The repercussions of Israel’s pager attack against Hezbollah have yet to subside, as reflected in an interview with former Mossad director Yossi Cohen, who led the agency between 2016 and 2021. The interview aired on the popular French podcast Legend and was published on June 28.

Discussing the operation in which pagers exploded across Lebanon, Cohen presented the Israeli account of the attack as a clean technological success. At the same time, questions about civilian casualties were met with evasive or minimizing responses.

For several French critics, the issue was not the decision to host a former intelligence chief, but the fact that he was allowed to turn an operation that killed people and wounded thousands into a suspense-filled story without any meaningful legal or ethical scrutiny.

Like many former intelligence officials, Cohen did not elaborate on most of the topics raised during the interview. His brief answers gave the episode a noticeably faster pace than other installments of the podcast.

Host Guillaume Pley, for his part, made little effort to conceal his understanding of the limitations imposed on Cohen by his former position. He repeatedly reassured his guest that he was under no obligation to answer sensitive questions, using phrases such as “You have the right not to answer, or “You’re free to answer if you wish.” Pley did not press Cohen for more detailed responses, nor did he attempt to corner him or employ more confrontational interview tactics.

One of the interview’s central topics was the pager operation. Cohen reiterated the now-familiar Israeli narrative: that Mossad deceived Hezbollah into purchasing the devices from what appeared to be a legitimate company but was, in fact, a front for the agency. He also added several new details that seemed to provide another piece of the puzzle.

Although preparations for the operation took around ten years, Cohen said the idea of infiltrating supply chains had originated two decades earlier. Among the details he disclosed was that Mossad had factored in Hezbollah’s close relationship with Iran. “Tehran has more advanced resources and expertise, allowing it to verify the identities of companies and inspect equipment when necessary,” he said.

Cohen, however, was not entirely clear. Did he mean that the Iranian side had conducted its own checks but failed to uncover the company’s true identity or detect the explosive materials? Or was Mossad so successful in deceiving Hezbollah that the group never sought Iranian technical assistance in the first place?

Perhaps the most striking claim Cohen made about the pager operation was his denial that civilians had been harmed. He described the attack as “highly precise,” insisting that it targeted only Hezbollah members. When the host replied, “I remember a child being injured,” Cohen simply answered, “I don’t remember that.”

Cohen’s account appeared to contradict well-documented facts. It is difficult to believe that the person who, by his own account, “approved the first pager” would be unaware of the operation’s widely reported consequences. Moreover, rather than issuing a direct denial, his response marked a noticeable shift from the certainty with which he had spoken earlier.

Many viewers on YouTube focused on this very point. Within 48 hours of its release, the episode had surpassed 600,000 views and attracted more than 4,000 comments. While some welcomed both the interview and its guest, others strongly criticized the discussion, particularly the segment on the exploding pager operation.

One commenter argued that this exchange alone encapsulated the entire interview, revealing what they described as Cohen’s complete lack of compassion. Most critical comments condemned both his appearance on the podcast and the content of the conversation, arguing that it instilled in “the less discerning” a sense of “hatred toward the oppressed and admiration for those who oppress them.” One viewer even questioned whether the platform was “promoting the post-genocide era,” while others accused it of abandoning neutrality in favor of complicity and called for a boycott.

Some users responded with sarcasm. Several wondered whether Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would be the podcast’s next guest, while others jokingly suggested inviting Kim Jong Un or even the devil himself. One commenter saw a silver lining in these reactions, arguing that they showed humanity’s moral conscience had not yet disappeared.

The viewers’ reactions sparked a debate that closely mirrored the divisions within France’s media and political circles. The controversy also raised questions about whether Cohen’s appearance was intended less as a retrospective on his career than as an attempt to influence French public opinion.

