Modi Crosses the Rubicon and Embraces Israel |
The Pulse | Diplomacy | South Asia
Modi Crosses the Rubicon and Embraces Israel
He could have used his trip to Israel to call explicitly for de-escalation of tensions with Iran and a negotiated settlement; instead, he chose silence on that front.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi is awarded the first-ever “Speaker of the Knesset Medal” during his visit to Israel, Feb. 26, 2026
On the 32nd anniversary of the massacre in Hebron — when Israeli terrorist Baruch Goldstein killed 29 Palestinian worshippers and injured more than 125 inside the Ibrahimi Mosque on February 25, 1994 — Prime Minister Narendra Modi addressed the Israeli Knesset and declared that India stands with Israel “with full conviction.” In so doing, he became the first Indian prime minister ever to address Israel’s parliament. In his speech, he condemned terrorism and affirmed that no cause can justify the murder of civilians.
Yet the symbolism of the moment was striking. Modi did not acknowledge the Hebron massacre, nor did he reflect on the killing of Palestinian civilians by an Israeli terrorist on that very date in 1994. He also offered no words of empathy for the more than 73,000 Palestinian men, women, and children killed in Gaza by Israel in the aftermath of the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack — a toll that continues to rise. While he expressed grief and solidarity with Israeli civilians murdered by Hamas, the Indian prime minister did not extend even a single word of compassion to the far larger number of Palestinian women and children killed by Israel in its ensuing assault on Gaza.
Civilization Values and Moral Hypocrisy
In invoking the Indian civilizational ideal of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam — the belief that the world is one family — Modi appealed to a universal moral principle deeply rooted in India’s philosophical tradition. But a universal ethic demands consistency. If all of humanity is one family, then empathy cannot be selective, nor can moral outrage be applied asymmetrically. The deliberate killing of civilians is indefensible, regardless of who commits it — even if the victims are Palestinians and the perpetrator is Israel.
Hypocrisy has increasingly become a hallmark of Modi’s speeches. He frequently declares that India condemns terrorism “in all its forms,” yet rarely, if ever, does he publicly condemn violence against India’s own religious minorities or against those belonging to lower castes who are often targeted by extremist Hindutva groups such as the Bajrang Dal. Lynching, mob violence, and the destruction of minority property have become recurring features of India’s domestic landscape, yet one would be hard-pressed to find consistent, unequivocal denunciations from the prime minister when Indians are brutalized by other Indians in the name of religion or caste.
By contrast, he is swift and vocal in condemning violence against Hindu minorities in Bangladesh, or against members of the Indian diaspora in countries such as Canada and Australia. The asymmetry is glaring. It suggests that his condemnation of terrorism is selective — energized when it aligns with majoritarian political narratives, muted when it demands confronting violence within India itself.
In that sense, his speech in the Israeli parliament was characterized not by universal moral clarity, but by profound moral inconsistency. Moral credibility depends not merely on condemning violence, but on condemning it without discrimination. When solidarity is extended to one set of victims while another is rendered invisible, the claim to universal values becomes difficult to sustain.
Radical Shift in India’s West Asia Policy
Hypocrisy aside, Modi’s visit to Israel at this particular juncture carries a far more consequential message. At a time when Israel is facing growing diplomatic isolation, when sections of Europe are openly critical of its conduct in Gaza, and when public opinion in Israel’s most important ally — the United States — has shifted markedly against Israeli policy, Modi’s embrace of Israel signals something deeper than routine bilateral engagement. It suggests a deliberate and........