Israel Army Apologises for Wrong India Map After Online Uproar Over Jammu & Kashmir Mislabeling
TOI.in
/ Jun 14, 2025, 02:35PM IST
In a rare diplomatic misstep, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) have publicly apologised for posting a map on X (formerly Twitter) that incorrectly depicted Jammu and Kashmir as not part of India. The map, meant to illustrate Israel's threat assessment of Iran, triggered outrage among Indian users. Responding to criticism—especially from a handle named Indian Right Wing Community—the IDF admitted the graphic "fails to precisely depict borders" and issued an apology. The Indian government has not officially responded yet, but this comes at a time when ties between Delhi and Tel Aviv are strong—India is among Israel's top arms clients and trade partners. The timing is especially sensitive, coming shortly after PM Modi reaffirmed India's sovereignty over J&K and Ladakh post the Pahalgam terror attack and Operation Sindoor. The diplomatic misfire raises questions about accuracy in global military communications amid rising West Asia tensions.#idf #indiaisrael #jammuandkashmir #mapcontroversy #operationsindoor #westasiatensions #modi #iranisraelcrisis #xcontroversy #idfapology #toi #toibharat #bharat #breakingnews #indianews
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
42 minutes ago
- Time of India
In battle of the delegations, real story lies in what went unsaid
In the aftermath of their recent military clash, rival delegations from Delhi and Islamabad converged on various global capitals, each aiming to shape elite opinion, win sympathy, and control the post-crisis narrative. Having witnessed some of the exchanges in London firsthand, the diplomatic duel across briefing rooms, think tanks, and diaspora events was as revealing for what was unsaid as for what was spoken. Messaging starts with messengers The difference in delegation profiles was notable. India's all-party parliamentary mission carried symbolic weight and cross-party legitimacy, including senior figures like Ravi Shankar Prasad and Pankaj Saran. Pakistan's team leaned more on technocrats and veteran advocates of global engagement, such as Sherry Rehman and Bilawal Bhutto Zardari. India's group projected cohesion and resolve; Pakistan's aimed to influence narratives and broaden appeal. India's cautious case India's delegation framed Operation Sindoor as part of a broader shift: limited cross-border retaliation to terrorist acts as policy, not aberration. They emphasized terrorism as a global threat whose response merits international understanding—not moral equivalence. The delegation linked India's counterterrorism struggle to challenges faced by Western democracies, with Pakistan as a common denominator. In my observation, Indian representatives appeared quietly frustrated that while many countries expressed sympathy after Pahalgam and tacitly accepted India's right to act, few explicitly condemned Pakistan. Though confident in their message, their delivery often felt restrained. In think tanks, the tone was formal, even stiff; diaspora engagements were reportedly more fiery. Though most accepted the delegation's basic premise, some observers noted the irony in Delhi resisting calls to frame Russia's invasion of Ukraine as a shared threat but now seeking solidarity on Pakistani-based terrorism. Crucially, the delegation faltered when pressed on domestic radicalization. Two of the Pahalgam suspects were reportedly Indian nationals. Asked how New Delhi planned to prevent disillusionment turning to violence, the only response was that 'things today are better than in the 1990s.' This was a missed chance to demonstrate nuanced understanding of the challenge. Other inconsistencies emerged. India's representatives rejected 're-hyphenation' with Pakistan, yet much of their messaging focused on Islamabad. While stressing the quarrel was with Pakistan's military, not its people, questions about suspending the Indus Waters Treaty complicated that briefings took place inside the High Commission, with diaspora members complaining to me that they thought too much political outreach was aimed at UK politicians of Indian heritage. Playing it safe has a certain logic, but may have limited engagement with new or skeptical audiences. Pak's polished—but problematic—pitch If India played it safe, Pakistan opted for smooth. Their delegation turned up at major think tanks eager to engage and keen to appear misunderstood. With assistance from lobbying professionals, their narrative was tightly crafted for European audiences: Pakistan sought peace through dialogue, emphasising Kashmir as the 'unfinished legacy of Partition,' terrorism, and water. Pakistan said it wanted talks, a neutral investigation into Pahalgam, and accused India of refusing cooperation or prove culpability. This narrative of peace sat uneasily beside claims of military success and personal attacks on Indian leaders. Critique of Indian media spin might have bolstered believability had it not been accompanied by other factual distortions: legal sleight-of-hand over Kashmir, misreadings of UN resolutions, and claims that India admitted culpability for terrorism in most convincing moment came on the Indus Waters Treaty, where the stark picture painted of the consequences struck a chord, even if significant action has yet to follow. A key question remains: what was the objective? If persuasion abroad was the objective, the reliance on longstanding misrepresentations made it a difficult sell to informed audiences. If the goal was domestic signaling, that focus likely came at the expense of deeper foreign engagement. Simpler sell, harder ask Ultimately, the Indian delegation framed all terrorism as emanating from