Several factors lend weight to that interpretation. Legend has more than three million subscribers, and its podcast of the same name is among the most popular in France, attracting millions of views and featuring guests from remarkably diverse backgrounds, from former presidents and sitting ministers to con artists and lottery winners. Much of its appeal lies in its promise of exclusive revelations and its focus on issues that resonate with the French public, such as concerns over the sustainability of the country’s pension system.

The podcast’s producers also openly encourage anyone “with a story to tell” to get in touch. That raises another question: did Cohen approach the Legend team himself, or were the producers invited? Daraj put the question to the platform’s organizers but received no response.

Regardless of who initiated the interview, it was evident that Cohen was addressing a French audience at several points. His remarks about the threat of Islamist extremism facing Israel echoed the terrorist attacks France has experienced over the past decade. Likewise, his denial that civilians were harmed in the pager operation aligned with a narrative that has gained traction in France: that Israel takes exceptional measures to protect civilians, pointing to advance evacuation warnings as evidence.

Cohen also offered a rare glimpse into the security cooperation between France and Israel. He claimed that Mossad had helped thwart two Islamic State plots: one targeting Disneyland Paris and another aimed at the famous Paris department store Galeries Lafayette Haussmann. He added that Mossad sees itself as responsible not only for Israel’s security but also for protecting people around the world, allowing them “to go about their normal lives while we keep them safe.” He also sought to reassure French viewers of the effectiveness of France’s security services.

Asked whether Mossad had been involved in the assassination of Palestinian leader Wadie Haddad, Cohen replied that he had no knowledge of such an operation and suggested it might be one of the many rumors surrounding the agency. He quickly qualified that response, however, noting that although he headed Mossad for five years, the organization has conducted numerous operations throughout its history, and he was not familiar with every file. He then returned to his original point, emphasizing that many rumors circulate about the agency.

Rumors themselves became the focus of another segment, in keeping with Legend’s tradition of challenging common myths. Cohen was asked about several operations and conspiracy theories frequently linked to Mossad. According to his answers, Jeffrey Epstein was not a Mossad agent, and the agency had no involvement in the September 11 attacks or the death of Diana, Princess of Wales.

One remark in this segment stood out. Raising one of the rumors himself, Cohen said: “We’re often accused of targeting heads of state. In reality, we are responsible for some of those operations.”

Among the operations discussed during the interview were the theft of Iran’s nuclear archive in 2018 and the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh two years later.

Cohen said that during his first week as Mossad director, in January 2016, intelligence indicated that Fakhrizadeh had begun collecting hard drives and files previously held by his colleagues in an apparent effort to conceal them. According to Cohen, the move raised suspicions that Iran was attempting to hide information from inspectors at the International Atomic Energy Agency, particularly given that only six months had passed since the signing of the Iranian nuclear agreement.

According to Cohen, the operation confirmed Mossad’s belief that Iran was seeking to develop a nuclear weapon, a conclusion he said ultimately prompted the U.S. president to withdraw from the agreement. He presented Fakhrizadeh’s assassination in the same light, describing it as an effort to disrupt Iran’s path toward building a nuclear bomb.

Notably, the former Mossad chief offered no account of how the assassination itself was carried out. Instead, he merely referred to media reports claiming that an artificial intelligence-operated weapon had been used, without either confirming or denying those accounts.

Artificial intelligence resurfaced later in the conversation when Cohen suggested that Mossad intends to expand its reliance on the technology. Reflecting on the events of October 7, he said that while serving as Israel’s national security adviser between 2013 and 2016, he had already identified what he described as an institutional failure to gather intelligence on the Gaza Strip. He called it “a major failure,” adding: “Had we analyzed the information we possessed using artificial intelligence, would we have reached a different conclusion?”

Looking ahead, Cohen revealed that Mossad has prepared operations “that have not yet been activated,” suggesting they could produce “surprises in future wars” against Hezbollah or other adversaries, much like the pager explosions.

As for his own future, Cohen did not rule out entering politics—or even running for the office of prime minister.