Connect with us

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.

Continue Reading

RSS

Viral Video of Jewish Tourists Assaulted in Florence Sparks Outrage Amid Surge in Antisemitic Attacks in Italy

Demonstrators participate in a pro-Palestinian protest in Piazza Duomo in Milan, Italy, on Nov. 23, 2024. Photo: Alessandro Bremec/NurPhoto via Reuters Connect

A viral video of two Jewish American tourists being assaulted in Florence has sparked outrage and condemnation from Italy’s Jewish community — among the latest in a surge of antisemitic attacks targeting Jews in the country and reflecting rising anti-Israel sentiment.

In the video widely circulated on social media, two visibly Jewish men are seen walking down a street in Florence, a city in central Italy, when an unknown individual approaches them and asks where they are from.

After one of the men replies that they are from New York, the assailant begins shouting antisemitic insults — including “Free Palestine, f**ker” — before lashing his belt against the pavement.

The American tourist then tries to respond, but the man begins shouting “shut up!” and “no speaking, you f**ker!” before striking the pavement with his belt once more.

The video then captures the two men fleeing the scene as they try to escape the assailant.

After the video went viral on Sunday on an Instagram page with nearly 300,000 followers, Italian authorities began efforts to track down the person who posted it.

Local police have launched an investigation and are reviewing CCTV footage in an effort to identify the assailant, Italian media reported.

The Italy-Israel Association of Florence (AIIF) strongly condemned the recent attack, urging authorities to act swiftly to protect the local Jewish community.

“These events cannot be downplayed or dismissed as isolated cases. Antisemitism has once again openly surfaced in our streets, and this should be a concern for all of civil society,” AIIF President Emanuele Cocollini said in a statement.

“City, regional, and police authorities have a duty to act firmly: ensure protection, issue an unequivocal political and cultural response, and isolate and stop those who spread hatred,” Cocollini continued.

Enrico Fink, president of the Jewish Community of Florence, also condemned the incident, describing the footage as “horrifying.”

“It is not only for us to express our outrage, but for those whose slogans and causes are being exploited to spread hatred, violence, and racism. I hope that even today, our voice of indignation will not be the only one heard,” Fink said in a statement.

The incident comes amid a surge in antisemitism and anti-Israel sentiment across Europe and around the world since the Hamas-led invasion of and massacre across southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023.

In Italy, Jewish individuals have been facing a surge in hostility and targeted attacks, including vandalism of murals and businesses, as well as physical assaults. Community leaders have warned that such incidents are becoming more frequent amid growing tensions related to the war in Gaza.

According to a new survey by SWG, an Italian polling and research firm, about 15 percent of Italians believe that physical assaults on Jewish people are “entirely or fairly justifiable.”

Released on Tuesday, the poll also found that 18 percent of Italians consider antisemitic graffiti acceptable, while nearly 20 percent believe it is reasonable to attack pro-Israel professors or refuse service to Israeli customers.

Two weeks ago, an American Orthodox Jewish couple was physically assaulted in Venice by a group of anti-Israel agitators, who shouted “Free Palestine” among other intended insults.

Earlier this summer, a Jewish man from France and his child were verbally assaulted at a gas station near Milan by a group of pro-Palestinian activists who shouted antisemitic slurs after seeing the child wearing a kippah, yelling phrases such as “Free Palestine” and “murderers” as they passed by.

In a separate incident, a masked individual targeted a synagogue in Rome, spray-painting a swastika and antisemitic slogans — “Sieg Heil” (“Hail Victory”) and “Juden Raus” (“Jews Out”) — on a sign near the entrance.

In May, a restaurant in Naples forced an Israeli family to leave, telling them, “Zionists are not welcome here.”

Continue Reading

RSS

Trump Administration Sues Anti-Israel Activists, Organizations Over Protest Outside New Jersey Synagogue

Pro-Palestinian demonstrators protest near the Met Gala, an annual fundraising gala held for the benefit of the Metropolitan Museum of Art’s Costume Institute, in New York City, US, May 5, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Ryan Murphy

The Trump administration has filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against several New Jersey activists and organizations, alleging they disrupted a synagogue service in West Orange during a heated protest last year.

The lawsuit, filed in the US District Court for the District of New Jersey, names members of American Muslims for Palestine–New Jersey, the Party for Socialism and Liberation–New Jersey, and individual activists as defendants. Prosecutors say the group violated the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act — a law usually applied to abortion clinics but that also protects houses of worship.

According to the complaint filed on Monday, the incident occurred on Nov. 13, 2024, at Congregation Ohr Torah. The synagogue was reportedly hosting a memorial and real estate presentation promoting the sale of property in Israeli communities in the West Bank originally scheduled take place at the home of organizer Moshe Glick. When protesters threatened to demonstrate outside his residence, the event was moved to the synagogue.

