly to the cellphones of civilians in Gaza is a chilling reminder that the Israeli government controls mobile networks and can infiltrate devices in Gaza, enabling it to override or bypass user control. Pursuant to the 1995 Oslo Accords, Palestinians have “the right to build and operate separate and independent communication systems and infrastructures including telecommunication networks, a television network and a radio network.” In practice, however, Palestinians have been effectively barred from developing their own digital communications infrastructure since the signing of the agreement.

Interference with humanitarian needs and operations

Broadcasting to civilian phones in the middle of an active war zone and humanitarian crisis risks disrupting civilians’ ability to reach emergency services, as well as communications with family and friends that may be experiencing immediate threats to their health, safety and survival. This is compounded by the recurrent internet blackouts that have become a facet of daily life for the people of Gaza, who have endured at least 23 internet shutdowns since October 2023.

Surveillance and interception capability

Israel has long had the ability to surveil and intercept the communications of residents of Gaza. In August, the Guardian reported that Unit 8200, Israel’s military surveillance agency, used Microsoft’s Azure cloud platform to collect and store recordings of millions of calls made by Palestinians. The platform was reportedly used to inform Israel’s military operations in Gaza and the West Bank. Netanyahu’s threat to broadcast directly into Palestinian phones therefore carried additional weight and credibility, serving to simultaneously advertise Israel’s surveillance and interception capabilities.

Precedent for coercive messaging in war

If either of these tactics — streaming content directly to cell phones or using loudspeakers to broadcast into Gaza — are legitimized or normalized, they may lower the threshold for future uses of forced messaging, such as to force evacuation, compliance or sow fear. Indeed, Netanyahu’s claim that the speech would be broadcast to individual devices already has historical precedent. In recent years, the Israeli Defense Forces has sent mass text messages to Palestinian cellphones and called individuals to compel evacuations from buildings targeted for destruction. Netanyahu’s threat to livestream his speech, however, goes further: rather than a communications campaign ostensibly aimed at civilian protection, the broadcasting of his speech would appear to constitute overt propaganda. Given the pending genocide claims against Israel at the International Court of Justice, it is also conceivable that, if these tactics are legitimized, they could be used in genocidal messaging campaigns that could bolster and fuel offline violence.

Chilling expression and access to information

The more that people believe their devices can be commandeered, the more likely they may be to self-censor, avoid communication and reduce their digital footprint, which can result in constraining dissent, information sharing and coordination in the midst of an active conflict. This has a dangerous chilling effect on free expression and access to information at a time where both are essential.

Legitimacy, legal and ethical boundaries

International humanitarian law applies to both cyber and information operations, and is as relevant for digital technologies as well as traditional weapons. As the ICRC has clarified, targeting civilians with harmful information during war — such as information that could cause lasting psychological harm, incite violence or undermine access to essential information — implicates state obligations and prohibitions under international humanitarian law.

Further, forced intrusion into private devices or networks implicates rights to privacy, free expression, access to information and due process — especially in a war zone — and human rights obligations apply in wartime and peacetime alike.

Foundational human rights texts including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights enshrine the right to privacy, which naturally extends to informational privacy, restricting the collection, use and exchange of personal data about an individual. States are obligated not only to refrain from interfering with privacy, but also to create a legal framework that effectively protects privacy rights against both state and non-state interference. The right to privacy applies to all individuals, regardless of whether they are within a state's territorial jurisdiction, as it has become a recognized part of customary international law. Further, as outlined in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, any limitation on expression must be necessary and proportionate, which entails a least-restrictive means that is narrow and evidence-based. This imposition does not constitute an act which is least-restrictive.

In a conflict where international legal violations have been rampant and egregious, it nevertheless bears mention when new ethical and legal lines are crossed regarding the use of digital technologies in war. The use of both loudspeaker operations surrounding Gaza, and the threatened forced messaging into Palestinians’ cell phones, implicates both.

While a future of ceasefire offers some relief for Palestinians, digital risks predate the recent conflict and will remain relevant well past the conclusion of the kinetic conflict.