Palestine - Dainik Jagran English

Netanyahu Praises India's 'Crazy Love' for Israel Amid Global Criticism

Abhishek Joshi — Sat, 30 May 2026 14:56:11 +0530

Israeli PM's Jordan Valley remarks spotlight how India moved from decades of pro-Palestine solidarity to one of Israel's closest partnerships in Asia

Netanyahu's Remarkable Tribute

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, speaking at a leadership programme in the Jordan Valley on Thursday, called India a "huge power" with "absolutely crazy love for Israel" — even as he acknowledged the Jewish state faces delegitimisation across much of the world.

"We are expanding our alliances and what you are talking about is expanding these alliances to a large space. And the larger space is really our unique relationship with a huge power called India," Netanyahu said. A video of the remarks was released by Israel's Government Press Office.

The words landed with weight. Not because praise between allied leaders is unusual, but because of how far India has travelled to reach this point.

From Nehru to Netanyahu

Post-Independence India was, for decades, among the most vocal champions of Palestinian self-determination. The ideological roots ran deep — Mahatma Gandhi had opposed the imposition of a Jewish state on Arab land as far back as 1938, framing it as an extension of colonial logic. Nehru, scarred by India's own Partition, voted against the UN's Palestine partition plan in 1947 and opposed Israel's admission to the UN in 1949.

India recognised the State of Palestine in 1988 — among the earliest countries to do so. Yasser Arafat enjoyed an almost fraternal relationship with Indian leadership through those years.

Yet even then, the story had a quieter subplot. Israel supplied military assistance to India during the 1962 war with China, the 1965 conflict with Pakistan, and again during the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War. Covert intelligence cooperation reportedly predated formal ties by decades.

1992: The Quiet Opening

The Cold War's collapse forced a rethink. Economic liberalisation under Prime Minister PV Narasimha Rao brought India closer to Western markets and, simultaneously, to Israel. Full diplomatic relations were established in 1992 — a turning point that set the stage for everything that followed.

The 1999 Kargil War deepened the bond further. Israel reportedly supplied laser-guided bombs, surveillance drones and critical equipment on short notice, cementing a perception inside India's security establishment that Israel was a reliable partner when it mattered most.

Modi Changes the Optics Entirely

The shift became most visible after 2014. Earlier governments had quietly deepened ties with Israel while keeping the public posture tilted toward Palestine. Narendra Modi changed that calculus openly. In 2017, he became the first Indian prime minister to visit Israel — and notably, did not pair the trip with a Palestine stop, as his predecessors had done. He visited Ramallah separately in 2018.

Earlier this year, Modi made a second official visit to Israel, addressing the Knesset to a standing ovation and pledging "friendship, respect and partnership" with Israel at a time when its global standing has been under strain due to the Gaza war.

Ahead of that visit, Modi said India "deeply values its enduring friendship with Israel, built on trust, innovation, and a shared commitment to peace and progress."

Defence Ties: The Backbone

The strategic partnership is not simply rhetorical. India and Israel have significantly strengthened bilateral relations across defence, agriculture, water management, cybersecurity, healthcare, and emerging technologies. According to SIPRI data cited in earlier analyses, India accounted for roughly one-third of Israel's arms exports between 2020 and 2024 — drones, missile systems, radar technology, surveillance equipment.

October 7 and the Tone That Changed

The Hamas attack on Israel in October 2023 was another inflection point. Prime Minister Modi was among the first world leaders to characterise it as a "terrorist attack" and express solidarity with Israel. India's subsequent abstentions on UN resolutions calling for humanitarian ceasefires in Gaza drew attention globally — a marked departure from India's earlier posture of careful balance.

New Delhi has continued to formally support the two-state solution and Palestinian statehood. But the diplomatic signals have been unmistakable.

The Balance India Still Tries to Keep

The transformation does not mean India has abandoned its older ties. Gulf nations remain critical partners — for energy imports, Indian diaspora remittances, and investment. India maintains warm relations with Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and other Arab states, and cannot afford to be seen as wholly aligned with Israeli military policy in the region.

