RSS
Did the Oct. 7 Massacre Also Affect India’s Foreign Policy?
India’s prime minister, Shri Narendra Modi, addresses the gathering at the Indian Community Reception Event at the Singapore Expo in Singapore on November 24, 2015.
In May 2025, following a deadly terrorist attack on Pahalgam in Kashmir, India suspended the Indus Waters Treaty with Pakistan, conducted strikes deep within Pakistani territory, and declared that any future terrorist attack would henceforth be considered an act of war. These measures reflect a doctrinal shift from a policy of deterrence to one of “compellence” or coercion.
India has also unveiled unprecedented upgrades to its military capabilities that are part of a comprehensive organizational reform. India is positioning itself as a global military and technological power that is operating under a sovereign and independent strategy. This shift in India’s doctrinal approach reflects a continuation of its response to Hamas’s attack on Israel on October 7, 2023. According to Indian nationalists, Israel’s response to Hamas’s massive assault served as inspiration for an uncompromising policy towards Islamic terrorism.
The events that began on April 22 with the deadly terrorist attack on Pahalgam in Kashmir — an assault that resulted in the deaths of 26 tourists, most of whom were Indian citizens — escalated within days into a severe regional crisis. Within hours, India had suspended the historic Indus Waters Treaty with Pakistan, closed the main border crossing at Attari, revoked visas for Pakistani nationals, and reduced Pakistan’s diplomatic presence in India.
Subsequent airstrikes and armed drone attacks targeted military installations and command centers in Pakistan, including some deep within Punjab province. Pakistan responded with artillery fire and the deployment of unmanned systems toward Indian targets.
Against this backdrop, the ceasefire that was achieved is notable for its restraint. According to both India and Pakistan, the initiative came from the Pakistani side, but the intention was mutual — to halt the escalation without committing to a political process. No date was set for talks, and regional issues such as Kashmir or cross-border terrorism were not mentioned.
India’s most dramatic move did not occur on the battlefield but in the doctrinal arena. Shortly before the ceasefire announcement, the Indian government issued an official statement declaring that “from now on, any terrorist attack against India will be considered an act of war and will be responded to accordingly.”
Behind this wording lies a new strategic concept: the institutionalized use of the principle of the right to self-defense as defined in Article 51 of the UN Charter, eliminating the traditional distinction between terrorism and a clear state threat.
This is one of the most assertive steps taken by a liberal democracy in the global security arena in recent years. It indicates a profound change in the Indian security establishment’s mindset. India seeks to extricate itself from the loop wherein “restraint is the responsible tool.” It is signaling that restraint is not only ineffective but may be perceived as surrender.
In practical terms, this change has several implications. First, India will conduct proactive military responses in the future, including to attacks not carried out by regular armies but by organizations supported or sponsored by Pakistan. Second, the Indian army is expanding its operational scope to include areas deep inside enemy territory, and it will employ special forces, targeted strikes, and possibly cognitive warfare to conduct such operations. Finally, there is a cumulative impact on the regional balance, as neighboring countries will need to prepare for a reality in which terrorism is not just an internal problem but grounds for declaring interstate conflict.
Breaking the framework: Undermining conflict management agreements
The current crisis has not only exposed the deepening rift between India and Pakistan but also directly undermined the validity of two foundational documents that have governed their conflict management over decades: the Indus Waters Treaty and the Shimla Agreement.
One of India’s first moves following the Pahalgam attack was to suspend its commitments under the Indus Waters Treaty, signed in 1960 with World Bank mediation. This move places India in a complex position. On the one hand, it strengthens its leverage over Pakistan. On the other, it risks international criticism for violating humanitarian conventions and setting a precedent for weaponizing natural resources.
Indian political and military officials have also hinted that the Shimla Agreement is “dead.” This is a bold statement, given the agreement’s longstanding status since 1972 as an anchor for bilateral dispute resolution and preservation of the Line of Control (LoC) in Kashmir.
Upgrading the Indian military
To understand India’s response to the crisis, one must consider the strategic reform its defense establishment has undergone over the past decade. India is pursuing the establishment of integrated theater commands, multi-domain force structures, and the intensified adoption of advanced technologies such as artificial intelligence, cyber warfare, hypersonic missiles, and sea-based nuclear delivery platforms.
