The Israel-Palestine War and India’s Foreign Policy

It has been more than a year since the Gaza-Palestine war broke out, and there is no end in sight. While the world partakes in festive cheer with their families, many in Palestine and Israel are grieving the loss from a conflict that has spanned decades. Palestinians are living under circumstances with a lack of access to basic necessities like food, water and electricity – such resources which we often take for granted. For them, life is a daily struggle even to obtain their fundamental rights.

The roots of the conflict lie in the clash of national identities – Zionist and Palestinian – claiming the same land, which stretches back over a century. The complexities of this issue are crucial to understanding the conflict today because it speaks to deeply personal and generational aspirations. Zionism, the first such movement for Jews, emerged during the late 19th century. Centuries of Jewish persecution and antisemitic sentiments across Europe led to them advocating for a Jewish homeland in Palestine (then part of the Ottoman Empire). Jewish immigration also increased post the Balfour Declaration in 1917 when Britain took control over Palestine after World War I and expressed support for creating a “national home for the Jews” in Palestine. This threatened the Palestinian Arabs already residing there. The local Arabs who have been living in the region for generations were suddenly experiencing a fear of displacement and safety. The line of demarcation was not only political but ran deep into the lines of personal memory by 1947 when the UN proposed partitioning the land into separate Jewish and Arab states, with Jerusalem under international control. For the Jews, partition became an option for life, survival, and salvation from persecution. But for the Palestinians, it marked the beginning of their dispossession. In 1948, when the British mandate ended, the Jewish leadership established the state of Israel. This sparked the first Arab-Israeli war, wherein Palestinians were massively displaced, an event that still forms part of Palestinian history as the Nakba or “catastrophe”.

Since the establishment of Israel, relations have been marked by frequent warfare between Israel and neighbouring Arab states. The 1967 Six-Day War was however a turning point when Israel occupied the West Bank, Gaza and even East Jerusalem. Thus, Palestinians living in these occupied areas became subject to Israeli military control. Matters of course became worse as Israel continued the construction of settlements, which was deemed illegal by international law. For Palestinians, the decades that followed were seen with lands lost, identities diminished, and rights evaporated. Serious efforts for Palestinian statehood were marked during the 1960s by the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO), though the drive for such sovereignty included armed resistance, which fuelled cycles of violence from both state and non-state actors. Peace-making efforts such as the Oslo Accords brought a ray of hope for a two-state solution, but that also was dashed with continued violence, stalemate politics, and controversy over Jerusalem’s status, Palestinian refugees’ right of return, and settlement expansion in the occupied West Bank.

The current crisis started on October 7, 2023 and it has been more than a year of massacre and genocide unfolding in Gaza, Palestine, with no end in sight.

Hamas is a Palestinian armed group and a political movement in the Gaza Strip. On October 7, 2023, it launched an attack on Israel, killing about 1200 and capturing another 250 people. In response, Israel launched a devastating military offensive against Hamas, and Gaza, triggering a humanitarian crisis where the situation in Gaza grows desperate by the hour. The picture today is catastrophic. According to the International Committee of the Red Cross, Gaza’s healthcare collapse has reached a point of no return. The violence in Gaza has almost rendered the place unrecognisable. Israel has been accused of genocide at the International Court of Justice, in a case brought by South Africa. Prime Minister Netanyahu has insisted that this is “wholly unfounded”.

India’s 21st-century foreign policy toward Palestine and Israel has emanated through strategic recalibration. Having historically shown support for the Palestinian cause, India has gradually increased its engagement with Israel, reflecting a pragmatic shift in its priorities. This change offers an insight into India’s balancing act of its moral commitments, strategic imperatives, and regional geopolitics.

Over the years, India’s approach has made multiple transitions, each characterised by different levels of alignment with Palestine or Israel. These can be recognised as “dove,” “hawk,” “dovish hawk,” and “hawkish dove” strategies, thus attesting to the nuanced diplomacy that India practiced. 

In the early 2000s, India reiterated strong moral support for the Palestinian cause while maintaining a low profile and establishing diplomatic relations with Israel. During this period, India followed a “hawkish dove” policy, endorsing its support for a two-state solution at multilateral forums. In this context, India reiterated its support for the International Court of Justice’s 2004 ruling against  Israel’s separation wall. Meanwhile, India was discreetly working towards building ties with Israel in areas such as defence and technology. These were in the interest of creating a strong foundation for pragmatic national security and technological changes, marking the start of India’s dual engagement in the region. 

During the UPA government, from 2004 to 2014, India continued its balancing act demonstrating a “dovish hawk” strategy. India aimed to deepen its defence and counter-terrorism relations with Israel, turning into one of the largest arms-importing nations for Israel. These developments, however, added a touch of secrecy to the relationship to avoid antagonising Arab states because of India’s overwhelming resilience on Gulf energy imports and expatriate remittances from that part of the world. While it hosted leaders, including Mahmoud Abbas, India re-emphasised its support for the Palestinian cause and reiterated its commitment to the two-state solution. This phase acted as a springboard for India’s friendly diplomacy, which deftly balanced rising strategic needs and ideological consistency.

