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
Israel Strikes Hamas Leadership in Qatar Amid Gaza War
A damaged building, following an Israeli attack on Hamas leaders, according to an Israeli official, in Doha, Qatar, Sept. 9, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Ibraheem Abu Mustafa
Israel has carried out a strike targeting Hamas leadership in Qatar, marking an expansion of Jerusalem’s efforts to dismantle the Palestinian terrorist group as the war in Gaza continues.
The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and Shin Bet security agency confirmed a “precise strike” in Doha targeting Hamas’s senior leadership, who orchestrated the Oct. 7, 2023, invasion of and massacre across southern Israel and directed the Islamist group’s operations for years.
“The IDF and ISA [Israel Security Agency, or Shin Bet] will continue to operate with determination in order to defeat the Hamas terrorist organization responsible for the Oct. 7 massacre,” the two organizations said in a statement.
The IDF and ISA conducted a precise strike targeting the senior leadership of the Hamas terrorist organization.
For years, these members of the Hamas leadership have led the terrorist organization’s operations, are directly responsible for the brutal October 7 massacre, and…
— Israel Defense Forces (@IDF) September 9, 2025
According to circulating media reports, senior Hamas officials — including leader Khalil al-Hayya — were targeted in the strike in Doha, though their deaths have not been confirmed.
A Hamas spokesperson said the group’s negotiating team was also targeted in the attack.
In its statement, the IDF assured that precautions were taken to limit civilian harm ahead of the strike, “including the use of precise munitions and additional intelligence.”
Qatar’s Interior Ministry said a member of the country’s Internal Security Force was killed and that other security personnel were injured.
Shortly after Israel claimed responsibility for the attack, Qatar denounced the operation, warning that “it will not tolerate this reckless Israeli behavior and the ongoing disruption of regional security, nor any act that targets its security and sovereignty.”
“The State of Qatar strongly condemns the cowardly Israeli attack that targeted residential buildings housing several members of the Political Bureau of Hamas in the Qatari capital, Doha,” Majed al-Ansari, a Qatari Foreign Ministry spokesperson, said in a statement.
“This criminal assault constitutes a blatant violation of all international laws and norms, and poses a serious threat to the security and safety of Qataris and residents in Qatar,” he continued.
The State of Qatar strongly condemns the cowardly Israeli attack that targeted residential buildings housing several members of the Political Bureau of Hamas in the Qatari capital, Doha. This criminal assault constitutes a blatant violation of all international laws and norms,…
— د. ماجد محمد الأنصاري Dr. Majed Al Ansari (@majedalansari) September 9, 2025
Alongside the United States and other regional powers, Qatar has served as a ceasefire mediator during the nearly two-year Gaza conflict, facilitating indirect negotiations between the Jewish state and Hamas.
However, Doha has also backed the Palestinian terrorist group for years, providing Hamas with money and diplomatic support while hosting and sheltering its top leadership.
According to media reports, Washington, which officially classifies Qatar as a “major non-NATO ally,” knew about the strike beforehand and gave it the green light, though the US did not participate in carrying it out.
The US Embassy in Doha issued a shelter-in-place order for all American citizens.
Earlier this year, the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism Policy released a report exposing the extent of Qatar’s far-reaching financial entanglements within American institutions, shedding light on what experts described as a coordinated effort to influence US policy making and public opinion in Doha’s favor. The findings showed that Qatar has attempted to expand its soft power in the US by spending $33.4 billion on business and real estate projects, over $6 billion on universities, and $72 million on American lobbyists since 2012.
In a joint statement, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Israel Katz confirmed they had ordered security agencies to target Hamas leadership following attacks in Jerusalem and Gaza.
They said the strike targeted Hamas in retaliation for the Oct. 7 atrocities, Monday’s terrorist attack in Jerusalem, which left six Israelis dead and several more injured, and a separate attack on an Israeli tank in northern Gaza that killed four soldiers
Yesterday, after the murderous attacks in Jerusalem and Gaza, Prime Minister Netanyahu directed all security elements to prepare for the possibility of striking the Hamas leadership. The Defense Minister fully supported this initiative.https://t.co/dQDySUqQJv
— Prime Minister of Israel (@IsraeliPM) September 9, 2025
This latest strike came just two days after the Trump administration unveiled its newest proposals for a ceasefire to end the war in Gaza.
On Monday, Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar said that Israel accepted the new deal, which calls for the release of all remaining hostages and the disarmament of Hamas.
Meanwhile, US President Donald Trump gave Hamas what he called a “last warning” to agree to this latest proposal.
The terrorist group said it was ready to negotiate the release of all remaining Israeli hostages still held in the war-torn enclave in exchange for “a clear declaration to end the war, a full withdrawal from Gaza, and the formation of a committee of Palestinian independents to manage Gaza.”
However, senior Hamas official Bassem Naim said on Monday that the group will not accept disarmament — one of Israel’s core demands for ending the war, thus seemingly rejecting Trump’s ceasefire plan for Gaza.
RSS
‘No Basis in Truth’: Authorities Reject Claim by Gaza-Bound Flotilla That Boat Struck by Drone at Tunisian Port
A Global Sumud flotilla vessel floats in the waters as Tunisian Maritime National Guard boats conduct an inspection in Sidi Bou Said, Tunisia, Sept. 9, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Jihed Abidellaoui
Tunisian authorities have rejected as false a claim by the Global Sumud Flotilla (GSF) for Gaza that one of its main boats was struck on Tuesday by a drone at a port in Tunisia.