The transition from restraint and legacy conflict management to compellence, flexible deterrence, and operational pressure is a direct expression of India’s new security doctrine, which aims to create a networked, proactive military force that can respond in real time.
The crisis has served not only to test India’s deterrence posture but also to expose its maturing organizational reforms. Over the past decade, India has emerged as a military and technological powerhouse with global-level strategic capabilities. While the world’s attention has been focused primarily on the US-China rivalry, India has been quietly but steadily building a layered security architecture that combines nuclear capability, advanced technology, and indigenous development in the space, maritime, and ballistic missile domains.
The capabilities described above reflect a quiet but systematic process of building multidimensional strategic power. India is no longer merely a regional actor focused on local security. It aspires to position itself as a global influencer that engages with both China and the West.
India’s unique model lies in its blend of cutting-edge technology, indigenous development, and deterrence-driven security policy. It does not belong to traditional military alliances, yet it maintains strategic connectivity with powers such as the US, Russia, France, and Israel. It is not technologically dependent on any one partner, yet it leverages cooperation judiciously.
The possession of hypersonic missiles, ASAT capabilities, and nuclear submarines is not, however, enough by itself. They must be embedded in a broader joint operational framework and be supported by industrial strategy and a unified command. India in 2025 is not merely showcasing innovation. It is also presenting the organizational infrastructure necessary to translate these capabilities into strategic impact on both regional and global scales.
International perceptions and the battle for a responsible image
As India adopts aggressive and unprecedented security measures, it is also engaged in a parallel struggle — narrative and diplomatic — to maintain its image as a responsible and measured global actor. Official Indian discourse consistently emphasizes the principle of “proportional response” and India’s inherent right to self-defense in the face of state-sponsored terrorism.
India is being cautious not to portray itself as the instigator of total war or as deviating from norms expected of democratic states. The decision to announce a new counter-terrorism doctrine while simultaneously halting escalation through direct military channels reflects a strategic balancing act between force projection and international legitimacy.
India is sending a dual message: that it will not hesitate to use force when necessary, but it operates within, and sometimes seeks to refine, existing international norms.
The ongoing challenge
The ceasefire was not accompanied by any agreement on the conflict’s core issues — Kashmir, cross-border terrorism, or international oversight. This raises the question of whether the next crisis is only a matter of time. The strategic reality between India and Pakistan remains fragile, marked by distrust and the constant risk of escalation.
The implications of India’s doctrinal shift go beyond bilateral dynamics. Defining terrorism as an act of war may set a precedent that invites responses from other states, possibly destabilizing existing principles of international law. Suspending the historic water-sharing treaty with Pakistan may become a dangerous precedent for using essential resources as punitive tools in other conflict zones.
For India, these are not reactive measures to a single event but part of a broader strategy to assert a sovereign assertive security policy that is driven by nationalist currents, regional ambitions, and a desire to reshape the strategic order in South Asia.
In the coming weeks and months, India faces a dual challenge: to maintain deterrence against Pakistan without sliding into a large-scale war, and to convince the international community that its actions are not impulsive reactions but components of a deliberate state strategy.
Dr. Lauren Dagan Amos is a member of the Deborah Forum, a lecturer and a researcher in the Department of Political Science and the Security Studies Program at Bar-Ilan University. She specializes in Indian foreign policy. A much longer version of this article was originally published by The BESA Center.
The post Did the Oct. 7 Massacre Also Affect India’s Foreign Policy? first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Harvard Launches New Academic Partnerships With Israel Amid Trump Funding Fight
Harvard University president Alan Garber attending the 373rd Commencement Exercises at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, US, May 23, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Brian Snyder
Harvard University has announced new partnerships with Israeli academic institutions, a move which appears aimed at reversing an impression that the institution is ideologically anti-Zionist and content with antisemitic discrimination being an allegedly daily occurrence on its campus.
As first reported by The Harvard Crimson, Harvard will hold a study abroad program, in partnership with Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, for undergraduate students and a postdoctoral fellowship in which Harvard Medical School faculty will mentor and train newly credentialed Israeli scientists in biomedical research as preparation for the next stages of their careers. The campus paper — which in 2022 endorsed the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel — said the programs constitute a “dramatic expansion of the university’s academic and institutional ties to Israel.”
