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
‘Hamas Must End Its Rule in Gaza’: Qatar Joins Other Arab Countries in Demanding Terror Group Disarm, Step Down
Qatar’s Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani makes statements to the media with then-US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, in Doha, Qatar, Oct. 13, 2023. Photo: Jacquelyn Martin/Pool via REUTERS
Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the Arab League, signed onto an unprecedented declaration on Tuesday calling on the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas to disarm, relinquish control over the war-torn Gaza Strip, and release the Israeli hostages it is still holding.
At a French and Saudi-led United Nations conference on reviving conversation and advocacy for a two-state solution to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, 17 countries, the 22-member Arab League, and the European Union signed onto the declaration.
“Hamas must end its rule in Gaza and hand over its weapons to the Palestinian Authority, with international engagement and support, in line with the objective of a sovereign and independent Palestinian State,” it read.
“Governance, law enforcement, and security across all Palestinian territory must lie solely with the Palestinian Authority, with appropriate international support.”
While European and other Western countries have consistently made their condemnation of Hamas and its attacks clear, as well as their commitment to a two-state solution, it is notable that many Arab countries — including Qatar, which has historically supported Hamas diplomatically and financially — signed onto the declaration.
Some foreign policy experts noted the striking inclusion of Qatar, which continues to host senior Hamas leaders.
The declaration also condemned Hamas’s deadly Oct. 7, 2023, attack on southern Israel, which left 1,200 dead and another 251 taken hostage, and called for an end to the subsequent war which has devastated Gaza.
This is the first time since the Israel-Hamas war began that a united front of Arab countries condemned the Oct. 7 massacre and called on Hamas to disarm and step down from power.
When it comes to a post-war Gaza, the declaration proposes “a temporary international stabilization mission” under the auspices of the United Nations and upon invitation by the Palestinian Authority. It also notes that some countries have expressed readiness to contribute troops to the cause.
“By bringing the Arab countries for the first time to condemn Hamas and call for its disarmament, we are creating, or recreating, the conditions for this political solution that, again, is the only path forward, and we are paving the way,” French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot said in an interview with CBS News.
“We’re paving the way for the future Abraham Accords that the US administration might lead,” he argued, referring to a series of US-brokered deals normalizing ties between Israel and several Arab countries.
Michael Koplow, the chief policy officer of the Israel Policy Forum, a pro-two-state solution think tank, called the declaration “remarkable” and wrote that the Israeli government “should treat this as an unprecedented accomplishment.”
“It explicitly called for a Palestinian state to be demilitarized, marked PA incitement in school curricula as something that must be addressed, and promised Israel full regional integration. It’s basically attaching the full Israeli wishlist to two states,” he argued. At the same time, “there’s plenty in here that Israel reasonably finds objectionable. Full right of return is a non-starter, and the real carrot of a pledge for full normalized diplomatic relations across the board is missing.”
He concluded, “When Israel talks about peace through strength and a transformed regional and [international] environment re: accepting Israel, this is what it actually looks like. If this [government] had an ounce of sense, it would crow about this as the world accepting what it has long demanded and build on it.”
The United States and Israel did not participate in the conference.
State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce said in a statement that the conference is “unproductive and ill-timed,” and that it is “a slap in the face to the victims of Oct. 7 and a reward for terrorism.”
“This is a publicity stunt that comes in the middle of delicate diplomatic efforts to end the conflict,” she continued. “Far from promoting peace, the conference will prolong the war, embolden Hamas, and reward its obstruction and undermine real-world efforts to achieve peace.”
Israeli officials have similarly argued that recognizing a Palestinian state at this time would “reward” Hamas’s terrorism, embolden the Islamist group to continue fighting, and only lead to a failed state.
RSS
NYT Adds Editors’ Note to Story That Didn’t Mention Malnourished Gazan Child’s Pre-Existing Health Problems
The headquarters of The New York Times. Photo: Wikimedia Commons.
The New York Times has added an editors’ note to a widely shared news article that spotlighted a severely malnourished child in Gaza, revealing that the 18-month-old boy maintained pre-existing health issues that contributed to his current condition.
The addition followed mounting scrutiny over the accuracy of the story and the credibility of its sources.
“This article has been updated to include information about Mohammed Zakaria al-Mutawaq, a child in Gaza suffering from severe malnutrition,” read the note posted at the bottom of the story. “After publication of the article, The Times learned from his doctor that Mohammed also had pre-existing health problems.”
The original article focused in part on al-Mutawaq, who has been reportedly suffering from acute malnutrition amid the ongoing conflict in Gaza. The story, accompanied by a harrowing image of the emaciated child, was quickly amplified across social media and used by advocacy groups and some politicians to demand further pressure on Israel to halt its military campaign in the enclave against the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas.
However, within days, Israeli officials and independent analysts raised concerns about the report. Medical experts noted inconsistencies in the image and questioned whether the child’s condition truly reflected famine rather than preexisting illness. Critics pointed out the lack of corroboration from independent humanitarian organizations or UN agencies, many of which have not confirmed famine in northern Gaza despite repeated claims from Hamas-linked sources.
Furthermore, online researchers identified pro-Hamas affiliations among some individuals featured in the story or cited as sources, prompting questions about whether the Times had adequately vetted the material.
Amid growing backlash, the New York Times appended the editors’ note to the article, and the newspaper also issued a statement elaborating on the situation.
“We recently ran a story about Gaza’s most vulnerable civilians, including Mohammed Zakaria al-Mutawaq, who is about 18 months old and suffers from severe malnutrition,” a spokesperson said. “We have since learned new information, including from the hospital that treated him and his medical records, and have updated our story to add context about his pre-existing health problems. This additional detail gives readers a greater understanding of his situation.”
