Air Force Chief Warns Politician Over Revealing Sensitive Officer's Identity

The commander of the Israeli Air Force has sent an unusual letter to the Military Advocate General, expressing concern that a social media post by Almog Cohen, a former deputy minister and designated Likud Knesset member, exposed the classified identity of a sensitive Air Force officer. The commander stated in the letter that Cohen's publication endangered the officer and compromised his security. In parallel, Air Force officials approached military censorship requesting the removal of the posts from social media platforms, but it was determined that censorship has limited authority over already published content online.

According to initial reports, Cohen's post referred to the son of a well-known news anchor as an Air Force pilot. Cohen, however, argued in his responses that he did not directly reveal a name or identity, and that the information was already publicly available through previous publications or even from the father himself. He accused his critics of hypocrisy, citing other instances where he believes pilots were endangered, such as early reports of airstrikes.

Critics, including retired Brigadier General Avi Benayahu, have accused Cohen of severe irresponsibility, asserting that even a clear insinuation is enough to endanger someone in an operational role, especially in an era where adversaries monitor online details. The Chief Censor, Brigadier General Natanel Kula, contacted Cohen directly, requesting the removal of the posts. Cohen refused, claiming the information was already elsewhere and demanding its removal from those sources first.

The tension between Cohen and elements within the defense establishment and media is not new. He has previously been involved in disputes over revealing details in the "impersonator officer" case and other instances involving sensitive information. His critics contend that he tends to cross red lines to serve his political agenda.

The defense establishment views the exposure of aircrew and officers in sensitive roles as a tangible threat, as they are prime targets for enemy intelligence. Any online detail can facilitate tracking, threats, or harm. The Air Force commander's official response is therefore considered highly unusual and significant. The affair raises questions about the boundary between political free speech and the need to protect aircrew and officers in sensitive positions, with some arguing Cohen merely echoed known information and that the defense system is overreacting to a right-wing politician, while others see it as another example of irresponsible behavior by politicians using security information as a political weapon.

The letter from the Air Force commander is currently with the Military Advocate General, and censorship is examining its options. Regardless of further action, this case adds to a growing list of incidents where the line between politics and national security becomes dangerously blurred.