Pakistan; Pakistan framed it as emerging from Kashmir. The narratives didn't just clash—they barely shared the same terms of reference. As performative exercises providing content for domestic media, both probably succeeded on their own terms. In the battle to move international opinion, outcomes were uneven. India may have achieved more, but it also had the easier task — framing terrorism as a universal threat aligns with European security narratives. Pakistan, by contrast, asked outside actors to invest political capital in corralling New Delhi back to the negotiating table — a much harder sell. Yet neither side escaped contradiction. India's claim to strategic clarity was weakened by deflection on domestic aspects of terrorism in Kashmir. Pakistan's message of peace was blunted by triumphalism and tired tropes. In diplomacy, silence often speaks louder than words. In London last week, the most telling signals were what each side omitted, ignored, or performed for the audience they believed mattered most. Ladwig III is a senior lecturer at the department of War Studies, King's College London
New Indian Express
43 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
Smelling cash in the space race
Space has an odour. Visitors to the Goddard Space Flight Centre in Maryland, US, can smell it by pressing a button to inhale a puff of air that smells of space. Space is airless by definition, but the workaround is essential because we can't inhale 'space' without fatal consequences. Despite this logical complication, the experience is evocative and surprising. Space smells of long-distance travel. It smells of Indian highways far from big cities. It smells like the world did long ago on the railways, when almost everyone travelled without air conditioning. But hereafter, space could smell a little different. From the beginning of the space race, it has smelled of Cold War rivalry, military-industrial complexes and technology-based diplomacy. These metallic notes will remain; but from here on, space will also smell overwhelmingly of commerce, of paper money. Gold is economically and chemically stable. It has no smell, unlike space. The countdown of the Axiom-4 mission to the International Space station has been aborted twice but soon, astronauts from India, Poland and Hungary could be back in space after 40 years and more. In anticipation, their national media have already declared it to be a turning point for their domestic space programmes. But the composition of the Axiom-4 mission also indicates that the whole world has passed a turning point. The crew led by American Peggy Whitson will be taken to orbit on Elon Musk's commercial Dragon launch vehicle, and the project is a collaboration between NASA, the European Space Agency, ISRO and the Houston firm Axiom Space, whose most ambitious project is the first commercial space station. The purpose of the collaboration is to facilitate a range of commercial activities in space, from scientific research to space tourism. Space is about to be opened up commercially, just like the world was opened like an oyster by the European Age of Exploration. About 40 years ago, when India, Poland and Hungary last sent their citizens into space, it was a domain where national governments showed off their technological prowess to compete for geopolitical gains. These three countries made a place for themselves in space under the aegis of Interkosmos, a Russian state programme launched in 1967 to help satellite nations of the USSR and other socialist nations like Afghanistan and Cuba reach space. Non-aligned nations Syria and India were also under its umbrella.
India Today
44 minutes ago
- India Today
Israeli military attack hits Yemen, reportedly targeting senior Houthi leader
Israeli forces recently carried out a targeted strike in Yemen, in an apparent assassination attempt against a senior figure in the Iran-backed Houthi movement, according to Israeli media. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) have not officially confirmed the operation, and both Israeli and Houthi officials have so far refrained from making public statements on the Houthis, who control large parts of northern Yemen, have been engaged in a campaign of maritime attacks in the Red Sea since November 2023, claiming solidarity with Palestinians amid the ongoing war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza. The group is believed to have launched over 100 assaults on commercial vessels traversing one of the world's key shipping TENSIONS BETWEEN ISRAEL AND IRANThe reported strike in Yemen comes as Israel and Iran exchanged fresh hostilities late Saturday, escalating fears of a broader regional conflict. The Israeli military expanded its campaign against Iran with a surprise strike targeting the South Pars gas field, the world's largest, prompting a fierce response from Tehran. Iran launched missiles and drones toward Israel, according to Iranian state media, while the IDF confirmed it had intercepted multiple incoming projectiles and was continuing operations against military targets in Tehran. Missile strikes lit up the night skies over Jerusalem and Haifa, where a direct hit on a residential building killed a woman in her 20s and injured at least 13 canceled a scheduled round of nuclear talks with the United States in Oman. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said the discussions were impossible amid what he called "barbarous" Israeli Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned that Iran had "seen nothing yet" and hinted at further action. Meanwhile, the White House said President Donald Trump had cautioned Iran against further escalation, offering a diplomatic off-ramp in exchange for a significant rollback of its nuclear program.
