For months – perhaps even years – we’ve been inundated with aggressive commentary from Israeli and international news broadcasts and talk panels. The consensus was clear: “Israel would never dare strike Iran,” “Israel lacks the military capabilities,” “The US won’t allow it,” “Even Trump warned Israel – don’t!”
Defense correspondents, stern-faced retired generals, media consultants masquerading as strategists, and self-anointed online prophets elevated to the status of seers. Who didn’t recite those claims?
And yet – contrary to every prediction – Israel acted. In a coordinated, precise, surgical operation with the United States, and in collaboration with foreign intelligence services. The data didn’t come from Twitter threads – it came from operation rooms.
Where were all those who had dismissed the possibility? What happened to the analysts who claimed the IDF was limited, that this was “just a media show,” that “the threats were merely political theater”? They fell silent – or tried to explain why, in fact, they were still somehow right, despite all their assumptions collapsing.
The internet, as we know, doesn’t forget. Videos, tweets, interviews – they’re all there, all preserved. And it turns out, the emperor has no clothes.
This isn’t the first time that the usual lineup of analysts – those who shuttle between current affairs shows – have been wrong, misleading, and yet carried on as if nothing had happened. They bear no responsibility for misinformation. They don’t correct the record. They don’t apologize. They just “change the disk.”
Israel’s mainstream media has suffered from this issue for years – a blurring of journalism with fortune telling, of analysis with manipulation. A phenomenon where facts matter less than impressions. Where accuracy takes a backseat to narrative.
We saw the same during the 2007 bombing of Syria’s nuclear reactor. Weeks before the strike, senior journalists declared there was no solid intelligence to justify a military intervention, that the regime in Damascus was “stabilizing,” that the Americans “would never approve.” After the attack, silence. Suddenly, all the panels shifted to discussing “whether Syria would respond” – not who had failed to grasp the reality.
A perenial pattern
THE PATTERN repeated in Operation Protective Edge in 2014. Politicians and analysts warned that “Hamas doesn’t want escalation,” even as dozens of terror tunnels were being dug in Gaza. Only after the IDF was dragged into a prolonged campaign did it become clear that not only did Hamas want war, but the signs had been obvious – just not to the politicians, analysts, and generals (both active and retired) who missed what on-the-ground observers had clearly seen.
And let’s not forget the Second Intifada. Many analysts described Yasser Arafat as “ready for peace,” ignoring images of weapons being smuggled through tunnels. They framed Operation Defensive Shield as an “overreaction.” What did we learn later? That terror cells had been operating in the heart of cities, and that the Oslo vision collapsed under the weight of organized terrorism – not spontaneous unrest.
The pattern is clear: Israel’s media establishment consistently underestimates the country’s defense capabilities and often adopts a narrative of weakness and fear. When it comes to the US, many attributed only “roadblocks” and “restrictions,” ignoring secret contacts, intelligence cooperation, and diplomatic efforts invisible to the public eye.
Many mocked the relationship between President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, dismissed the embassy move to Jerusalem, and labeled it “merely symbolic.” Only later – after the Abraham Accords came to light – did people understand the depth and coordination behind the move.
Each time, we hear familiar refrains: “Israel is isolated,” “We can’t attack alone,” “Iran will respond with massive destruction.” In reality, Israel is not alone. It has quiet alliances, operational partnerships, and proven deterrence.
THE ISRAELI public has learned to think critically. Many no longer trust the usual pundits. They hear the dramatic buzzwords – “senior Shin Bet official,” “top military source,” “situation assessment” – but understand that these are often just guesses dressed up as expertise.
Social media has become a corrective tool to the chatter. Every mistake is documented. Every contradiction exposed. Anyone who offered flawed analysis can revisit their past online and see it all archived and unforgotten.
Before the age of social media, a pundit could say one thing today and the opposite tomorrow with no consequences. Today, every word boomerangs back. In an era of transparency and open archives, nothing disappears.
Israel has brave journalists, real investigators, and worthy analysts. But alongside them exists a self-sustaining ecosystem – a coalition of recycled voices repeating talking points instead of asking real questions.
The public doesn’t expect the media to know everything. It expects journalists to investigate – and to admit when they’re wrong. But when discourse becomes an echo chamber and journalists refuse to acknowledge error, a deep trust issue arises.
Is Israel attacking alone? Not necessarily. Were there secret coordination efforts with the US? Definitely. Did the pundits know? Most did not. Will they admit it? Highly doubtful.
The past few weeks have proven that sometimes silence is more powerful than chatter. Instead of parroting narratives, reporters and analysts would do well to recognize the limits of their knowledge.
Some operations must happen quietly. Those who think everything must leak to pundits before action is taken don’t understand the nature of real journalism.
So next time you hear someone in a studio declare, “Israel won’t dare,” ask yourself – are they reporting facts or voicing a wish?
The writer is CEO of Radios 100FM, an honorary consul, deputy dean of the Consular Diplomatic Corps, and president of the Israeli Radio Communications Association. He is a former NBC television correspondent.