But Netanyahu's "crazy love" remark — offhand as it may have sounded — captures something real. He made the comment precisely while discussing Israel's need to expand international partnerships amid security challenges on multiple fronts. India's name came up first, and it did not come up accidentally.

The arc from Nehru's vote against Israel at the UN to Modi's address to the Knesset spans seven decades. It has been shaped by security pragmatism, ideological evolution, economic interests and geopolitical realism. Whatever India's official position on the conflict in Gaza, that arc tells its own story.

Trump Peace Plan in Pieces: How the Middle East War Shattered the 'Deal of the Century'

Nitin Trivedi — Fri, 27 Mar 2026 16:48:13 +0530

Trump Peace Plan in Pieces: How War in the Middle East Buried the 'Deal of the Century'

Just months ago, Donald Trump was touting his administration's Middle East vision as the crowning achievement of his foreign policy legacy. Today, that vision lies in pieces—shattered by the very conflict it was designed to prevent.

The so-called "Deal of the Century" —a peace plan that promised to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and usher in an era of Arab-Israeli normalization—has been overtaken by the brutal reality of a regional war that now threatens to engulf the entire Middle East.

When Trump returned to the White House in January 2025, he inherited a region on edge but still tethered to the fragile structures of the Abraham Accords. By March 2026, those structures have collapsed under the weight of a conflict that has drawn in Iran, Israel, the United States, and multiple Arab nations .

What Was the Trump Peace Plan?

To understand what has been lost, we need to look back at the blueprint Trump unveiled in January 2020 .

The "Peace to Prosperity" plan, as it was formally known, proposed:

A two-state solution with a demilitarized Palestinian state
Jerusalem as Israel's undivided capital, with a Palestinian capital in eastern Jerusalem's suburbs
Israeli sovereignty over Jewish settlements in the West Bank
A $50 billion economic investment package for Palestinians and neighboring states

Critics called it heavily biased toward Israel. Supporters called it a realistic departure from decades of failed negotiations .

But the plan's true legacy was meant to be normalization—not resolution. The Abraham Accords, brokered in 2020, saw the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan normalize relations with Israel without requiring a Palestinian state .

For Trump and his son-in-law Jared Kushner, the architect of the strategy, the calculation was simple: economic integration and regional alliances would gradually defuse tensions, making the Palestinian issue less central to Arab-Israeli relations .

How the War Unraveled Everything

The peace plan's unraveling began on February 4, 2026—a date that will likely be etched into Middle East history books.

That day, a joint US-Israeli airstrike killed Iranian Quds Force commander Esmail Qaani in Damascus . Iran's response was swift and devastating: coordinated drone and missile strikes against Israeli and US targets across the region .

The conflict escalated rapidly:

February 12: Iran effectively closes the Strait of Hormuz to all but friendly nations, choking global energy supplies
February 16: Houthi forces in Yemen launch long-range missiles at Israel, with one reportedly intercepted over the Negev Desert
March: Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi declares the region "a war zone," with only five nations—India, China, Russia, Iraq, and Pakistan—permitted passage through the strait

The Abraham Accords, designed to create a "moderate axis" against Iran, have instead become a target. UAE and Bahrain, once eager to engage with Israel, now find themselves caught between their new alliance and their proximity to Iranian retaliation .

'The Deal Is Dead'

The grim assessment is coming from all sides.

John Bolton, Trump's former National Security Advisor and now a vocal critic of the administration's Iran policy, told Fox News earlier this month:

"The peace plan is effectively dead. The administration's entire Middle East strategy was predicated on the idea that you could isolate Iran through economic pressure and normalization. Instead, we've stumbled into a war that has undone all of that work" .

Even Kushner, who has largely retreated from public view since the conflict began, has reportedly acknowledged privately that the situation has spiraled beyond the framework he designed .

The Palestinian Authority, which rejected the Trump plan outright in 2020, has watched from the sidelines as the conflict has made their cause—once the central issue in Middle East diplomacy—a footnote to a much larger war .

Trump's 'Maximum Pressure' Gamble Backfires

At the heart of the collapse is Trump's revived "maximum pressure" campaign against Iran—a strategy that worked during his first term but has backfired spectacularly this time.

