A true 'Vishwaguru': How India's approach is correct on Israel-Palestine conflict

The recent escalation of violence between Israel and Hamas in Gaza has sparked a heated debate on India’s foreign policy stance on the long-standing conflict. Some critics have accused India of abandoning its moral principles and siding with Israel, while others have praised India for its balanced and pragmatic approach. In this article, I will present my viewpoint on why India’s current position is the right one, based on historical, strategic, and ethical grounds. First, let me address the issue of selective outrage that often plagues the discussions of the Israel-Palestine conflict. Some commentators have focused on the suffering of Palestinian civilians, especially children, in Gaza, while ignoring or downplaying the plight of Israeli civilians, who also face constant rocket attacks and terror threats from Hamas and other militant groups. In the passionate recounting of the plight of Palestinian children, they seem to overlook the fact that over three million children reside in Israel. While their focus on justice and moral positions is evident, it is crucial to address the double standards in their portrayal. This is not only unfair, but also counterproductive to the cause of peace and justice. Every life lost in this conflict is a tragedy, and every innocent victim deserves our sympathy and compassion, regardless of their nationality, religion, or ethnicity. The world should not turn a blind eye to the pain and anguish of either side, but rather acknowledge the complexity and humanity of both. It’s a common misperception, one that needs correcting with utmost clarity and passion. The idea that Jewish ties to their historic homeland only emerged after a 1,800-year hiatus is a distortion of history. The truth is, the Jewish people’s connection to their ancestral homeland spans over 3,700 years. This connection isn’t merely a matter of geography; it’s a testament to an unbroken chain of heritage, language, and civilisation. Israel’s existence isn’t just a product of political happenstance. It’s deeply rooted in historical validation. From the ancient times of Joshua to the Balfour Declaration of 1917, from the League of Nations Mandate to the UN partition resolution in 1947, Israel’s birth has been reinforced by a tapestry of undeniable evidence. But it’s not just about historical documents and resolutions; it’s about the society, the culture, and the spirit that the people of Israel have nurtured. Israel’s existence is not a sudden demand for a land; it’s the culmination of generations, decades of vibrant and dynamic national existence. It’s a story that can’t be reduced to politics; it’s a story of resilience, survival, and a homeland cherished for millennia. Some critics, who nostalgically look back at the era of Nehru’s high moralism, have accused India of abandoning its moral principles. Your concerns about India’s foreign policy read like a grand tragedy. You lament the loss of high moralism from the 1950s and 60s and bemoan the pursuit of pragmatism and realpolitik. How distressing it must be for you that the world isn’t as black and white as you’d like it to be. After all, who needs nuanced, pragmatic diplomacy when we can just stick to the good old days of idealistic moralism? But, let me enlighten you that India, under Prime Minister Modi, has not abandoned its moral compass. It’s rather amusing that you seem to believe that finding a balance between condemning terrorism and supporting the rights of the Palestinians is an act of moral bankruptcy. In this complex world, standing against terrorism while advocating for a peaceful solution in Palestine is a testament to our diplomatic finesse. And let’s not forget the allegations of taking sides. You insist that India has chosen Israel, but that’s far from the truth. We’ve consistently advocated for direct negotiations, emphasizing the establishment of a sovereign, independent, and viable Palestinian state living in harmony with Israel. In this ever-shifting global landscape, it’s essential to be pragmatic and adaptable. So, while you yearn for the days of old, India continues to stride forward, pursuing a balanced and effective foreign policy that truly befits its aspiration of being a ‘Vishwaguru’. The nostalgia for the ‘Nehruvian era’ is heartwarming, but let’s not romanticise history. You speak of moral purpose and idealism, but it’s time for a reality check. Non-alignment during the Cold War wasn’t just about morality; it was a strategic choice to avoid superpower conflicts. Portraying it as an embodiment of moral virtue is quite a stretch, don’t you think? Those UN abstentions you’re so concerned about? They’re not signs of hedging bets or moral compass deficiencies. They’re nuanced decisions recognizing the power of diplomacy and dialogue over hasty alignments. To answer your question on India’s abstinence in the UN Assembly – Certainly! India’s