Partners Against Terror

WHEN DONALD TRUMP entered the White House in January one of his first priorities was securing the release of Israeli hostages held in Gaza. His blunt warning “all hell will break out” proved effective. Within the first five weeks of his presidency, Hamas released 30 hostages and returned the bodies of eight others. The world applauded the move, seeing it as an early step towards the Nobel Peace Prize Trump openly desires. His ties with leaders like Vladimir Putin and Recep Tayyip Erdogan also fuelled speculation that he might play a pivotal role in ending the war between Russia and Ukraine—another potential mile­stone on the path to the prize. More recently, as tensions escalated between Pakistan and India, Trump might have reasoned that if progress stalled else­where, this Asian flashpoint could become his ticket to international acclaim.

So far, the end of the Israel-Gaza conflict remains uncertain. The successful February meeting between Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu initially suggested that their tight alliance would lead to the full release of the hostages. However, the relationship soon soured.

President Trump’s recent visit to the Middle East notably excluded Israel—a striking omission given that the Abraham Accords, one of the signature achievements of his first term, were not part of this trip’s agenda. In Israel, the exclusion was widely perceived as a diplomatic snub, even a slap in the face.

As of today, 57 hostages are still being held in Gaza, with only 23 believed to be alive. Trump did manage to secure the release of one high-profile captive: American-Israeli soldier Edan Alexander. Captured at his military base, Alexander holds dual citizenship, and it was his American passport that ultimately worked in his favour. This has sparked bitter commentary on Israeli social media where a sarcastic phrase is trending: “When you enlist in the IDF, your most essential gear is an American passport.”

The conflict between India and Pakistan drew special attention in Israel where it was seen as a kind of bond of fate. The parallels be­tween the terrorist attacks in both countries—and the military responses that followed—were striking. The October 7, 2023 massacre in Israel was driven by religious and national hatred. Terrorists killed civilians in cold blood, many at point-blank range. Among the victims were women and children. Comparing April 22, 2025 in India to Israel’s October 7 may not be accurate in terms of scale. The slaughter of 1,200 people out of a popu­lation of just 10 million left a scar that is difficult to equate with the Pahalgam massacre. Still, the shock and trauma were similar. But this is not just about numbers. It is about the painful realisation that terror networks had their roots along our borders.

Pakistan responded with denial: “It wasn’t us.” Just as people in Gaza said the same: “It’s not us, it’s Hamas.” But what was left unsaid matters most. They elected Hamas. They funded and supported Hamas. And the terrorists of Hamas are not strangers—they are their sons and daughters.

When Pakistan claimed that India had attacked mosques and schools, we experienced a sense of déjà vu. Hamas, too, used hospitals, mosques, and schools as military strong­holds—betting that Israel would hesitate to strike such sites. The strategy was clear: hide behind civilians to avoid retaliation. The concept of surgical airstrikes is another common thread, utilised by both the Israeli and Indian air forces in their efforts to minimise harm to civilians while targeting terror infrastructure.

After Operation Sindoor, Pakistan immediately claimed that India had targeted civilians, including children. It’s a familiar tactic—one the Palestinians have often used against Israel to sway global public opinion. In both cases, the narrative is shaped to portray the demo­cratic state as the aggressor, despite the fact that both Israel and India are responding to brutal acts of terrorism.

The hypocrisy of many Western countries in their approach to the Israel-Palestine and India-Pakistan conflicts is impossible to ignore. Israel is often labelled the stronger side: an occupying power, an imperialist force, even a colonialist entity. The reality, however, is that it is a democracy defending itself against terror, just as India is.

Yet, time and again, Israel is cast as the villain. And during and after Operation Sindoor, we have seen similar sentiments directed towards India. Calls for “restraint” from international leaders echo the same patronising tone we in Israel have heard for decades—urging democracies under attack to show more compassion than their attackers.

Our two nations share a deep respect for human life and a commitment to protecting the innocent. Yet Israel has found itself under attack—not just from terrorists but also from world leaders and international institutions, including the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague, accusing Israel of crimes against humanity. So I couldn’t help but smile when those same voices suddenly urged India to “show restraint”. The world has a tendency to side with the weaker party, even when it was that very side that initiated the violence and committed horrific acts.

I appreciated India’s firm response: “We need partners, not mediators or preachers.” It’s easy to moralise from a distance. But only those who have faced the horror of terrorism truly understand the pain of being blamed for defending themselves. As Prime Minister Narendra Modi said in his speech, “Terror cannot be tolerated.”