The change of government in 2014 marked a defining shift in India’s approach toward Israel. India pursued a more open, assertive and “hawkish dove” approach while offering continued symbolic support for Palestine. Indian Prime Minister’s historic visit to Israel in 2017, the first of its kind, heralded the transformation of bilateral relations in defence, cybersecurity, water management, and agriculture. Simultaneously, India continued to engage with Palestine, exemplified by the Prime Minister’s visit to Ramallah in 2018, where he announced $50 million in aid and reiterated India’s support for a two-state solution. The Indian approach has since become a more pragmatic form of diplomacy; the “dovish hawk.” With the 2020 Abraham Accords, normalising relations between Israel and several Arab states, this reset gave India room to deepen its partnerships across the region.

During the 2021 Gaza-Israel conflict, India called upon all sides to exercise restraint, neither avoiding criticism nor openly condemning Israel. India, however, continued to support Palestinian statehood in international forums and display its traction with Israel to bolster its defence and technological capabilities.

India’s foreign policy towards Palestine and Israel has mainly been measured up against those of other middle powers facing similar dilemmas. For instance, Turkey, just like India, has historically backed Palestine rhetorically while cultivating trade and military ties with Israel. Similarly, the UAE normalised relations with Israel under the Abraham Accords while extending strong humanitarian support for Palestine. The US, in contrast, has remained steadfast in its support for Israel, unwaveringly backing its policies, while the Japanese refrained from joining in open military partnerships and instead offered humanitarian assistance to Palestine.

In the Global South, India has championed the liberation of Palestine and was one of the first nations to recognise it as a state. India even released a commemorative stamp in honour of the people of Palestine in 1981. Supporters of the incumbent Prime Minister and the ruling party openly express their admiration for Israel’s aggressive security. Barely three weeks after the first attack, India abstained from a vote at the UN General Assembly that called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, significantly the only south Asian nation to do so. As the crisis continued to unfold in Gaza, India officially tried to strike a balance by sending aid and raising concerns for the civilians. In December 2023, India finally voted in favour of a ceasefire solution and re-affirmed its traditional call for a two-state solution. 

But there is a problem. India has abstained from enough UN resolutions for many analysts to see India’s responses to the Israel-Palestine conflict as deeply problematic and supportive of Israel. The precedent for this alleged pro-Israel stance was set in 2019, when India voted in support of Israel at the UN’s Economic and Social Council, to deny observer status to a Palestinian human rights organisation. India’s “Connect West Asia Policy” was formulated by the UPA government, under the leadership of then Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh. It featured a strong affinity with the Palestinian cause. Due to the synergy between domestic and foreign policy imperatives, the policy was generally successful. In 2014, a significant shift occurred in West Asia policy, marked by a deepening and strengthening of ties with Israel under the newly established government.

India’s decision to abstain from a ceasefire vote for Gaza is a nuanced policy stand shaped by the pragmatism of its foreign policy, the outlook of the government and evolving geopolitical dynamics in the Global South. The foreign policy is rooted in strategic autonomy and abstention helps avoid alienating Israel while not outright opposing a ceasefire. It also signals its continued recognition of the Palestinian issue without jeopardising its broader West Asia policy. This abstention reveals India’s navigation of the shifting dynamics of the Global South and also seeks to redefine this leadership by emphasising development, technology and trade over ideology. Finally, amid its strategic internship with the US and the broader Quad alliance, India’s abstention reflects its desire to avoid friction with its Western allies while keeping solidarity with traditional Global South partners. 

As we can see, this is a carefully calibrated policy decision balancing historical support for Palestine, burgeoning ties with Israel, strategic relations with the Arab countries, and its aspirations to be a globally recognised, rising power in an increasingly polarised world. 

Register your Interest to Study at ISPP

Jaya Goklani
PDM Scholar, Class of 2025

Jaya Goklani is an avid traveller and learner who has lived in both northern and southern parts of India, gaining diverse cultural experiences. She holds a Bachelor’s in History and Tourism and a Master’s in International Studies from Stella Maris College, Chennai. Her interests include climate change, sustainability, international security, conflict and peace studies, human rights, and public and foreign policy. Jaya views 21st-century environmental challenges as integral to International Relations, with global repercussions. Her work experience has heightened her awareness of the importance of sustainable development, motivating her to connect her academic knowledge to influence ESG initiatives and global policymaking.

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jaya-goklani/

Sreyoshi Mitra
PDM Scholar, Class of 2025

Born and brought up in Kolkata, West Bengal, Sreyoshi Mitra studied Sociology for her undergraduate and postgraduate degrees at St. Xavier’s College, Kolkata. She first became interested in Public Policy in her third semester of postgraduate studies and decided that she wanted to pursue a career in the field. After considerable research, she discovered the flagship programme at the Indian School of Public Policy. She is keen to learn the intricacies of policymaking, particularly through gaining practical knowledge and field experience. She looks forward to exploring new and relevant perspectives in public policy and governance. Following this course, she aspires to pursue a PhD in Public Policy and Governance.

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/sreyoshi-mitra-52b136206/