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
US Clamps Sanctions on Israel-bashing UN Rights Monitor Albanese
Francesca Albanese, UN special rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories, attends a side event during the Human Rights Council at the United Nations in Geneva, Switzerland, March 26, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Denis Balibouse
The Trump administration has imposed sweeping sanctions against Francesca Albanese, the United Nations Special Rapporteur for the Occupied Palestinian Territories, citing the UN official’s lengthy record of singling out Israel for condemnation.
In a post on X, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced the sanctions under a February executive order targeting those who “prompt International Criminal Court (ICC) action against U.S. and Israeli officials, companies, and executives.” He accused Albanese of waging “political and economic warfare” against both nations and asserted that “such efforts will no longer be tolerated.”
“Today I am imposing sanctions on UN Human Rights Council Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese for her illegitimate and shameful efforts to prompt [International Criminal Court] action against U.S. and Israeli officials, companies, and executives,” Rubio announced on X/Twitter.
“Albanese’s campaign of political and economic warfare against the United States and Israel will no longer be tolerated,” declared the Trump administration’s top foreign affairs official. “We will always stand by our partners in their right to self-defense.”
Rubio concluded: “The United States will continue to take whatever actions we deem necessary to respond to lawfare and protect our sovereignty and that of our allies.”
The decision to impose sanctions on Albanese marks an escalation in the ongoing feud between the White House and the United Nations over Israel. The Trump administration has repeatedly accused the UN and Albanese of unfairly targeting Israel and mischaracterizing the Jewish state’s conduct in Gaza.
Albanese, an Italian lawyer and academic, has held the position of UN special rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories since 2022. The position authorizes her to monitor and report on alleged “human rights violations” by Israel against Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza.
Last week, Albanese issued a scathing report accusing companies of helping Israel maintain a so-called “genocide economy.” She called on the companies to cut off economic ties with Israel and warned that they might be guilty of “complicity” in the so-called “genocide” in Gaza.
Critics of Albanese have long accused her of exhibiting an excessive anti-Israel bias, calling into question her fairness and neutrality.
Albanese has an extensive history of using her role at the UN to denigrate Israel and seemingly rationalize Hamas’ attacks on the Jewish state.
In the months following the Palestinian terrorist group’s atrocities across southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, Albanese accused the Jewish state of perpetrating a “genocide” against the Palestinian people in revenge for the attacks and circulated a widely derided and heavily disputed report alleging that 186,000 people had been killed in the Gaza war as a result of Israeli actions.
The action comes as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visits Washington, where he has received a warm reception from the Trump administration. Netanyahu has been meeting with US officials to discuss next steps in the ongoing Gaza military operation.
Gideon Sa’ar, Minister of Foreign Affairs for Israel, commended the Rubio announcement with his own post on X/Twitter, exclaiming: “A clear message. Time for the UN to pay attention!”
The post US Clamps Sanctions on Israel-bashing UN Rights Monitor Albanese first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Hardball: Trump Administration Reports Harvard to Accreditor Over Antisemitism Allegations
US President Donald Trump speaks during a Cabinet meeting at the White House in Washington, DC, July 8, 2025. Photo: Kevin Lamarque via Reuters Connect.
The Trump administration escalated its showdown against Harvard University on Wednesday, reporting the institution to its accreditor for alleged civil rights violations resulting from its weak response to reports of antisemitic bullying, discrimination, and harassment following Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023 massacre across southern Israel.
The US Department of Education (DOE) announced the action on Wednesday. Citing Harvard’s admitted failure to treat antisemitism as seriously as it treated others forms of hatred in the past, the DOE called on the New England Commission of Higher Education to review and, potentially, revoke its accreditation — a designation which qualifies Harvard for federal funding and attests to the quality of the educational services its provides.
“Accrediting bodies play a significant role in preserving academic integrity and a campus culture conducive to truth seeking and learning,” said Secretary of Education Linda McMahon. “Part of that is ensuring students are safe on campus and abiding by federal laws that guarantee educational opportunities to all students. By allowing anti-Semitic harassment and discrimination to persist unchecked on its campus, Harvard University has failed in its obligation to students, educators, and American taxpayers.”
The DOE, McMahon added, “expects the New England Commission of Higher Education to enforce its policies and practices, and to keep the Department fully informed of its efforts to ensure that Harvard is in compliance with federal law and accreditor standards.”
As previously reported by The Algemeiner, Harvard’s Presidential Task Force on Combating Antisemitism has acknowledged that the university administration’s handling of campus antisemitism fell well below its obligations under both Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its own nondiscrimination policies.
In a 300-plus-page report, the task force compiled a comprehensive record of antisemitic incidents on Harvard’s campus in recent years — from the Harvard Palestine Solidarity Committee’s endorsement of the Oct. 7 terrorist atrocities to an anti-Zionist faculty group’s sharing an antisemitic cartoon depicting Jews as murderers of people of color. The report identified Harvard’s past refusal to afford Jews the same protections against discrimination enjoyed by other minority groups as a key source of its problem.
Coming several weeks after President Donald Trump ordered the freeze of $2.26 billion in federal research grants and contracts for Harvard, the task force report found it was “clear” that antisemitism and anti-Israel bias have been fomented, practiced, and tolerated not only at Harvard but also within academia more widely.”
