On June 17, 2025, ‘The Jerusalem Post’ published an editorial that offers not just a glimpse into Israel’s strategic mindset amidst its war with Iran but also an example of how nationalist media can play a pivotal role in shaping public morale during times of national crisis. This editorial does not shy away from acknowledging pain, devastation, and sacrifice. But it counters those harsh realities with an equally compelling appeal to unity, resilience, and national self-belief. It is a masterclass in how the media, when aligned with national interests, can galvanize a nation rather than weaken it.
This raises a critical question for us in India: How often do we see such nationalist editorial commitment in Indian media during times of war or national crisis? Far too often, we witness a section of the Indian media—and its echo chambers on digital platforms—engage in hand-wringing, self-flagellation, and moral relativism that ends up eroding the morale of the people and the soldiers alike. In stark contrast to The Jerusalem Post’s message—”we must not lose heart”—some Indian media voices seem to say, “we must doubt ourselves.” ‘The Jerusalem Post’ editorial does not downplay the tragedy of innocent lives lost or the emotional toll on Israel’s citizens. In fact, it opens with the acknowledgment of ‘pain and devastation’ caused by Iranian missile barrages. But what follows is a firm and unyielding narrative: Israel must not lose heart, because the survival of the nation depends not just on its military might, but on the resolve of its people.
This is where the media plays a role beyond reporting. It becomes a moral and strategic compass. It contextualizes suffering within the broader aim of national survival. It reminds the people why they must endure. It links present pain to future security. The editorial stresses that the Iranian attacks, though deadly, are minor compared to the blow Israel is delivering in return. It paints a picture of an Israel that is technologically superior, strategically astute, and morally justified. It also performs a vital psychological operation. It calls on Israelis to believe in themselves. It critiques past hesitations and over-reliance on allies. It declares that “we can. And we are.” Such statements, even when not tied to immediate battlefield statistics, have tremendous morale-boosting value. Media becomes a vehicle not of propaganda, but of patriotic reaffirmation.
Now contrast this with how some prominent sections of Indian media behave during national emergencies or border conflicts. Instead of calling for national unity, these outlets often amplify fringe dissenting voices, question the armed forces, and raise doubts about India’s moral position. During the Balakot airstrikes in 2019, for instance, certain media platforms demanded ‘proof’ of the airstrikes, echoing Pakistan’s narrative at a crucial moment. At a time when the nation needed faith and focus, these voices injected confusion and cynicism.
Similarly, during the Galwan clash in 2020, while Indian soldiers were being martyred defending our sovereignty, some Indian journalists focused more on China’s military superiority and questioned the government’s preparedness—failing to understand that such narratives, when broadcast widely, can weaken the morale of the people and embolden the enemy.
One might argue that the media must question the government. Indeed, accountability is essential in a democracy. But there is a difference between constructive criticism and strategic sabotage. When media houses prioritize TRPs over national interest, sensationalism over stability, and appeasement over assertiveness, they cease to be the fourth pillar of democracy and become tools of disunity. It is not that the media should not question the state—it must. But there’s a difference between critical inquiry and national sabotage. When you openly accuse your military of “stage-managed strikes” or compare your own country’s actions with those of terrorist groups, you’re not being critical—you’re being complicit in the enemy’s psychological warfare.
Israel understands this well. It treats its media not as a mindless cheerleader, but as a force multiplier for national purpose. ‘The Jerusalem Post’ editorial illustrates how, even in times of extreme hardship, the right media narrative can channel grief into grit. This is not about censorship or jingoism. It is about timing and responsibility. There is a time to introspect and a time to unite. When missiles are falling, when soldiers are fighting, when enemies are watching—that is the time to be one nation with one voice. Self-doubt can wait. Political bickering can wait. The Republic cannot.
Swami Vivekananda once said that We must learn whatever good things we may find in others. His statement was not about cultural subjugation but about civilizational enrichment. Learning from others who have succeeded in certain areas is not weakness—it is wisdom. In this context, Indian media stakeholders must introspect. Why does Israeli media not indulge in self-flagellation during wartime? Why does it not provide unfiltered platforms to Iran-backed narratives? Why does it not equate restraint with virtue when the country is bleeding? The answer lies in collective will and historical consciousness. Israeli society—unlike India’s fragmented one—is acutely aware that its very existence is in question. Therefore, their media, while free and vibrant, understands its patriotic role. It does not hide behind faux neutrality.
A foundational mistake in much of Indian most of the Indian coverage is the treatment of war as just another political event. The “both-sides” narrative, popular in elite circles, tends to dilute the national cause. If a terror attack occurs, blame is quickly shifted to policy lapses. If India retaliates, questions about proportionality and international fallout dominate the discourse. Israel, on the other hand, understands that war is not the same as a political debate. The editorial makes it clear: “This is not a call for arrogance… but a lack of confidence can be just as crippling.” These words should ring loud in Indian ears.
What Indian media can borrow from Israel is not censorship, but context. The ability to embed every news piece within the framework of the nation’s long-term survival and strategic interests. Just as doctors do not openly criticize surgical procedures in front of patients mid-operation, journalists too must know when and how to critique during wartime.This does not mean glorifying the state. It means standing with the people.
In today’s information-driven world, wars are not won by missiles alone. They are won by narratives. Israel is crafting a story of survival, strength, and faith. Its media is a partner in this national effort, not an aloof observer or critic. India, too, is a civilization besieged—not just by hostile neighbors but also by ideological forces that question its right to assert itself. In such a context, the media must act with clarity, courage, and kartavya bodh—a sense of national duty.
Comments