The president's decision to extend his ultimatum to strike Iranian power plants by 10 days in early March was seen by analysts as a sign of hesitation . Reports that Trump was considering sending more ground troops to the region have kept markets and allies on edge .

The administration's strategy, articulated by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, has been to present Iran with a binary choice: "Either we will strike or they will come to the table" .

Iran has chosen neither. Instead, it has opted to bleed the US and its allies through asymmetric warfare—closing the strait, arming proxies, and forcing a slow, grinding conflict that drains resources and willpower .

The Human and Economic Toll

The crumbling of the peace plan is not just a diplomatic failure—it has real-world consequences that are now being felt globally:

Oil prices have surged past $100 per barrel, with Brent crude trading at $107
The Indian rupee hit a record low past 94 per dollar
Global supply chains are disrupted, with fertilizer and food prices rising as planting season approaches
Hundreds of thousands have been displaced in border regions between Israel and Lebanon

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres delivered a stark warning on March 25:

"The prolonged closure of the Strait of Hormuz is choking the movement of oil, gas, and fertilizer at a critical moment in the global planting season. The best way to minimize those consequences is clear: End the war—immediately" .

What's Left of the Vision?

So what remains of Trump's Middle East peace legacy?

The Abraham Accords still technically exist on paper, but their spirit has been hollowed out by the conflict. Saudi Arabia, the ultimate prize that Trump desperately wanted to bring into the normalization fold, has frozen talks and adopted a more cautious posture .

The Palestinian issue—which the accords were meant to sideline—has re-emerged as a rallying cry across the Arab world, though no Arab government has shown willingness to sacrifice its own interests for it .

The economic investment plan, which promised billions in development, is now overshadowed by defense spending and war budgets .

The Road Ahead

As the conflict enters its third month, the administration appears to have no clear off-ramp. The "peace plan" that once represented Trump's vision for a stable, prosperous Middle East now sits in pieces—a monument to the limits of transactional diplomacy in a region defined by ancient grievances and emerging great-power rivalries .

For the millions living in the shadow of this war, the question is no longer whether the Deal of the Century will be implemented. It is whether any peace—of any kind—can be salvaged from the wreckage .

India Condemns Israel’s West Bank Moves: What It Means for Two-State Solution and India-Israel Relations

Abhishek Joshi — Thu, 19 Feb 2026 20:46:49 +0530

India Backs UN Statement Criticising Israel’s West Bank Actions

In a significant diplomatic move, India condemns Israel West Bank measures by supporting a joint statement at the United Nations criticising Israel’s recent unilateral decisions in the occupied territory. The statement, backed by over 100 countries and international organisations, opposes Israeli settlement expansion and administrative changes in the West Bank.

This development is important because India shares strong strategic and defence ties with Israel, yet historically supports the Palestinian cause and the Two-State Solution framework. India’s decision to join the statement at the last moment highlights the delicate balance New Delhi is trying to maintain.

What Is Happening in the West Bank?

The West Bank has been at the centre of the Israel-Palestine conflict for decades. After the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, Israel took control of the territory, which was earlier administered by Jordan. Since then, the region has been considered “occupied territory” under international law.

Recently, Israel has reportedly:

Expanded civilian settlements

Allocated land for Israeli housing and infrastructure

Increased administrative control and land registration

Many countries argue that these unilateral measures violate international law, including provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The concern is that such actions fragment Palestinian territories, making it difficult to establish a viable Palestinian state in the future.

Why the UN Joint Statement Matters

The UN Joint Statement strongly opposes:

Any form of annexation of occupied territories

Actions that undermine peace and stability

Measures that weaken the feasibility of the Two-State Solution

It calls for negotiations and mutual agreement rather than unilateral decisions.

India initially stayed away when 85 countries first supported the statement. However, as global backing grew, India added its name, reinforcing its long-standing support for a negotiated peace process.

Why Did India Condemn Israel?

The move may appear surprising given India’s deep defence and technology cooperation with Israel. However, India’s foreign policy has consistently supported:

Palestinian self-determination

A Two-State Solution

Respect for international law and multilateral processes

By supporting the statement, India signals that strategic partnerships do not override its commitment to international norms.

