Taking sides: On Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Israel

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s 24-hour visit to Jerusalem was a significant bilateral outreach to Israel, but a missed opportunity on Palestine, with complex consequences for India’s ties with West Asia. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had announced the visit in December and confirmed the dates on Sunday, indicating Israel’s keen interest in hosting Mr. Modi. From Mr. Modi’s landing, to every engagement up to his departure, Mr. Netanyahu personally escorted Mr. Modi everywhere. After bilateral talks on Thursday, the two leaders agreed to upgrade ties to a “Special Strategic Partnership”, and signed a critical technologies partnership among more than 15 MoUs in AI, agriculture, culture and education. They also agreed to facilitate the employment of 50,000 Indian workers in Israel over the next five years. The engagement, and Mr. Netanyahu’s deep praise for Mr. Modi and the India relationship was even more intense than during Mr. Modi’s 2017 visit. This possibly accrues from the timing of the visit, as Israel faces growing isolation over high casualties in Gaza and Mr. Netanyahu’s West Bank settlement plans. In the past week, Israel’s West Bank proposals have been condemned by dozens of countries, which includes Germany, France, and the U.K. that have been measured so far. Mr. Netanyahu heads into an election later this year, which will be seen as a referendum on his record, in terms of alleged corruption in his government as well as for accountability for security lapses in 2023 and the civilian toll of Israel’s response. Mr. Modi’s visit would bolster him politically. In his speech at the Knesset, Mr. Modi referred only obliquely to Palestinian sovereignty, saying that the U.S.-led Gaza Peace Initiative, which commits to a two-state solution, “holds the promise of a just and durable peace… including by addressing the Palestine Issue”. The Prime Minister said that India shared the pain and grief of every life lost in the October 2023 terror attack by Hamas but made no mention of the high toll — more than 72,000 killed — in the strikes on Gaza by Israel since then.

It is hoped that Mr. Modi will clarify India’s position on the conflict, as he did after his last visit, by following it up with a visit to Palestine. His decision to travel amidst the threat of U.S. attacks on Iran carried the possible risk of taking sides in the event of a conflict. Beyond the bilateral, the outcomes of his visit will be judged globally by its impact on the larger West Asian neighbourhood. First, his announcement that India-Israel-UAE and India-Israel-UAE-U.S. “I2U2” would develop new momentum, as would the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC), indicates New Delhi believes that regional initiatives are still viable despite the polarised atmosphere and recent deep fault-lines. Second, a decision to “stand with Israel, firmly… ” could come at the cost of India’s relations with other West Asian powers, which expect India to remain steadfast to its historically calibrated regional balance, and to principles of peace, morality and compassion in the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Overall Analysis

This editorial evaluates Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s recent visit to Israel, portraying it as diplomatically significant yet strategically delicate. It acknowledges the strengthening of bilateral ties but raises concerns about the broader geopolitical implications, particularly regarding Palestine and India’s position in West Asia.

The first paragraph highlights the symbolism and optics of the visit. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s personal escort and public praise underscore Israel’s eagerness to project closeness with India. The upgrading of ties to a “Special Strategic Partnership,” along with numerous MoUs in AI, agriculture, and technology, reflects tangible diplomatic gains. However, the editorial suggests that the warmth of the reception must be viewed in context: Israel currently faces international criticism over high casualties in Gaza and controversial West Bank settlement plans. By visiting during such a period, Mr. Modi’s presence may be interpreted as politically bolstering Mr. Netanyahu, who faces domestic electoral pressures and scrutiny over governance and security issues.

The article then critiques Mr. Modi’s speech at the Knesset for its limited reference to Palestinian sovereignty. While he mentioned the U.S.-led Gaza Peace Initiative and a two-state solution, the editorial notes the absence of direct acknowledgment of the civilian toll in Gaza following the October 2023 Hamas attack. This omission is portrayed as diplomatically significant, suggesting a possible tilt in India’s traditionally balanced stance on the Israel-Palestine conflict.

In the second paragraph, the editorial broadens the lens to regional strategy. It argues that Mr. Modi’s visit, amid tensions such as potential U.S. action against Iran, risked signaling alignment in a volatile environment. References to multilateral groupings like I2U2 (India-Israel-UAE-U.S.) and the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC) indicate India’s belief in sustained regional cooperation despite polarization. However, the editorial cautions that an overtly pro-Israel posture could strain India’s long-standing ties with other West Asian nations, which expect New Delhi to maintain its historically calibrated balance and commitment to peace.

Overall, the article balances recognition of diplomatic gains with a warning: India’s global credibility in West Asia depends not just on strategic partnerships but on preserving its image as an even-handed actor guided by principle and pragmatism.

Important Vocabulary (5)

1. Bilateral – involving two countries or parties.
2. Accrues – accumulates or results as a consequence.
3. Obliquely – indirectly or not in a straightforward manner.
4. Referendum – a public vote on a particular issue.
5. Calibrated – carefully adjusted or balanced.

Conclusion & Tone

The editorial views the visit as diplomatically productive but geopolitically sensitive. It urges clarity in India’s stance and emphasizes the importance of maintaining a balanced, principled approach in the Israel-Palestine conflict to safeguard broader regional relationships.

Tone: Analytical, cautious, and diplomatically critical — supportive of engagement but wary of perceived partisanship.