The university is now suing the federal government over the funding halt.
President Trump has spoken scathingly of Harvard, calling it, for example, an “Anti-Semitic, Far Left Institute … with students being accepted from all over the world that want to rip our Country apart” in an April post to his Truth Social platform.
In recent weeks, however, both Trump and McMahon had commended Harvard’s constructive response in negotiations over reforms the administration has asked it to implement as a precondition for restoring federal funds. The requested reforms include hiring more conservative faculty, shuttering diversity, equity, and inclusion [DEI] programs, and slashing the size of administrative offices tangential to the university’s central educational mission.
The administration has since changed its tone in the wake of a report by The Harvard Crimson that interim Harvard President Alan Garber has said “behind closed doors” that he has no intention of doing anything that would make Harvard more palatable to conservatives.
Earlier this month, the Trump administration’s Joint Task Force to Combat Antisemitism issued Harvard a formal “notice of violation” of civil rights law. Charging that Harvard willfully exposed Jewish students to a flood of racist and antisemitic abuse both in and outside of the classroom, it threatened to strip whatever remains of Harvard’s federal funding.
“Failure to institute adequate changes immediately will result in the loss of all federal financial resources and continue to affect Harvard’s relationship with the federal government,” wrote the federal officials comprising the multiagency Task Force. “Harvard may of course continue to operate free of federal privileges, and perhaps such an opportunity will spur a commitment to excellence that will help Harvard thrive once again.”
In Wednesday’s announcement, US Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said Harvard’s conduct “forfeits the legitimacy that accreditation is designed to uphold.”
“HHS and Department of Education will actively hold Harvard accountable through sustained oversight until it restores public trust and ensures a campus free of discrimination,” he said.
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
The post Hardball: Trump Administration Reports Harvard to Accreditor Over Antisemitism Allegations first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
IDF Strikes Hezbollah Sites in South Lebanon as Terror Group Pushes to Rebuild Amid US Disarmament Talks
IDF operating in southern Lebanon. Photo: IDF Spokesperson
Israeli forces uncovered and destroyed Hezbollah weapons caches in southern Lebanon on Wednesday, as a new report indicated that despite ongoing U.S.-led efforts to secure a disarmament deal, the Iran-backed group is making repeated, largely concealed attempts to rebuild its military presence in the area.
Troops carried out several operations targeting Hezbollah infrastructure in southern Lebanon on Wednesday morning, destroying weapons depots, explosives and multibarrel launchers concealed in forested terrain, the IDF said, in violation of the November ceasefire, which requires Hezbollah to withdraw its forces 20 miles from the Israeli border.
A new report released this week by the Alma Research and Education Center found that Hezbollah is focused on rebuilding in three areas: operational deployment, weapons acquisition, and financial recovery.
“Hezbollah didn’t give up its resistance narrative and motivation,” Alma’s director, Lt. Col. (Res.) Sarit Zehavi, told The Algemeiner.
“It wants to rebuild its capabilities and infrastructures, whether it’s the villages that will be used as human shields or the military infrastructure in South Lebanon and in Lebanon in general.”
According to Zehavi, Hezbollah is attempting to return Radwan fighters to positions south of the Litani River as part of a wider plan to restore its elite forces to operational readiness. The IDF on Monday killed Radwan commander Ali Abd al-Hassan Haidar in a targeted strike. The action came hours after US Special Envoy for Syria Thomas Barrack met with Lebanese President Joseph Aoun, Prime Minister Nawaf Salam and Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri in Beirut to discuss a long-term deal that would include an Israeli withdrawal and complete disarmament of Hezbollah.
Barrack described the Lebanese response to the proposal as positive. Later, he issued a blunt warning to Hezbollah in response to a vow by the terror group’s leader, Naim Qassem, not to lay down its arms. “If they mess with us anywhere in the world, they will have a serious problem with us,” Barrack said in an interview with Lebanese news network LBCI. “They don’t want that.”
Zehavi said it was premature to predict the outcome of the diplomatic efforts. She warned that the challenge of disarming Hezbollah remains enormous and emphasized that the Lebanese Armed Forces have not demonstrated the capability or willingness to confront the group.
“It’s too soon to be optimistic or pessimistic,” she said, noting that no firm commitments have emerged from the Beirut talks.
Hezbollah’s efforts to smuggle and manufacture weapons have been complicated by both Israeli strikes and the regional realignment over recent months. While Israeli strikes have disrupted many supply routes, according to Zehavi, Syrian authorities have intercepted far more Hezbollah-bound weapons than the Lebanese Army, which claims to have uncovered 500 arms caches but has provided no evidence.
The financial front marks the third aspect of Hezbollah’s rebuilding effort. Last week, the group halted cash payments to Shiite civilians whose homes were damaged in the war, citing liquidity problems. Zehavi attributed the shortfall to disruptions in Iran’s funding networks — an outcome of the 12-day war against the regime in Tehran — and said the constraints would likely hamper Hezbollah’s ability to compensate its base and sustain operations.
“I hope they will continue to have problems with the cash flow, that way it will be very difficult for them to recover,” she said.
The post IDF Strikes Hezbollah Sites in South Lebanon as Terror Group Pushes to Rebuild Amid US Disarmament Talks first appeared on Algemeiner.com.