Minister of External Affairs has clarified that India abstained from a UN resolution calling for an “immediate, durable and sustained humanitarian truce” between Israeli forces and Hamas in Gaza because the resolution did not condemn Hamas terror attacks. India favored a Canadian resolution that condemned the terrorist attacks by Hamas. The Minister emphasised the importance of having a consistent position, stating that credibility is maintained when terrorism is taken seriously, regardless of where it occurs. This reflects India’s stance on fighting terrorism and supporting a peaceful resolution in the Israel-Palestine conflict. Comparing Prime Minister Modi to Nehru is amusing. It’s unfair to compare leaders from different eras. Modi’s policies promote self-reliance, defense indigenisation, and pragmatic diplomacy. It’s about practicing what is preached. And those oil deals with Russia? They’re about securing India’s energy needs in a world where dependence on foreign resources is a reality. It’s time to acknowledge that Modi’s government is forging its own path. It’s pragmatic, assertive, and tailored to the needs of a new India. The world has evolved, and so has India’s foreign policy. It’s time to embrace the present, not dwell in the past. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s tweet on 7 October, expressing shock and condemnation of Hamas’s terror attack on Israel, has apparently triggered a whirlwind of debate. Some wonder if this tweet signifies a shift in New Delhi’s stance, tilting towards Tel Aviv and away from its longstanding position on Palestine. It has been argued that Prime Minister Modi’s swift expression of support for Israel was later balanced with reaffirming India’s traditional stance on Palestine, suggesting a shift in priorities. Some commentators talk about how PM Modi has tweeted in support of Israel and condemned Hamas terror attack but tweaked his response to prevent backlash from the Arab world. The question remains: can a tweet be analysed so extensively to infer significant policy changes and motivations? The Arab world is not a homogeneous entity, and various Arab states have divergent approaches to the Israel-Hamas conflict due to regional geopolitics and their specific interests. For example, Egypt and Jordan, which have geographic influence over Gaza and the West Bank, have not taken in Palestinian refugees. Saudi Arabia has adjusted its stance to support the Palestinians while pursuing broader goals like reducing the influence of ultra-conservative Islam. The UAE has been more measured in its reactions, opting for behind-the-scenes diplomacy. Qatar and Turkey have consistently supported the Palestinian cause, while Iran has its own interests in undermining Israeli and American influence in the region by supporting Shiite militias across various countries. It’s intriguing how people keenly observe PM Modi’s quick responses and adjustments, yet don’t seem to grasp the complexities of how international relations work on a global scale. Some people have conveniently chosen to paint a picture of “bromance” between PM Modi and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, but they neglect to mention that in 2017, Modi was the first Indian prime minister to officially visit Israel. However, they seem to overlook that in 2018, he also became the first Indian PM to visit Palestine. Let’s not mince words here — Modi has worked diligently to maintain relationships with multiple nations, recognising the diverse and dynamic landscape of international diplomacy. So, it’s not a matter of choosing sides but rather a testament to India’s ability to engage with different nations, ensuring its own strategic interests and global harmony. India’s foreign policy balances support for Israel’s defense against terrorism and the rights of Palestine. It actively upholds humanitarian principles, global peace, and justice, making it a true ‘Vishwaguru’. Accusations of moral compromise lack context and understanding of India’s diplomatic complexities. This attempt to question selective outrage by some people isn’t about whataboutery; it’s about setting the record straight. India’s view was and till date is that of a two-state solution. Words matter – excessive support for Israel doesn’t make you anti-Muslim, and championing Palestine doesn’t label you a terrorist sympathiser. When justice and human rights are at stake, selective outrage undermines true principles. Let’s remember, “Selective outrage is a tool, not a conviction, and it’s time to end the politicisation of everything.” The author is a practising Advocate. She writes article on women’s rights, politics and law. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely that of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views. Read all the  Latest News ,  Trending News ,  Cricket News ,  Bollywood News , India News  and  Entertainment News  here. Follow us on  Facebook ,  Twitter  and  Instagram .