Experts believe this decision reflects India’s broader global positioning. As a rising power seeking a larger role in global governance, India wants to be seen as supportive of international law and diplomacy.

Will This Impact India-Israel Relations?

At present, major disruption in India-Israel ties seems unlikely. Defence, technology, and security cooperation remain strong pillars of the relationship.

Israel understands India’s historical stance on Palestine. Similarly, India continues to emphasise dialogue and diplomacy rather than confrontation.

However, diplomatically, this adds pressure on Israel amid growing global criticism over settlement expansion.

Why This Matters Now

The issue is timely as tensions in the Middle East continue to rise. Settlement expansion directly affects the future of peace negotiations. If territorial continuity is broken, creating a viable Palestinian state becomes increasingly difficult.

India’s decision sends a message that while geopolitical realities matter, international law and negotiated settlements remain central to long-term peace.

India’s move to support the UN statement shows the complexity of modern diplomacy. By condemning unilateral actions in the West Bank, India reaffirms its support for the Two-State Solution while maintaining strategic ties with Israel.

In a world shaped by shifting alliances and rising conflicts, India’s balanced stand reflects both principle and pragmatism.

J&K Cricketer Wears Palestinian Flag on Helmet, Triggers Police Action Amid Israel-Hamas War

Abhishek Joshi — Fri, 02 Jan 2026 12:24:17 +0530

J&K Cricketer Palestinian Flag Incident Sparks Controversy

A domestic cricket match in Jammu and Kashmir has unexpectedly entered the geopolitical spotlight after a J&K cricketer wore a Palestinian flag on his helmet during a league game. The incident has led to police action and renewed debate over political expression in sports, especially at a time when the Israel-Hamas conflict continues to dominate global headlines.

The player, Furqan Bhatt, was representing local side JK11 in the Jammu and Kashmir Champions League on Wednesday. Photographs from the match show Bhatt batting with the Palestinian flag prominently displayed on his helmet, an act that quickly went viral on social media.

Police Summon Player and League Organiser

Following the controversy, the Jammu Rural Police summoned Furqan Bhatt for questioning. League organiser Zahid Bhatt has also been called in to clarify whether prior permission was sought for displaying political symbols during the match.

Police officials are reportedly examining whether the act violated any local regulations or tournament guidelines. While no formal charges have been announced yet, authorities say the matter is being looked at seriously due to its sensitive nature.

Why the Issue Matters Right Now

The incident comes amid the ongoing Israel-Hamas war, which began in October 2023 and has had devastating consequences for Gaza. According to humanitarian estimates, more than 67,000 Palestinians have been killed, including over 18,000 children, making the conflict one of the deadliest in recent history.

Sports, particularly cricket in India, is often viewed as a unifying platform. However, experts note that symbolic gestures during matches can quickly take on political significance in a highly polarized global environment.

India’s Balanced Stand on Palestine

India’s official position on the Palestine issue remains nuanced. While India has historically supported Palestinian rights and statehood, it has also strongly condemned terrorism, including actions by Hamas.

Key points of India’s stance include:

Support for a two-state solution

Condemnation of civilian deaths on both sides

Humanitarian aid, including medicines, sent to Gaza

Recognition of Israel’s right to self-defence with emphasis on civilian safety

This balanced approach reflects India’s diplomatic efforts to maintain relations with both Israel and Palestine.

Gaza’s Humanitarian Crisis Deepens

Two years into the war, Gaza faces near-total devastation. Reports indicate:

90% of Gaza’s population homeless

98% of agricultural land destroyed

Over 51 million tonnes of debris, taking an estimated 10 years and $1.2 trillion to clear

Nearly 39,000 children orphaned, with 17,000 losing both parents

Relief agencies warn that Gaza has effectively become a vast refugee camp, with severe shortages of food, water, and medical care.

Conclusion: Sports, Expression, and Responsibility

The J&K cricketer Palestinian flag episode highlights the growing intersection of sports and global politics. As authorities investigate the incident, it raises a broader question: where should the line be drawn between personal expression and professional responsibility in sports?

For now, the focus remains on the police inquiry, while the incident continues to spark debate across cricketing and political circles alike.