Balancing act in diplomacy: The perils of short-term bets

Prime Minister Narendra Modi condoled the deaths of Israelis massacred by Hamas on October 7, 2023, and underscored the shared threat of terrorism that India and Israel have long faced.

Standing before Israel’s lawmakers earlier this week in the country’s parliament, the Knesset, Prime Minister Narendra Modi praised his host nation lavishly.

“I bring with me the greetings of 1.4 billion Indians, and a message of friendship, respect, and partnership,” he said. He spoke of how “in India, there is great admiration for Israel’s resolve, courage, and achievements”. By this point, he had also condoled the deaths of Israelis massacred by Hamas on October 7, 2023, and underscored the shared threat of terrorism that India and Israel have long faced.

But Modi did not once mention Gaza, only referring to the ‘Palestinian issue’ once — almost as a bureaucratic wrinkle to iron out, not a bloodbath unleashed on that territory by the government hosting him.

Eighteen years ago, India had found itself in a similar situation. Modi’s predecessor and then prime minister Manmohan Singh was visiting the United States in September 2008. US President George W Bush was on his way out, and by then had secured his legacy in history as the architect of the deadly war on Iraq, built on lies and fabrications.

Yet Singh said something to Bush that sounds cringe-inducing even all these years later: “The people of India deeply love you.”

There’s a reason why Singh’s words are worth recalling as the world — from conservative podcaster Tucker Carlson to Iran — dissects Modi’s recent visit to Israel.

Successive Indian governments have struggled to balance immediate diplomatic and strategic gains against a long-term view on how history might judge them.

In the late 1980s, the then government of Rajiv Gandhi supported the Soviet-backed government of Mohammad Najibullah in Afghanistan, even when it was clear that his regime was built on oppression, was far from popular domestically, and would be remembered as Moscow’s puppet. It was also evident by then that he was losing.

The short-term calculus made sense: Pakistan was arming and financing the mujahideen who were fighting Najibullah with US support. But, as a result, India lost a decade with Afghanistan in the 1990s when the Taliban rose to power. Might a more hands-off approach in the 1980s have helped?

When Singh visited Bush, India had much to rejoice about in terms of the state of bilateral ties: The just-finalised India-US nuclear deal paved the way for New Delhi to enter the big export control clubs, and opened access to nuclear technology and fuel that was previously hard to secure.

Yet Bush’s illegal Iraq war will continue to haunt not just US foreign policy, but all those who backed it — or made peace with it. India never supported the Iraq war, but Singh’s declaration of India’s love for Bush will forever rankle as an obsequious and embarrassing moment for the country. After all, many rights advocates still believe Bush is guilty of war crimes.

Which brings us to Netanyahu and Modi, India and Israel.

There is no disputing all that Israel offers as a partner. No country has the defensive shield that Israel has, its Iron Dome, Iron Beam, and other technological marvels that every other nation craves. Its missiles and other military hardware have helped India repeatedly in wars, including as recently as last May, during the four-day air battle with Pakistan.

Israel’s technological mastery in multiple sectors — from cyber security to agriculture — means that a close partnership could yield valuable dividends to India. Israel’s intelligence support, too, could prove helpful for India.

But there is a flip side. Israeli spyware is known to have been used against Indian citizens, mostly critics of the Modi government. The government insists it did not deploy the spyware, Pegasus, against Indians. But if it didn’t, shouldn’t the prime minister have raised concerns over the episode with Netanyahu? There is no evidence that he did.

There is, however, ample evidence of Israeli violations of international and humanitarian law in Gaza, plans for illegal expansion in the West Bank, and rejection of the two-state solution.

India believes in upholding a rules-based global order, is opposed to Israel’s illegal expansions, and stands in support of the two-state solution. Given this complete divergence in positions, should Modi have at least publicly nudged Netanyahu to return to the path of law-abiding nations?

Modi has repeatedly described Netanyahu as a “good friend” or “dear friend”. Shouldn’t good friends be able to disagree, and be able to tell each other they’re wrong — when they are?

Ultimately though, India’s calculus can’t be based on the personal friendship between Modi and Netanyahu. Singh was wrong to have spoken on behalf of the people of India when he proclaimed that they loved Bush: All the evidence of that era suggests that Indians, by and large, were opposed to Bush’s war on Iraq.

While many Indians do admire Israel’s significant achievements in the technology and military spheres, there is again no evidence to justify Modi speaking on behalf of 1.4 billion people when it’s about a nation accused of committing genocide.

To be sure, in geopolitics, like in life, there are no certainties. Nations must do what’s necessary to defend their security, and fortify their defences.

But the challenge they face is to balance short- and medium-term goals with their vision of their larger place in history. The International Court of Justice is probing whether Israel is guilty of genocide in Gaza. A United Nations panel has concluded that Israel has committed genocide. The International Criminal Court is looking to arrest Netanyahu for alleged war crimes in Gaza. And in the court of public opinion, across much of the world, Israel is today seen as a brutal, arrogant, and genocidal force.

Keeping Israel close enough to benefit from what it offers, while keeping it at enough of a distance to avoid the taint of its actions, is the diplomatic juggle India’s strategists would ideally want to manage.

The question then is whether Modi’s visit helps accomplish that goal. The jury is out.

But history can be unforgiving. When Europe’s leaders in the 1940s are judged today, anyone aligned with the wrong side of World War II is viewed as weak at best, and complicit with genocidaires at worst. No one weighs the short-term political, economic or diplomatic factors that might have made compromise, deals or adjustments with the Axis powers seem defensible.

Is India ready for a similar judgement if Israel and its prime minister are viewed as guilty of genocide by history? That’s the question India’s leadership must answer.

(The author is a senior journalist focusing on international relations, trade, energy, and technology.)