Tunisia’s interior ministry said that reports of a drone hitting a boat at its Sidi Bou Said port “have no basis in truth,” and that a fire broke out on the vessel itself. The flotilla had said that all six passengers and crew were safe despite the alleged strike.
The Portuguese-flagged boat, carrying the flotilla‘s steering committee, sustained fire damage to its main deck and below-deck storage, the GSF said in a statement.
In tandem with the denial from Tunisian authorities, video circulated on social media apparently showing that the fire was caused by a crew member misfiring a flare that landed back on the boat, not by a drone.
BREAKING: New footage from Greta’s boat shows a crew member misfiring a flare, which lands back on the boat.
These people lie for sport. There was never any drone. pic.twitter.com/GSSSvjy23I
— Eyal Yakoby (@EYakoby) September 9, 2025
The flotilla is an international initiative seeking to break Israel’s naval blockade and deliver humanitarian aid to Gaza using civilian boats supported by delegations from 44 countries, including Swedish activist Greta Thunberg and Portuguese left-wing politician Mariana Mortagua.
A video posted by the GSF on X purportedly showed the moment “the Family Boat was struck from above,” capturing a luminous flying object hitting the vessel with smoke rising soon after.
After the incident, dozens of people gathered outside the Sidi Bou Said port, where the flotilla‘s boats were located at the time, waving Palestinian flags and chanting “Free Palestine,” a Reuters witness said.
Israel has imposed a naval blockade on the coastal enclave since Hamas took control of Gaza in 2007, saying it aims to stop weapons from reaching the internationally desgnated terrorist group.
The blockade has remained in place through the current war, which began when Hamas attacked southern Israel in October 2023, killing 1,200 and taking about 250 hostages.
In June, Israeli naval forces boarded and seized a British-flagged yacht carrying Thunberg, among others. Israel dismissed the aid ship as a propaganda stunt in support of Hamas.
The GSF also said an investigation into the drone attack was underway and its results would be released once available.
“Acts of aggression aimed at intimidating and derailing our mission will not deter us. Our peaceful mission to break the siege on Gaza and stand in solidarity with its people continues with determination and resolve,” the GSF said.
The United Nations’ Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories, Francesca Albanese, who was at the port, told Reuters: “We do not know who carried out the attack, but we would not be surprised if it was Israel. If confirmed, it is an attack against Tunisian sovereignty.”
Albanese has been widely accused by critics of using her position to denigrate Israel and justify Hamas’s use of terrorism against Israelis.
There was no immediate comment from the Israeli side.
RSS
Britain Concludes Israel Not Committing Genocide in Gaza
A picture released by the Israeli Army says to show Israeli soldiers conducting operations in a location given as Tel Al-Sultan area, Rafah Governorate, Gaza, in this handout image released April 2, 2025. Photo: Israeli Army/Handout via REUTERS
Britain has concluded that Israel is not committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza but criticized “utterly appalling” civilian suffering there, in a government letter, ahead of a meeting between Prime Minister Keir Starmer and the Israeli president.
Israel has been accused of perpetrating genocide in Gaza despite its military campaign there targeting the ruling terrorist group Hamas, which openly seeks the Jewish state’s destruction and started the current war with its Oct. 7, 2023, invasion of and massacre across southern Israeli communities.
Jerusalem rejects the accusation, citing its right to self-defense following the Oct. 7 attack, in which Hamas-led Palestinian terrorists killed 1,200 people and kidnapped 251 hostages.
Israel also says it has gone to unprecedented lengths to try and avoid civilian casualties, noting its efforts to evacuate areas before it targets them and to warn residents of impending military operations with leaflets, text messages, and other forms of communication.
Another challenge for Israel is Hamas’s widely recognized military strategy of embedding its terrorists within Gaza’s civilian population and commandeering civilian facilities like hospitals, schools, and mosques to run operations and direct attacks.
Starmer is due to meet Israeli President Isaac Herzog, a leader who has a largely ceremonial role, at Downing Street on Wednesday, his spokesperson said.
The Gaza war has strained Britain-Israel relations. The Israeli government is enraged by Britain‘s plan to recognize a Palestinian state and block Israeli officials from attending its biggest defense trade show this week.
Starmer is facing criticism from some of his Labour lawmakers for agreeing to meet Herzog.
Asked whether the government’s legal duty to prevent genocide had been triggered, David Lammy, Britain‘s foreign minister until Friday, wrote in a Sept. 1 letter to a parliamentary committee that the government had carefully considered the risk of genocide.
“As per the Genocide Convention, the crime of genocide occurs only where there is specific ‘intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group,’” he said in the letter seen by Reuters.
“The government has not concluded that Israel is acting with that intent.”
Lammy was foreign secretary from mid-2024 until Friday when he was replaced by Yvette Cooper and appointed deputy prime minister as part of a reshuffle.
His letter added: “The high civilian casualties, including women and children, and the extensive destruction in Gaza, are utterly appalling. Israel must do much more to prevent and alleviate the suffering that this conflict is causing.”
The long-held British government position has been that genocide should be determined by courts.