India and Israel have cultivated a robust strategic partnership based on shared interests in defense, technology, agriculture, and counter-terrorism. Since normalizing relations in 1992, they have transitioned into key allies, with Israel becoming a top defense supplier and India emerging as a major market for Israeli technology, fostering a “special” and high-trust relationship. This bonhomie with Israel’s fascist stance hyphenates India with a country that is increasingly fascist, racist, colonial, militaristic, and the only official apartheid state in the world.

Prime Minister Modi is scheduled to visit Israel on February 27-28, 2026, marking a significant, high-stakes visit to deepen these ties during his third term. The partnership between India and Israel, characterized by deep defense, technology, and intelligence cooperation, is often criticized for enabling right-wing, anti-minority policies, particularly regarding Kashmir and Palestine. This is a sharp shift from India’s historical solidarity with Palestine to a strategic alignment under Narendra Modi, which is increasingly accused of being a “symbiotic” relationship based on a shared “occupation playbook” with Israel. 

Critiques of this rapidly evolving partnership is situated in concerns about the ideological alignment and targeting minorities. 

The strengthening ties under Prime Minister Modi are fuelled by a shared right-wing, nationalist ideology. This alignment has led to accusations that Indian policies in Jammu and Kashmir are modelled after Israeli practices in occupied territories.

The strengthening ties under Prime Minister Modi are fuelled by a shared right-wing, nationalist ideology. This alignment has led to accusations that Indian policies in Jammu and Kashmir are modelled after Israeli practices in occupied territories.

Defense collaboration has foundations in “Occupation” Tech. India is the largest customer of Israeli defense equipment. Journalist Azad Essa, senior reporter for Middle East Eye, argues that this, particularly surveillance and drone technology, directly aids in monitoring and controlling marginalized groups in both nations.

READ: Netanyahu says Indian prime minister to visit Israel Wednesday, address Knesset

Not just old timers who valued the Arafat-Indira Gandhi political and ideological familiarity – but progressive modernists – view this as a departure from anti-Colonial Principles. The strategic, public, and warm, relationship is seen as a betrayal of India’s historical, anti-colonial, and India’s robust pro-Palestinian stance.

The relationship has actually been accused of facilitating a climate where supporting Palestinian rights is portrayed as anti-Indian or pro-Hamas and, somehow rooted in the rise of Islamophobia. 

There are geopolitical contradictions within this relationship because, despite the close ties, India still faces a balancing act, needing to maintain relationships with Arab nations and Iran, which conflict with Israeli interests. Hence, the see-saw act in the United Nations where India’s vote swings from being pro-Israel to pro-Palestine. It is actually hard to locate the pivot that defines India’s policy on West Asia. 

Of late, critics have unleashed criticism and placed areas of cooperation under fire. India has imported missiles, radars, and UAVs (like Heron and Hermes 900). Joint ventures for manufacturing rifles and other weapons (e.g., with Adani Defense) are highlighted as part of a “sinister” deepening alliance. Israeli surveillance and intelligence-sharing tools are increasingly used by India, raising human rights concerns. 

The relationship, while pragmatic for India’s defense needs, is increasingly scrutinized for its deeper ideological and oppressive implications for human rights.

The relationship, while pragmatic for India’s defense needs, is increasingly scrutinized for its deeper ideological and oppressive implications for human rights.

The Prime Minister has expressed gratitude for calling his visit to Israel ‘historic’ and emphasising that the ‘bond between Israel and India is a powerful alliance’. Netanyahu has highlighted the “ironclad support” from India, and Modi’s upcoming trip is highlighted as a “major diplomatic victory” for Israel amid attempts to isolate it globally. 

It may be recalled that India had condemned the October 7, 2023, attacks, while also calling for a “just and durable peace” in the region and supporting humanitarian aid. India has also provided military assistance to Israel following the outbreak of the conflict. There is an element of double-speak in the way India is operating. After decades of deep solidarity at all levels.     

READ: India to buy oil from Venezuela, not Iran: Trump

For decades, India strongly supported Palestinian statehood, anti-colonialism, and the Non-Aligned Movement. Critics argue that the current, intense, “de-hyphenated” partnership with Israel, which continues despite the high civilian death toll in Gaza, represents a reversal of that moral and principled position.

Indian firms have provided military equipment, such as Hermes 900 drones, to Israel during the conflict. Additionally, India’s move to send thousands of workers to Israel to replace Palestinian labourers has been viewed by critics as practical support for the Israeli war economy.

Israel is a major provider of advanced military technology, drones, and missile systems to India. This defense cooperation is seen as essential for India’s national security, particularly regarding regional tensions.

Since 2018, India has officially treated its relations with Israel and Palestine independently (“de-hyphenation”). India argues it continues to support a two-state solution and provides humanitarian aid to Palestinians, while simultaneously deepening its strategic partnership with Israel. 

While initially taking a very strong pro-Israel stance, by late 2025 and early 2026, India appeared to be recalibrating its position to re-balance its ties with Arab nations. This includes signing statements criticizing Israeli actions in the West Bank and emphasizing its commitment to a two-state solution.

India has continued to maintain diplomatic, development, and humanitarian ties with the Palestinian Authority, even while strengthening its military alliance with Tel Aviv. 

In summary, the India-Israel partnership has matured into a significant strategic alliance driven by security and technology, which has led to intense debate about the balance between national interest and India’s long-standing foreign policy principles.

While India has occasionally called for a ceasefire and humanitarian aid, it initially abstained from UN resolutions calling for an immediate truce, a position that drew criticism from the opposition and civil society within India. The Modi government has emphasized that the relationship is built on shared security interests, particularly in combatting terrorism, and has firmly stood by Israel’s right to self-defence after the Hamas attacks. 

The Hamas attacks must be seen from the lens of continued resistance to an unceasing Nakba. Resistance is a right. Occupation is a crime. India is urged to adopt a firm, principled, and moral stance for justice, aligning with constitutional values of social, economic, and political equity rather than purely transactional foreign policy or domestic, majoritarian politics. This requires upholding human rights, strengthening democratic institutions, and addressing internal inequalities. 

The Indian Constitution’s Preamble mandates social, economic, and political justice, which must be upheld to ensure the state serves all citizens. As the “mother of democracy” and a leader of the Global South, India must promote international peace and stand against injustice, such as in Gaza, to maintain credibility.

India’s foreign and domestic policies should prioritize justice over purely strategic or economic gains, restoring a moral compass. For a stronger democracy, India must ensure its actions are consistent with its foundational, ethical, and constitutional principles.

OPINION: A stunted start marks the inaugural Board for Peace in Gaza

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.

© Middle East Monitor