Modi in Israel | A diplomatic embrace that will cost India dear

India’s ‘strategic autonomy’ looks more like opportunism, as Modi balances Israel, Iran, and the US while eroding trust in the Global South

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s second visit to Tel Aviv, at a time when United States-Iran tensions are high, sends a signal that India has chosen to plant itself firmly in the US-Israeli camp. Modi minced no words in his address to the Knesset, declaring, “India stands with Israel firmly with full conviction in this moment and beyond.”

It is impossible to avoid the perception that Modi has chosen to become a handy prop for Israel, which is isolated globally after its genocidal military campaign against Gaza following the terrorist attack by Hamas on October 7, 2023.

Nor can the mocking references in the emails of Epstein recently released be put out of mind, suggesting that even Modi’s first visit in 2017 was under pressure from the US, as he “took advice and danced and sang in Israel for the benefit of the US President".

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, hugged by Modi, has been designated a war criminal by the International Criminal Court, which has issued arrest warrants against him. The charges against Netanyahu include starvation of civilians as a method of warfare, intentionally directing attacks against civilian populations, and crimes against humanity such as murder, persecution, and other inhuman acts.

The first Modi-Netanyahu hug in 2017 marked a departure and a break from diplomatic caution and India’s pro-Palestinian stance. It signified a break in tradition. Netanyahu used it domestically to show how, under his leadership, Israel was gaining support in the Global South.

The second embrace in 2026 — or sequential hugs, two hugs at one go after Modi got off his aircraft, the second one to the visible surprise of his host — was about legitimising Netanyahu and a symbolic validation of Israeli military action in Gaza. Netanyahu responded on cue and referred to Modi as “my brother”, and India as a “gigantic power”.

Israeli media coverage speculated that the physical camaraderie signalled the possibility of India joining Netanyahu’s proposed ‘hexagonal alliance’, a regional grouping of Israel, India, and other partners to counter Iran and Islamic — both Sunni and Shia — extremism. This makes Modi an enabler in refurbishing the image of Israel as a global player whose resilient partnerships extend beyond the West.

It might be argued that showing alignment with Israel amidst war preparations in the region shows India’s confidence in navigating a volatile West Asia. However, at a time of raised stakes in the region, the disdain for Iran is disturbing. Iran has been a dependable partner. India has relied on Iran as a dependable source of oil, invested in the Chabahar port for trade with Afghanistan and Central Asia bypassing Pakistan, and has generally maintained friendly ties.

Modi’s Israel visit is unlikely to be read in Tehran as just a bilateral visit. On the contrary, Iran will feel that India is drifting closer to its adversaries. This will be embedded in its institutional memory, shaping future ties with India. 

Above all, Modi’s signal in demonstrating India’s closeness to Israel — a surrogate US power in West Asia — is to the Donald Trump administration. It underlines that the alignment with the US is of utmost importance in India’s strategic calculus. India depends on the US for defence modernisation, counterterrorism, and balancing China. The US has for long encouraged India to deepen its ties with Israel, especially in defence and technology.

To the world, Modi is finally practising pragmatic, interest-based diplomacy, and has cut itself loose from its traditional Indian diplomacy based on ideological blocs. This is packaged as ‘strategic autonomy’. By simultaneously engaging with US, China, Russia, Israel, Iran, and the Arab countries, India sees itself uniquely placed as a bridge-builder between the Global South and the major world powers: a ‘vishwa-mitra’ today and perhaps a ‘vishwaguru’ tomorrow.

Critics will claim that this is nothing but rationalisation of rank opportunism, pursuing short-term goals, shifting positions depending on immediate circumstances, and avoiding hard choices. Thus, Modi hugs Netanyahu while welcoming Iran as a full-member of BRICS, votes cautiously in the UN on Palestine while deepening defence ties with Israel and legitimising its war crimes in Gaza, supporting the Gaza Peace Plan of the UN which is operationalised as a Trump-led Gaza Peace Board where Modi sends an ‘observer’, and maintained oil imports from Iran until forced by US sanctions to desist. Yet, globally, India’s opportunistic diplomatic postures are presented as ‘multi-alignment’ as if they were principles and deliberate rather than reactive, reflecting lack of leadership.

Had India followed ‘strategic autonomy’ and ‘multi-alignment’ a generation ago, India would have made deals with apartheid South Africa even as Nelson Mandela rotted in jail and hugged Ian Smith of white-ruled Rhodesia, among other unthinkable acts on the global stage.

The tactical shift in India’s foreign policy today is fraught with problems. While India may celebrate its burgeoning relationship with the Abraham Accord countries, such as the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, its ties — especially regarding its diaspora and energy interests — will become more complicated with Saudi Arabia and Qatar as West Asia becomes more turbulent. Türkiye, which was already inimical, will become even more so.

Russia and China are likely to view India’s leaning towards the West and the blocs strategically opposed to it, less kindly. India’s influence in multilateral forums will decline as the Global South drifts away from Indian leadership as it abandons solidarity with the bloc.

At a time when India has taken over the presidency of BRICS for 2026, its historic role as the voice of the oppressed will be weakened, if not muted. With its feet planted firmly on the side of the US-Israeli axis, Modi’s highly performative foreign policy will lead to India’s isolation in BRICS, erode its moral authority with the Global South, and strain ties with Iran and critical Arab states. India cannot be the leader BRICS — framed as an alternative to Western hegemony — needs today.

Is a hug worth such a loss of moral leadership?

Bharat Bhushan is a New Delhi-based journalist.

(Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.)