Speaking to the Crimson, Harvard vice provost for international affairs Mark Elliot trumpeted the announcement as a positive development and, notably, as a continuation, not a beginning, of Harvard’s “engagement with institutions of higher education across Israel.” Elliot also said Harvard is planning “increased academic collaboration across the region in the coming years.”
The new partnerships with Israel come only months after Harvard paused its relationship with a higher education institution located in the West Bank. They also coincide with the university’s titanic legal fight against the federal government to reclaim over $3 billion worth of taxpayer-funded research grants and contracts the Trump administration impounded to pressure school officials into a process of rehabilitation and reform that will see it discontinue a slew of practices conservatives have cited as causing campus antisemitism, as well as the hollowing out of American values.
Since that first step, the Trump administration has continued backing Harvard into a corner.
In June, the Trump administration issued it a “notice of violation” of civil rights law following an investigation which examined how it responded to dozens of antisemitic incidents reported by Jewish students since the 2023-2024 academic year.
Sent by the Joint Task Force to Combat Antisemitism, it charged that Harvard willfully exposed Jewish students to a deluge of racist and antisemitic abuse following the Hamas-led Oct. 7, 2023, massacre across southern Israel, which precipitated a surge in anti-Zionist activity on the campus. It concluded with a threat to cancel all federal funding for Harvard.
Amid this policy offensive, interim Harvard president Alan Garber held a phone call with major donors in which he “confirmed in response to a question from [Harvard Corporation Fellow David Rubenstein] that talks had resumed” but “declined to share specifics of how Harvard expected to settle with the White House.”
Garber “did not discuss how close a deal could be,” the Crimson reported, “and said instead that Harvard had focused on laying out the steps it was already taking to address issues that are common ground for the university and the Trump administration. Areas of shared concern that have been discussed with the White House included ‘viewpoint diversity’ and antisemitism.”
In a new conciliatory move reported by the Crimson, Harvard closed its diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) offices, packing up the staff and transferring them to what will become, the Crimson said, a “new Office of Culture and Community.” It added that Harvard has “worked to strip all references to DEI … from their websites and official titles.”
Harvard will continue dealing with the fallout of its campus antisemitism problem for the foreseeable future.
Earlier this month, it was sued by a Jewish student who claims that he was exposed to antisemitic abuse because the university refused to intervene and correct a hostile environment even as his bullies’ misconduct escalated to include violence.
The mammoth complaint, totaling 124 pages, lays out the case that the university miscarried justice in the aftermath of two students’ public assault on recent Harvard Business School graduate Yoav Segev during the fall semester of the 2023-2024 academic year — just weeks after the Oct. 7 massacre — by refusing to discipline them and even rewarding them the university’s highest honors.
Segev endured a mobbing of pro-Hamas activists led by Ibrahim Bharmal and Elom Tettey-Tamaklo, who stalked him across Harvard Yard before encircling him and screaming “Shame! Shame! Shame!” as he struggled to break free from the mass of bodies which surrounded him. Video of the incident, widely viewed online at the time, showed the crush of people shoving keffiyehs — traditional headdresses worn by men in the Middle East that in some circles have come to symbolize Palestinian nationalism — in the face of the student, whom they had identified as Jewish.
“This malicious, violent, and antisemitic conduct violated several university policies — such as its anti-discrimination and anti-bullying policies — and it prompted criminal charges,” the complaint says. “No one doubts for a second that Harvard would have taken swift, aggressive, and public actions to enforce its policies had the victim been one of Harvard’s ‘favored’ minorities … Harvard’s antisemitic discrimination against Mr. Segev is far more sinister than inaction and indifference. Harvard did everything it could to defend, protect, and reward the assailants; to impede the criminal investigation; and to prevent Mr. Segev from obtaining administrative relief from the university.”
It continues, “Harvard’s antisemitic intent is obvious. Several of its faculty publicly supported the attacker and tried to blame the victim (because, the faculty said, his Jewish presence was ‘threatening’ to other students). And, of course, hundreds of rabidly anti-Israel students disrupting campus life pressured the Harvard administration. Ultimately, and shamefully, the university kowtowed to the antisemitic mob it had allowed to take over its campus.”
Alleging violations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, breach of contract, and conspiracy to deny civil rights, the suit demands all relevant recompense, including damages and the reimbursement of attorneys’ fees.