Federal prosecutors allege that demonstrators ignored police instructions, stormed synagogue property, and used vuvuzelas — long plastic horns — to drown out speakers. The complaint describes several confrontations, including one protester allegedly blowing a vuvuzela directly in Glick’s ear, sparking a physical clash. Another congregant, 65-year-old David Silberberg, was allegedly put in a chokehold and forced to the ground after intervening. A stink bomb was also reportedly thrown into the crowd.

The US Justice Department is seeking both monetary damages and a permanent injunction. Proposed restrictions would bar defendants from coming within 50 feet of the synagogue or Glick’s home and prohibit them from protesting within 500 feet of any place of worship during services. Civil penalties of more than $84,000 per defendant are also being pursued. Essex County prosecutors had previously suggested that pro-Israel counter-protesters instigated the violence, highlighting conflicting accounts of the chaotic scene.

“Those who target houses of worship and violate our federal laws protecting people of faith are on notice that they will face the consequences,” Justice Department Civil Rights Division head Harmeet Dhillon said in a statement.

Attorneys for Glick and other attendees have defended their actions as self-defense and criticized local prosecutors’ handling of the case. Representatives for the defendants and the Essex County Prosecutor’s Office did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The case marks one of the Trump administration’s most aggressive uses of the FACE Act against activists in a religious context, setting the stage for a legal fight over the limits of protest and the protection of worshippers.

In recent years, New Jersey has witnessed a striking uptick in antisemitic incidents, sparking alarm in Jewish and civil-rights communities statewide. According to data from the Anti-Defamation League, 2024 saw 719 reported acts in the state, the third highest total in the nation, including harassment, vandalism, and assaults. Even though the number represents a modest drop from 2023’s peak of 830, the figures remain historically elevated and far above pre-2022 levels. In 2023 alone, New Jersey recorded a 22 percent increase in bias incidents, with anti-Jewish bias making up more than one-fifth of all reports to law enforcement. State legislators have responded by pushing for a formal, statewide definition of antisemitism to better guide law enforcement and educational institutions in identifying and prosecuting such acts.

Continue Reading

RSS

Charlie Kirk’s Words Crush the Conspiracy: Private Letter to Netanyahu Reveals a Steadfast Supporter of Israel

Charlie Kirk speaking at the inauguration of Donald Trump in January 2025. Photo: Brian Snyder via Reuters Connect

A newly published letter to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu from Charlie Kirk, the conservative activist assassinated earlier this month, offers a potent rebuttal to conspiracy theories alleging that the prominent podcaster had turned against the Jewish state in the months before his death.

Far from drifting away from his long record of support for the Jewish state, Kirk’s own words show him urging Netanyahu to develop a stronger social media defense of Israel in what he described as a deteriorating “information war” online and in universities. However, Kirk did also offer distinct notes of criticism in his correspondence.

“One of my greatest joys as a Christian is advocating for Israel and forming alliances with Jews in the fight to protect Judeo-Christian civilization,” Kirk wrote at the top of his letter, which the New York Post reported on Monday. Addressing Netanyahu directly, Kirk said he sought “to lay out our concerns and outline potential remedies. Everything written here is from a place of deep love for Israel and the Jewish people.” He warned that “as Muhammadism spreads into Western societies, it’s critical that Jews and Christians stay united in the effort to contain and roll back radical Islam and Sharia law.”

Kirk lamented that “Israel is losing the information war and needs a ‘communications intervention.” He described how anti-Israel invective infects the questions he receives on his campus tours and has infiltrated “young MAGA circles.” He called the situation “a five-alarm fire,” warning that anti-Israel narratives — ranging from “apartheid state” claims to conspiracy theories about Jews orchestrating US foreign policy — had shattered support among the young political right.

Describing his engagement with Jewish ideas, Kirk wrote that “​​I spent endless hours with Dennis Prager over the years studying the Torah.”

The letter, written earlier this year and running seven pages, mixes personal testimony with detailed social media messaging recommendations. Kirk recounted how, on Easter, he felt “bombarded with messages about the Israeli army making it difficult for Christians to access church in Jerusalem” and frustrated that no official response came quickly from Jerusalem. “Pro-Israel surrogates like me should not be in charge of fact checking every piece of anti-Israel misinformation that pours into social media,” he wrote, adding that “sometimes, it feels like I’m defending Israel in public more than your own government.”

Kirk decried a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t dynamic in online pro-Israel advocacy.

