Iran Attack: It All Started When Israel Fired Back

Yesterday Iran flew an advanced, stealth model, unmanned aerial vehicle  (“UAV” or “drone”) into Israeli territory. According to a tweet by IDF Spokesperson Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan Conricus, here is what happened next:

Here’s a quick summary of today’s events, from the #Iranian UAV to our large-scale strike against the #Syrian air-defense. The IDF will stand guard against any further attacks. pic.twitter.com/ntoHRiv1Z6

— LTC Ariella Mazor (@LTC_Ariella) February 10, 2018

Former US Ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro adds that at the time, Israel would not have known whether the drone was armed with a payload, that could possibly be used to attack Israel:

For those questioning whether the Iranian UAV in Israeli airspace was attacking Israel, what level of sovereignty-violation from an avowed enemy should Israel be expected to tolerate? Or maybe Israel should wait and see if the UAV has a payload? Please.

— Dan Shapiro (@DanielBShapiro) February 10, 2018

[elementor-template id="323780"]

Headlines matter. Here’s why:  rightly or not, we don’t read most of the articles in our daily papers; we skim the headlines before being drawn to whatever grabs our attention – both on news sites and also on social media. So for better or worse, headlines tell a story: sometimes the only story a newsreader will remember.

The IDF began releasing information yesterday at 6:30 a.m. local time, and all the articles below were written after that time. So there is no legitimate reason why we should be seeing headlines like these:

New Zealand Herald: No mention that the drone was flying in Israel, which is really the heart of the story.

The Observer: The attack wasn’t just “after fighter jet crashes,” but after Iran sent a military drone into Israel, and Israel’s fighter jet was downed while responding. But why mention any of that critical context? It might appear as if Israel had acted reasonably.

The Times UK: Emotionally evocative phrasing (“blasts”) is always a convenient substitute for responsible, fact-based journalism. And of course, as usual, the cause of the whole situation is entirely missing.

Financial Times: Seriously? No context at all?

The IBTimes mentioned the drone, but left out the fact that it was flying in Israel and also the small matter of downing an Israeli fighter jet. But all that aside, they also included this video (screenshot below). What do Palestinians have to do with this story? (Hint: nothing)

 

Sky News:  Again, no mention at all of the Iranian drone.

 

These were just a few of the at least sloppy, or or possibly even biased, headlines we found today. Iran’s military drone flying over Israel is the heart of this story, and the cause of all the events that followed, including Israel’s reactions which were responsive ones.

Just to put this in context: how do you think these publications would have reported if Iran had managed to fly a military UAV over American soil? (Or UK, EU, Australia, etc.)

And why should Israel be treated any differently?

Featured image: IDF Spokesperson’s Unit with modifications by HonestReporting.