A Natural Partnership

The one word missing in Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s swift response to the Hamas as­sault on Israeli civilians and military personnel was ‘restraint’. The Russian and Chinese state­ments called on both sides to avoid escalation and exercise restraint. Leading members of the Global South, such as Brazil, Mexico, Kenya, Vietnam, Nigeria, South Africa and Singapore condemned the violence but also called for de-escalation. Malaysia, Bangladesh and Indonesia additionally criticised Israel for “blockades”, “illegal occupation” and “forced settlements”. Quite unambiguously, Modi’s statement on X said India stood in solidarity with Israel at this difficult hour. It was not just a break from the foot-shuffling that has often marked Indian diplomacy with regard to Israel-Palestine but came even though the Modi government is deeply invested in advancing ties with Arab nations. The message was clear that Israel had suffered a grievous “terrorist attack” and had the right to respond, as presum­ably India would in a similar situation.

During his 2018 visit to Ramallah in the West Bank, the first by an Indian prime minister, Modi had backed a Palestinian state but stressed dialogue was the only way out. “We know it is not easy but we need to keep trying as a lot is at stake,” he said, standing in the of­fice of the Palestinian National Authority. Indian help to Palestine finalised during the visit was in terms of new hospitals, schools and IT training in keeping with development and humanitarian interests. The brutalities against Israeli citizens and heartrending accounts of unarmed civilians being butchered and kidnapped make it evident, if proof were required, that Hamas has no inter­est in peace. The group sees itself as a jihadist-Islamist entity and is wedded to the destruction of Israel with no concern about the consequences of its violent actions on the civilians in Gaza. The In­dian response was intended to underline absence of ambiguity in categorising the violence as ‘terrorism’, and Hamas, by implication, as a terrorist organisation. In an interaction at the Lowy Institute in the US, former National Security Advisor Shivshankar Menon said Modi’s reaction was correct as it was Israel that had been attacked, a view shared by many in the Indian foreign policy community. The initial statements of Saudi Arabia and the UAE and other Arab nations reflect different nuances. The UAE called for de-escalation but pointedly noted that the Hamas attacks are a serious and grave escalation and said it was appalled at kidnappings of civilians who have been hauled off to Gaza. Riyadh spoke of the “ongoing occu­pation and deprivation of the rights of Palestinians” but also said it is monitoring “unprecedented developments” between various Palestinian factions and Israel. Qatar held Israel solely responsible for the “escalation” and Oman did not condemn the attacks while calling for an immediate ceasefire. Bahrain said the attacks are a dangerous escalation that threaten civilian lives and Kuwait said it stood by the “brotherly Palestinian people”. As the reactions of the Arab states indicate, there are significant differences in articu­lation and emphasis.

A tougher test for Indian foreign policy lies ahead with Israel Defense Forces (IDF) planning ground operations in Gaza fol­lowing aerial assaults on Hamas targets. The IDF spokesperson has said that the war goals outlined by the Israeli government are to end Hamas’ control of Gaza. This is seen as a ‘maximalist’ goal, but even if it is meant to signal determination to act against Hamas, the fighting is likely to intensify and the casualty count, which has already crossed 2,000, will go up with more Palestinian losses hereon. The key factor is how Saudi Arabia will position itself once this happens. So far, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) has said he stood by the Palestinian cause but only a few weeks ago had told a Western interviewer that Saudi Arabia was moving steadily towards normalising relations with Israel, a process that has the backing of the US and is sometimes referred to as the “deal of the century”.

As the war progresses and the Arab street gets worked up and emotions spill over, will MBS and Riyadh adopt a tougher anti- Israel position? This, along with the possibility that hostilities will continue for some time in the foreseeable future, has a bearing on Indian interests. While India-Saudi ties, as also relations with other Middle Eastern nations, have a sound bilateral footing and will not be directly affected, the larger realignment of forces that was underway in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) was to India’s benefit. The geopolitics of the violence-prone region was changing, offering hope of a more peaceful and prosperous future to its nearly 600 million residents.

By wide reckoning, the Hamas attacks could not have been possible without support from Iran which backs the group just as it finances and arms Hezbollah in Lebanon. It is estimated that besides transferring supplies of rockets to Hamas, Iran has helped the group set up its own production capacities. Hamas, along with Islamic Jihad, is seen to have an arsenal of 30,000 rockets although the number may be more. Even if Iran did not know the specifics of the attacks—though this is a matter of speculation—it is hard to believe that it had no inkling despite Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei denying any Iranian role in the attacks while offering support for Palestine. Yet, the guidance systems for the Hamas rockets have been provided to the group and emerging trends in the Middle East—a US-Saudi-Israel rapprochement, if not an axis—do not suit Tehran at all. “Iran’s larger interests are not served by Israel finding acceptance or getting normalised in the Arab world. The Middle East has been moving on such a trajectory with the Abraham Accords and other developments that include a serious discussion between Israel and Saudi Arabia. Reviving the Palestine issue and resistance can impede this process and raise political costs for Saudi Arabia in particular. The sentiment of the Arab street can become a relevant factor that Arab nations may find hard to ignore,” Deepika Saraswat, associate fellow at the West Asia Centre, IDSA, told Open. India has also tried to find a way to engage with Iran through infrastructure projects and by seeking to leverage Tehran’s distrust of the Taliban in Afghanistan and fric­tions with Pakistan. But Iran’s leaders, like Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdogan, have sought to play the Islamic card and present them­selves as the true representatives of Islam’s interests. As things stand, no Arab nation has been particularly mindful of the Pales­tinian cause and Iran’s ‘help’ has only made the region more mili­tarised and amplified conflicts, begetting more violence. Once eco­nomically progressive, Lebanon is pockmarked by refugee camps and more than half-a-million registered displaced persons. Iran’s proxies have only contributed to unrest in their pursuit of control within Lebanon and confrontation with Israel.

The brutality of the Hamas violence has, however, taken the sheen off arguments that have often been advanced in its defence (and in criticism of Israel) by a vocal section of aca­demics, activists, politicians and commentators in the West as well as in India. This is largely the same set that often targets India for “democratic backsliding” and “bias against minorities”, argu­ing that the country is embracing majoritarian­ism. The blatant calls for violence by various organisations and demonstrations in support of Hamas in several Western cities serve to unmask the true intolerant nature of such an ecosystem. It is revealing that the statement in support of Hamas issued by a coali­tion of student groups led to US business leaders demanding that the names of students who signed it be released as they would be blacklisted. This is fairly unprecedented and shows how the mood has changed, at least in the regular employment market. Former Harvard president and leading economist Larry Summers decried the delay on the part of the university in releasing a statement con­demning the atrocities against Israeli citizens. The fundamentalist nature of forces that seek to target India, and the duplicity of their advocates and supporting cast, stand exposed as the same lot is busy offering all manner of excuses in Hamas’ behalf. Recent reports in Indian media revealed that activists who are being investigated for running media outlets set up to churn out anti-India propaganda were also involved in raising support for pro-Hamas flotillas in­tended to break the area’s blockade. As it turned out, the so-called flotilla had suspected terrorists on board.

The new war in the Middle East, even as the one in Ukraine blazes on, is yet another challenge for India with concerns arising about energy security and the livelihoods and safety of millions of Indian citizens who work in the region. India has, even when it could consider more diplomatic options, identified Israel as a friend in need. At the same time, its equations with other nations in the region can provide it the opportunity to facilitate honest conversations or be a messenger if the need arises. It will not be considered insincere by most parties in the conflict zone.

Benjamin NetanyahugeopoliticsIndia-Israel relationsIsrael At WarIsrael-HamasNarendra Modi