Modi’s visit to Israel: Standing on the wrong side of history

On Thursday (February 26), Narendra Modi finished a two‑day state visit to Israel. This was his first visit since 2017, when he became the first Indian prime minister ever to step on Israeli soil.

Framed as a leap towards a special strategic partnership, the trip nonetheless has raised difficult questions about what it signalled—and what it left unsaid—amid the continuing devastation in Gaza caused by Israel, which has killed at least 72,073 people and wounded 171,756 since October 2023. At least 615 of these deaths occurred during the “ceasefire” agreed between Israel and Hamas last October.

The urgent calls for justice and dignity from Palestinians received little to no attention in the official agenda of this visit. Instead, during his address to the Knesset on Wednesday, Modi asserted that “India stands with Israel, firmly, with full conviction,” offering solidarity after the October 7, 2023 Hamas attacks and reaffirming India’s “zero tolerance for terrorism.” 

He also conveyed India’s condolences for Israeli losses and spoke of expanding cooperation in defence, trade and technology. But, to no one’s surprise, he made no specific reference whatsoever to the scale of the ongoing suffering in Gaza.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in turn, welcomed Modi warmly and praised the deepening ties between the two nations. “You are a great friend of Israel and a great leader on the world stage… Narendra, you are more than a friend—you are a brother,” Netanyahu said. Modi was also conferred the Speaker of the Knesset Medal, Israel’s highest parliamentary honour. Beyond the Knesset, Modi’s itinerary included ceremonial receptions, bilateral talks, and interactions with the Indian diaspora in Israel.

Modi and Israeli leadership reviewed progress in the strategic partnership and discussed cooperation across defence, science and technology, innovation, agriculture, water management, trade, and investment. Talks reportedly also touched on advancing negotiations towards a free trade agreement (FTA) and other economic deals. Bilateral merchandise trade between India and Israel was about $3.62 billion in FY 2024‑25, with India as Israel’s second‑largest Asian trading partner. 

An FTA is expected to boost trade access for goods and services including high‑tech products and agriculture. Defence cooperation remains substantial: Israel’s exports to India from 2020 to 2024 were estimated at around $20.5 billion, covering missile systems, drones, radar and other technologies—figures that illustrate the tangible stakes of the partnership.

Far from making any plea for peace in Gaza, Modi’s visit solidified India’s alignment with a state accused internationally of using overwhelming force and enforcing apartheid policies. It can thus be read as not only an economic, but also a political endorsement of Israel’s leadership at a moment when it faces accusations of war crimes and genocide from international legal and human rights circles.

India claims to support a two‑state solution, but those words appear hollow in light of its deepening ties with Israel, which materially reinforce the mechanisms used to maintain occupation and restrict Palestinian freedom. While trade and technological initiatives with Israel may enhance India’s strategic depth, they also entangle the country in systems that perpetuate oppression. This alignment has drawn sharp criticism from voices across India’s own political spectrum.

Jairam Ramesh, member of the opposition Indian National Congress, called Modi’s trip “moral cowardice,” arguing that embracing Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu, someone who “has reduced Gaza to rubble and dust” and “orchestrates the expansion of illegal settlements,” amounts to abandoning India’s historic support for Palestinian rights. Ramesh noted that India once stood with Palestine during earlier conflicts and said the government’s current statements about peace are inconsistent with its actions.

MA Baby, leader of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) criticised Modi’s trip sharply, saying the visit “will be an indelible blot on our nation’s soul” and accused the prime minister of betraying India’s anti‑colonial legacy and long‑standing support for Palestinian self‑determination.

The criticism goes beyond party politics. A parliamentary panel led by Shashi Tharoor, chairman of the parliamentary standing committee on external affairs, warned that the timing and symbolism of the visit, especially amid rising tensions with Iran, could affect India’s global image and that foreign policy messaging matters even in complex security situations.

These political criticisms resonate with historical context. India was among the first non-Arab countries to recognise the State of Palestine in 1988 and has long maintained a principled position in support of its sovereignty. Today, however, its stance has shifted towards having closer ties with Israel, while non-Arab and non-Muslim countries like Sweden and Ireland continue to consistently support Palestinian rights.

The geopolitical backdrop amplifies the concerns. West Asia remains volatile, with tensions between the US and Iran simmering, and Israel positioning itself as a key US ally. Netanyahu, in recent times, has openly discussed forming a “hexagon of alliances” with countries including India, Greece, Cyprus, and some Arab states to counter perceived threats in the Middle East, signalling that the relationship is as much about geopolitical alignment as it is about bilateral cooperation.

In this context, Modi’s visit strengthens Israel’s international position at a moment when many Western and Global South countries are wary of being seen as too close to Jerusalem amid its military campaign in Gaza.

For Israel, Modi’s presence—including his address to the Knesset—carries political weight as domestic debates over judicial independence and Netanyahu’s leadership continue to dominate. That a prominent leader from a major democracy would visit at this moment lends diplomatic cover to a government facing both domestic and international criticism.

India’s strategy is often framed in terms of “strategic autonomy”—that is, balancing relationships with Israel, Arab states, and Iran. But the material cooperation with Israel complicates India’s ability to serve as an honest broker for peace. In recent UN votes, India’s positions have oscillated, sometimes abstaining on resolutions critical of Israel while joining others that condemned settlement expansions after many other countries had already articulated opposition, drawing domestic criticism for inconsistency.

Defence cooperation is central to this relationship. Both governments have reiterated their commitment to counter-terrorism, intelligence sharing, and joint assessments of emerging security challenges. While there can indeed be some level of concern in India about terrorism threats, linking counter-terrorism so closely with advanced military cooperation obscures how these capabilities are used in the contexts of occupation, border control, and civilian restriction rather than exclusively against combatant threats.

Ultimately, Modi’s visit to Israel raises a fundamental question about the moral compass of foreign policy: can strategic interests and technology cooperation justify overlooking profound human suffering? By materially supporting Israel during an ongoing conflict and strengthening ties with its military and intelligence apparatus, India prioritises defence and influence over justice and human dignity. 

History will evaluate nations not on the basis of ceremonial speeches or bilateral forums, but based on whose suffering they acknowledged and whose rights they chose to defend. In the long run, Modi’s visit may be remembered not as a historic moment, but as a point when India, as a country, chose convenience, strategic ties, and defence cooperation over human rights and consistent moral leadership. 

It would be seen as when India stood, in effect, on the wrong side of history.