“I’m accused of being a paid apologist for Israel when I defend her; however, if I don’t defend Israel strongly enough, I’m accused of being antisemitic,” he wrote. “I know you’ve got a seven-front war and my kvetching pales in comparison. But I’m trying to convey to you that Israel is losing support even in conservative circles.”

Kirk described how even at events put on by his organization Turning Point USA that draw thousands of students, he faced constant hostile questioning about Israel. “On my recent campus tours, half the questions I get are about Israel and they’re all negative,” Kirk said. He stressed that his commitment was unwavering: “I often spend half my time on these campus tours defending Jews and Israel which I’m proud to do because I love Israel and love the Jewish faith.”

Among the proposals Kirk advanced was the creation of an “Israel Truth Network,” a one-stop information hub and social media presence that could debunk common accusations and showcase the decency of Israeli society. He urged Netanyahu to establish a rapid response media team, to send former hostages on US speaking tours, and to highlight stories of ordinary Israelis through campaigns like “Dude, you got us wrong!” He pressed Israel to generate original, English-language content for TikTok, podcasts, and other platforms rather than depending on American allies, stressing that “Israel needs to learn to fish (i.e. create your own content) and be more self-reliant when it comes to your communications strategy.”

Kirk urged Netanyahu to model his own communications team on that of US President Donald Trump. He wrote that “the [resident has strong fighters like Stephen Miller and Karoline Leavitt who battle the press every day. Honestly, I don’t even know if you have a press secretary. You are an eloquent defender of Israel, but you need a team of information warriors out there pushing back every day in real time.” At the time Kirk wrote his letter on May 2, Omer Dostri served as Netanyahu’s press secretary.

Kirk also warned that young people on the right remain deeply skeptical of intelligence assessments after the Iraq war and COVID-19, making it essential that Israelis themselves — not just Americans — make the case against Iran’s nuclear ambitions. He emphasized that Netanyahu should think of Israel’s public diplomacy like a political campaign: “Right now, there’s essentially a massive negative ad campaign spreading on social media. These negative ads are defining this candidate. Like any campaign, the first task is to define the candidate.”

While most of the letter offered praise of Israel, on the subject of COVID-19 vaccines and other topics, Kirk did present criticisms and skepticism.

“Our generation was also lied to by the governments of Israel and the US that COVID vaccines were safe and effective,” he wrote. “Israel intelligence missed the boat on Oct. 7, but we’re asked to trust Israeli intelligence 100 percent that Iran is on the cusp of obtaining nuclear weapons. Young conservatives are very skeptical of government proclamations.”

Kirk stated that he understood social media “as well as anyone in the world” and that “from my vantage point, Israel has retreated from social media without a fight. How are you going to win over younger generations if you’re starting out in retreat on social media?”

He advised filling communications staffs with people in their twenties and thirties who “grew up with cell phones and social media — not pay phones and TV news,” and implored Netanyahu to stop treating TikTok as a sideshow. “My campus tour last fall and this spring have received approximately five billion impressions,” Kirk noted, adding that Israel should take advantage of platforms like X, where Elon Musk is “a good friend to Israel.”

The Turning Point USA leader suggested a campaign model for the Jewish state. “You should perhaps consider reshaping your Hasbara Department into more of a political campaign headquarters with campaign narrative experts,” he wrote. “Hasbara could be the mothership hosting ITN where the messaging campaign can be created and then distributed to all the pro-Israel groups and thought leaders.”

In his conclusion, Kirk told the prime minister that “the status quo is not working. Israel is getting crushed on social media and you are losing younger generations of Americans, even among MAGA conservatives.” He stressed that his concerns stemmed from his faith: “The Holy Land is so important to my life, and it pains me to see support for Israel slip away.”

The letter countered claims from some of Kirk’s erstwhile allies that he started drifting away from the Jewish state. As The Algemeiner reported on Sept. 17, Grayzone editor Max Blumenthal, a pro-Iran journalist and fierce critic of Israel, published a story alleging that pro-Israel figures — including billionaire investor Bill Ackman — had staged an “intervention” to pressure Kirk over his views. That report, denied by Ackman and Kirk’s own producer Andrew Kolvet, was nevertheless taken up by far-right podcaster Candace Owens and US Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), who have previously promoted antisemitic tropes and accused Israel of genocide.

Days later, as The Algemeiner reported on Sept. 22, former Fox News host Tucker Carlson used his eulogy for Kirk to weave antisemitic innuendo, appearing to blame Jews for both the crucifixion of Jesus and Kirk’s murder.

Carlson’s comments drew condemnation from prominent conservative and pro-Israel voices, who warned that such rhetoric threatened to poison the Republican Party.

Continue Reading

Copyright © 2017 - 2023 Jewish Post & News