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
RSS
Hezbollah Chief Rejects Disarmament Amid US and Lebanese Pressure, Accuses Washington of Aiding Israel
Lebanon’s Hezbollah leader Sheikh Naim Qassem delivers a speech from an unknown location, Nov. 20, 2024, in this still image from video. Photo: REUTERS TV/Al Manar TV via REUTERS.
Hezbollah chief Sheikh Naim Qassem has once again rejected calls for the Lebanon-based terrorist group to disarm, saying such demands only serve Israel’s interests amid mounting pressure from the United States and the Lebanese government.
“Those who call for us to surrender our weapons are practically asking us to hand them over to Israel. We will not submit to Israel,” Qassem said in a televised speech on Wednesday.
“The US is destroying Lebanon in order to help the Zionist enemy [Israel],” he continued.
Washington and Beirut have engaged in multiple rounds of negotiations in recent weeks over a US proposal to fully disarm the Iran-backed terrorist group, which for years as held significant political power in Lebanon.
The latest proposal calls for Hezbollah to be fully disarmed within four months in exchange for Israel halting airstrikes and withdrawing troops from its five occupied posts in southern Lebanon.
“The US wants to use Lebanon as a tool to implement its own greater Middle East scheme,” Qassem said during his speech.
“The US is complicit in Israel’s violations of the ceasefire and is fueling tensions among Lebanese factions,” the terrorist leader continued.
Washington’s proposal initially called for the Lebanese government to pass a cabinet decision committing to Hezbollah’s disarmament — a step the US is now actively pushing for before resuming talks on ending Israeli military operations.
Despite growing diplomatic pressure, the Lebanese terrorist group has repeatedly rejected demands to surrender its weapons.
“Resistance in Lebanon has proved to be one of the pillars of state construction. Hezbollah’s weapons will be used to protect Lebanon against the Zionist enemy,” Qassem said. “All those who demand Hezbollah’s disarmament are serving the Israeli plot. The resistance will never agree to hand over its weapons to the Zionist enemy.”
Qassem also argued that increasing demands for Hezbollah’s disarmament are driven by Israel’s fear of the Islamist group and accused US special envoy Thomas Barrack of protecting Israeli interests at the expense of Lebanon’s security.
“Israel will not be able to defeat us, and it will not be able to take Lebanon hostage,” he said.
Last fall, Israel decimated Hezbollah’s leadership and military capabilities with an air and ground offensive, following the group’s attacks on northern Israel — which they claimed were a show of solidarity with the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas amid the war in Gaza.
In November, Lebanon and Israel reached a US-brokered ceasefire agreement that ended a year of fighting between the Jewish state and Hezbollah.
Under the agreement, Israel was given 60 days to withdraw from southern Lebanon, allowing the Lebanese army and UN forces to take over security as Hezbollah disarms and moves away from Israel’s northern border.
However, Israel maintained troops at several posts in southern Lebanon beyond the ceasefire deadline, as its leaders aimed to reassure northern residents that it was safe to return home.
Jerusalem has continued carrying out strikes targeting remaining Hezbollah activity, with Israeli leaders accusing the group of maintaining combat infrastructure, including rocket launchers — decrying “blatant violations of understandings between Israel and Lebanon.”
RSS
France Demands Probe Into Refugee Vetting Process as Gazan Expelled by Top University Over Antisemitic Posts
A flag is flown during a protest in support of Palestinians in Gaza, amid the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas, outside the European Parliament, in Strasbourg, France, Nov. 27, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Yves Herman
A Palestinian from Gaza studying at the prestigious Sciences Po Lille has been expelled after French authorities discovered hundreds of antisemitic social media posts, including praise for Nazi leader Adolf Hitler and calls for the murder of Jews.
The episode has led ministers in the French government to demand answers and push for an investigation into the vetting process that allowed the Gazan student to enter France in the first place.
After receiving a scholarship, 25-year-old Nour Atalla arrived in France earlier this year, planning to begin her law and communications studies at the Institute of Political Science in Lille, northern France.
She is one of 292 Gazans admitted to the country with support from the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs, following a court ruling that opened the door for Gazans to seek refugee status based on their nationality.
On Wednesday, the university announced it had revoked Atalla’s enrollment after hundreds of her past antisemitic and violent social media posts went viral, sparking widespread condemnation from political leaders and members of the local Jewish community.