In the context of the India-Pakistan conflict, it has often been said that the nuclear capabilities of both nations create a form of strategic stability. While that dynamic may hold in South Asia, it presents a far more troubling picture when viewed through the lens of Israel’s primary adversary: Iran. Iran continues to make relentless progress towards nuclear capability, and for Israel this is cause for deep and growing concern. Tehran has made no secret of its ambitions—its leadership has repeatedly and explicitly called for the elimination of Israel. The recent missile attacks launched from Iran at Israeli territory were a chilling preview of what Iran might attempt if it possessed nuclear weapons. And if Iran does reach nuclear capability, who can guarantee it won’t use it? The US has resumed talks with Tehran regarding its nuclear programme. At the same time, the growing rift between Trump and Netanyahu has intensified fears within Israel. There is increasing anxiety that any potential agreement brokered by Trump could sideline Israel’s security concerns in favour of a broader diplomatic ‘solution’.

The Pahalgam attack is likely to bring Israel and India even closer. We face a common enemy: terrorist organisations that seem to attend the same “university of terror”— adopting identical tactics, ideologies, and objectives. Their shared objective is to destabilise our democracies and instil fear among civilians.

One of Israel’s biggest miscalcula­tions before October 7 was the assumption that Hamas had been effectively deterred. That false sense of security proved disastrous. India cannot afford to make the same mistake when it comes to Pakistan and the terror protégés. Operation Sindoor, while necessary and forceful, cannot be treated as a one-time response. Terrorism is like cancer; it grows silently when left unchecked. If India chooses to stay quiet until the next attack, there will be a next attack. And it will be even more brutal.

The blackouts imposed across Indian cities reminded me of the Yom Kippur War when Israel darkened its cities to mislead enemy aircraft. Thankfully, this kind of threat has not been part of the current war Israel faces. None of the adversar­ies involved in the ongoing conflict possesses an operational air force capable of threatening Israeli skies.

Israel’s aerial dominance has been further secured. During the chaotic period between the collapse of Bashar al-Assad’s authority and the triumph of Ahmed al-Sharaa’s (Abu Moham­mad al-Jolani) forces in Syria, Israel seized the opportunity to neutralise the Syrian air force. This strategic move ensured air superiority which continues to be a critical factor in minimising civilian casualties on the home front. While Iran does maintain an air force, the vast distance and logistical difficulty of deploying fighter jets across such a long range—without interception— largely removes that threat from the current equation.

India and Israel are both fighting against ideologies built on destruction. When Netanyahu declared his intention to eliminate Hamas, we all understood that this was not entirely feasible. Hamas is not just a group—it is an ideology, one that can be concealed, adapted, and rebuilt. While terrorist organisations may be targeted and weakened, the subterranean terror cells are harder to eradicate. These groups will always find refuge in unstable states like Pakistan or Lebanon, biding their time for the next opportunity to strike.

Jealousy and hate are powerful forces that drive terrorism, and they are also strikingly similar in both the Israel-Palestine and India-Pakistan conflicts. Both disputes trace their origins back to a partition imposed by the British—a division of one territory into two, along with the displacement of populations. To this day, the Palestin­ians blame Israel for a decision made by Britain, and the resentment runs deep.

That jealousy is palpable when comparing the current realities of both sides. Look at where India and Israel have advanced—becoming thriving democ­racies and global powers—while the Palestinians and Pakistan, mired in ongo­ing conflict and instability, have struggled to find similar success. The disparity in progress fuels resentment, which in turn, feeds the cycles of violence and terror.

The new battleground is no longer confined to the borders; modern war­fare, propelled by new technologies, is increasingly shifting into urban centres. The drones and missiles deployed by Pakistan are similar to those used by Hezbollah in Lebanon, as well as the missiles fired from Iran, Yemen, Gaza, and Syria. The drone war is particularly insidious. These devices are often undetected, and intercepting them is a complex challenge.

In Israel, we have shelters and secure rooms built into most homes to protect civilians. While I truly hope that India will never need to implement such measures, the reality is that urban warfare has become an unavoidable part of the modern conflict landscape.

As Israel and India continue to confront the shared threat of terrorism, our partnership stands as a testament to resilience, innovation and an unwavering belief in the protection of our citizens and democracies. The fight against terror is not just a battle of military strength—it is a fight for the future of democ­racy, peace, and the fundamental right to live without fear.

2025 India-Pakistan warBenjamin NetanyahuHamasIndia-Israel relationsIsrael-Palestine conflictOperation SindoorPrime Minister Narendra Modisecurity issues