WEB DESK: Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s two-day trip to Israel on February 25–26, 2026, highlighted the strengthening of strategic ties between the two nations, but also sparked debate and criticism.
As the first Indian leader to address the Israeli Knesset, Modi expressed strong support for Israel, condemning the Hamas attacks of October 7, 2023, as “barbaric acts of terrorism,” and emphasizing that no cause can justify attacking civilians. However, his remarks during the visit appeared heavily skewed, reflecting a one-sided perspective that favored Israel’s security narrative. The focus on shared strategic interests and vague references to “just peace” seemed to indicate a shift away from India’s traditional balanced foreign policy stance, raising questions about its moral compass.
A notable omission was Modi’s silence regarding the extensive suffering of Palestinian civilians. According to Gaza health authorities and research from The Lancet, over 72,000 Palestinians have lost their lives since October 2023, with some estimates surpassing 75,000 within just over a year. Entire neighborhoods have been destroyed, populations displaced, and Israel faces allegations of genocide at the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Yet, Modi’s address at the Knesset concentrated solely on condemning Hamas, ignoring the devastating impact of Israel’s military response. This selective stance exemplifies a broader trend in Modi’s foreign policy prioritizing strategic interests over consistent human rights advocacy and India’s long-held moral principles. The visit underscores a troubling contradiction: a nation that prides itself on democracy and championing the Global South appears to overlook one of the most severe humanitarian crises of the 21st century.
India’s historic position on Palestine was rooted in anti-colonial solidarity. Mahatma Gandhi, as early as 1938, declared that “Palestine belongs to the Arabs,” emphasizing self-determination. Under Jawaharlal Nehru, India opposed the 1947 UN partition plan for Palestine, recognized the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) as the legitimate representative of Palestinians in 1974, and was the first non-Arab country to recognize Palestinian statehood in 1988. Even after establishing diplomatic relations with Israel in 1992, India maintained a balanced approach criticizing Israeli settlements, supporting a two-state solution with East Jerusalem as Palestine’s capital, and casting votes reflecting sympathy for Palestinian rights.
Under Modi, this balance has been deliberately disrupted. His 2017 visit to Israel, without a stop in Ramallah, marked a new era of unreserved engagement, signaling a departure from previous policies. Defense cooperation has expanded significantly, with Israel becoming a major arms supplier, providing drones, missiles, and surveillance tech crucial for India’s security. Collaboration in agriculture, water management, and technology has also grown. The ideological affinity between Hindutva nationalism and Zionism, both emphasizing civilizational exceptionalism, has further deepened this partnership, raising concerns about the broader implications for global peace and stability.
However, this strategic alignment has come at a cost to India’s credibility on human rights. While Modi’s government often advocates democratic principles and minority protections abroad, it has largely abstained or been silent on UN resolutions criticizing Israel’s actions in Gaza. India has also declined to support South Africa’s case against Israel at the ICJ. Domestically, opposition figures have condemned the visit as “moral cowardice” and a betrayal of India’s anti-colonial roots. Public criticism has been sharp many highlight the hypocrisy of condemning Israeli casualties while ignoring Palestinian suffering, and some see the support for Netanyahu, despite ICC arrest warrants, as legitimizing alleged war crimes.
This inconsistency reflects a pattern in Modi’s foreign policy selective application of human rights standards. While terrorism by groups like Hamas or accusations against Pakistan are swiftly condemned, similar actions by close allies often go uncriticized. India’s stance on cross-border insurgency from Afghanistan and Pakistan often aligns with strategic interests. Meanwhile, India’s role as a voice for the Global South at forums like G20 and BRICS is increasingly at odds with its tilt toward Israel during the Gaza crisis, risking alienation from key Arab partners who supply energy, host Indian workers, and maintain diplomatic ties. Domestically, Modi’s core support base, influenced by Hindutva narratives, generally favors Israel’s stance as a “civilizational” partner confronting Palestine, turning support for Palestine into a marginalized political stance.
As Modi departs Jerusalem, the broader message of his visit becomes clear: condemning one side’s civilian casualties while ignoring the suffering of the other undermines India’s moral authority. While the visit may deepen bilateral cooperation, it also raises serious questions about the direction of Indian diplomacy—whether it remains rooted in moral principles or is driven solely by strategic calculations. This shift hints at a troubling trend: India’s increasing alignment with extremist ideology, risking its role as a stabilizing force in South Asia and beyond.