In several of these posts, she glorified Hitler, praised Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, massacre across southern Israel, called for the execution of Israeli hostages and the killing of Jews, and expressed support for terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah.
“The content of these posts directly contradicts the core values of Sciences Po Lille, which actively opposes all forms of racism, antisemitism, and discrimination, as well as any incitement to hatred toward any group,” the university said in a post on X.
Le contenu de ces publications entre en contradiction frontale avec les valeurs portées par Sciences Po Lille, qui lutte contre toute forme de racisme, antisémitisme et discrimination, ainsi que contre tout type d’appel à la haine, contre quelque population que ce soit.
— Sciences Po Lille (@ScPoLille) July 30, 2025
In one post, Atalla shared a video of Hitler giving a speech about Jews, writing. “Kill their young and their old. Show them no mercy … And kill them everywhere.”
In another post shared on Oct. 7, 2023, she wrote, “We must do everything we can to match the bloodshed — as much as possible.”
Hamas-led Palestinian terrorists murdered 1,200 people, kidnapped 251 hostages, and perpetrated widespread sexual violence during their Oct. 7 onslaught, the deadliest day for Jews since the Holocaust.
After the posts went viral, French politician Matthias Renault of the far-right National Rally party condemned Atalla’s antisemitic views and called on Interior Minister Bruno Retailleau to revoke her asylum status.
“These repeated views pose a serious threat to French society,” Renault said.
In a statement on X, Retailleau announced that he had ordered legal action to be taken against Atalla and “immediately requested the closure of this hateful account.”
“A Palestinian student, admitted to our country through a procedure beyond our Ministry’s authority, made statements that are entirely unacceptable and deeply concerning,” the French official posted.
“There is no place for Hamas sympathizers in our country,” he continued.
Présente sur notre territoire, en raison d’une procédure d’entrée pour laquelle notre ministère n’est pas compétent, une étudiante palestinienne a tenu des propos inacceptables et inquiétants.
J’ai immédiatement demandé de faire fermer ce compte haineux, et donné instruction au… https://t.co/uONrjoEekl
— Bruno Retailleau (@BrunoRetailleau) July 30, 2025
Philippe Baptiste, the French minister responsible for higher education and research, expressed similar outrage, noting he referred to the matter to law enforcement for potential prosecution.
“France does not have to welcome international students who advocate for terrorism, crimes against humanity, and antisemitism,” he said on X. “Whether they come from Gaza or elsewhere, international students holding or relaying such statements have no place in our country. Nor on our territory. Within the government, we will take the necessary steps to ensure that the case of the Palestinian student welcomed at Sciences-Po Lille, who relayed statements of extreme gravity on social networks, is handled with the utmost firmness. I have already referred the matter to the Public Prosecutor under Article 40 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.”
Meanwhile, French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot called for an investigation into the screening process that allowed Atalla to enter the country.
“A Gazan student making antisemitic remarks has no place in France,” he posted. “The screenings carried out by the competent services of the relevant ministries have clearly not worked. I have requested that an internal investigation be conducted to ensure this cannot happen again under any circumstances.”
Like many countries around the world, France has seen an alarming rise in antisemitic incidents and anti-Israel sentiment since the Hamas-led invasion of and massacre across southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023.
The growing wave of anti-Jewish hatred is fueled in part by a rapidly expanding Muslim population from the Middle East and North Africa — a result of ongoing migration trends in France.
The local Jewish community in France has consistently called on authorities to take swift action against the rising wave of targeted attacks and anti-Jewish hate crimes they continue to face.
Meanwhile, French President Emmanuel Macron announced last week that the country will recognize a Palestinian state at the United Nations General Assembly in September — part of its “commitment to a just and lasting peace in the Middle East” — and is now urging other nations to join this initiative.
Israeli officials have condemned such a move, calling it a “reward for terrorism.”
The decision came after Spain, Norway, Ireland, and Slovenia officially recognized a Palestinian state last year, claiming that such a move would contribute to fostering a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and promote lasting peace in the region.
Following France’s announcement, Germany said it was not planning to recognize a Palestinian state in the short term, and Italy argued that recognition must occur simultaneously with the recognition of Israel by the new entity.
However, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer told his cabinet on Tuesday that Britain will recognize a Palestinian state in September unless the Israeli government takes substantive steps to end the “appalling situation” in Gaza.