“A lie went viral. A child’s illness was twisted into propaganda. This isn’t journalism. It’s a blood libel,” the Israel Foreign Ministry posted on X/Twitter.
A lie went viral. A child’s illness was twisted into propaganda.
This isn’t journalism.
It’s a blood libel. pic.twitter.com/yc0PV0f8TJ— Israel Foreign Ministry (@IsraelMFA) July 30, 2025
They quietly added an editor’s note, but the lie already went global. https://t.co/eJmCfoY2jv
— Israel Foreign Ministry (@IsraelMFA) July 30, 2025
Israeli officials have repeatedly stated that they coordinate with international agencies to facilitate the entry of food and aid into Gaza, and that it is Hamas, not Israel, that diverts or seizes supplies for its fighters. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) recently released footage which showed stockpiles of food, fuel, and medical supplies in areas controlled by Hamas.
The Israeli government has facilitated the entry of thousands of aid trucks into Gaza, with officials condemning international aid agencies for their alleged failure to distribute supplies, which have largely been stalled at border crossings.
RSS
Australian Police Arrest Suspect in Arson Attack on Melbourne Synagogue
The Victorian Joint Counter Terrorism Team (JCTT) in Australia announced the apprehension of an unnamed 21-year-old man for his alleged role in a Dec. 6, 2024, arson attack. Photo: Victoria Police
The Victorian Joint Counter Terrorism Team (JCTT) in Australia announced the apprehension of an unnamed 21-year-old man who could face charges which carry potential 15- and 10-year jail sentences for his alleged role in a Dec. 6, 2024, arson attack on the Adass Israel Synagogue — an Orthodox congregation in the Melbourne suburb of Ripponlea — that left one person with minor burns and the building with extensive damage.
On Wednesday, a joint statement from the Australian Federal Police (AFP), Victoria Police, and the Australian Security Intelligence Organization said that in addition to torching the Jewish house of worship, the suspected assailant also allegedly stole a car, an offense with a maximum 10-year sentence, the same as a third charge for “endangering life.” Authorities say the man collaborated with two other individuals in commission of his crimes. They arrested another individual on July 16 for allegedly stealing the car used in the arson.
“Since the fire occurred on Dec. 6 last year, the investigation has been one of the highest priorities for Victoria Police and the JCTT,” Victoria Police Deputy Commissioner Wendy Steendam said. “Today’s arrest is a demonstration of our ongoing efforts to hold those involved to account. We now have charged two people as part of this investigation, and I expect there will be more to come.”
Steendam added, “What has also been clear to us throughout this investigation is that assistance from the public is absolutely crucial and without that assistance, the investigation would not be where it is today. We know there are people out there with information that will progress this investigation – whether that is people we have already spoken to or others who are yet to come forward. Again, I appeal for those people to contact police. If you have any details at all about those involved and their motivation, then we want to hear from you. Even the smallest detail or piece of information could prove crucial.”
Victoria Police Chief Commissioner Mike Bush said that “people deserve to be safe and feel safe, particularly when it comes to their places of worship. This is not negotiable in any way. We remain committed to identifying all those who seek to cause this kind of fear and harm, and ensuring they are brought to justice.”
The Australian government has committed 30 million Australian dollars ($20 million) for reconstructing the synagogue. “This attack was not simply an attack on Jewish Australians; an attack on a synagogue is an attack on Australia and is treated as such,” Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke said.
AFP Deputy Commissioner Krissy Barrett confirmed that the JCTT investigated the synagogue attack as politically motivated.
“We will not let this go unpunished in Australia. And that’s why we have responded with relentless determination to pursue those responsible and hold them to account,” Barrett told reporters. “This crime was despicable as it was dangerous, and it is important to acknowledge that this was not just an arson on a synagogue.”
Explaining the broader impact of the arson, Barrett said that “the effect of this crime has rippled through a community that continues to be targeted by criminals. We will not stand for this, and I want to reassure the public that this is not just a priority investigation for the JCTT, but also for the AFP. I want to thank the Jewish community across Australia, and in particular, the Adass Israel Synagogue congregation, for their stoicism, patience, and the support they have shown the JCTT.”
Barrett said that investigators suspect overseas actors may have coordinated the attack. “The motivation is still being assessed,” she said, explaining the AFP was “working closely with our Five Eyes partners and international partners to ensure our collective powers and capabilities are drawn upon to help bring those responsible to justice.”
“Five Eyes” refers to the collaborative relationship between the espionage agencies of anglosphere allies Australia, the United States, Britain, Canada, and New Zealand.
Australian law enforcement had previously announced in January they believed that foreign criminal groups may have orchestrated violence in the wave of antisemitic incidents that Australia has experienced over the last year.
However, recent polling shows a homegrown antisemitism problem in Australia.
From June 27 through July 1, the Combat Antisemitism Movement (CAM) watchdog organization polled 1,000 Australians, finding that only 24 percent of respondents regarded the country’s attitudes toward Jews as “very positive” (9 percent) or “slightly positive” (15 percent). These numbers contrasted with the higher levels (28 percent) who answered “very negative” (8 percent) or “slightly negative” (20 percent).
“Australia used to be thought of as a safe haven for Jews, but that image has unfortunately been shattered over the last two years,” CAM’s CEO Sacha Roytman said in a statement. “Many national and local authorities were left shocked and surprised by this wave of hate and we are working with our partners in Australia to provide strategies and the necessary tools to fight hate and antisemitism.”