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
Majority of French People Oppose Macron’s Push to Recognize a Palestinian State, New Survey Finds
French President Emmanuel Macron delivers the keynote address at the IISS Shangri-La Dialogue security summit in Singapore, May 30, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Edgar Su
Nearly 80 percent of French citizens oppose President Emmanuel Macron’s push to recognize a Palestinian state, according to a new study that underscores widespread public resistance to the controversial diplomatic initiative.
Last week, Macron announced the postponement of a United Nations conference aimed at advancing international recognition of a Palestinian state as part of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with no new date set.
The UN summit — originally scheduled for June 16–18 — was delayed after Israel launched a sweeping preemptive strike on Iran, targeting military installations and nuclear facilities in what officials said was an effort to neutralize an imminent nuclear threat.
Last month, Macron said that recognizing “Palestine” was “not only a moral duty but a political necessity.” The comments followed him saying in April that France was making plans to recognize a Palestinian state at a UN conference it would co-host with Saudi Arabia. Israeli and French Jewish leaders sharply criticized the announcement, describing the decision as a reward for terrorism and a “boost” for Hamas.
The French people largely seem to agree now is not the right time for such a move. A survey conducted by the French Institute of Public Opinion (IFOP) on behalf of the Representative Council of Jewish Institutions of France (CRIF), the main representative body of French Jews, found that 78 percent of respondents opposed a “hasty, immediate, and unconditional recognition of a Palestinian state.”
Sondage Crif x Ifop : “Le regard des Français sur la reconnaissance par la France de l’État palestinien”
Une large majorité de Français (78 %) s’oppose à une reconnaissance immédiate et sans condition de l’État palestinien. Parmi eux, près de la moitié (47 %) estiment qu’une… pic.twitter.com/AX9gP6eMLe
— CRIF (@Le_CRIF) June 17, 2025
France’s initiative comes after Spain, Norway, Ireland, and Slovenia officially recognized a Palestinian state last year, claiming that such a move would contribute to fostering a two-state solution and promote lasting peace in the region.
According to IFOP’s recent survey, however, nearly half of French people (47 percent) believe that recognition of a Palestinian state should only be considered after the release of the remaining hostages captured by Hamas during the Palestinian terrorist group’s invasion of southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, while 31 percent oppose any short-term recognition regardless of future developments.
The survey also reveals deep concerns about the consequences of such a premature recognition, with 51 percent of respondents fearing a resurgence of antisemitism in France and 50 percent believing it could strengthen Hamas’s position in the Middle East.
France has experienced an ongoing record surge in antisemitic incidents, including violent assaults, following Hamas’s Oct. 7 atrocities, amid the ensuing war in Gaza.
According to local media reports, France’s recognition of a Palestinian state at the UN conference was expected to be contingent on several conditions, including a truce in Gaza, the release of hostages held by Hamas, reforms within the Palestinian Authority (PA) — which is expected to take control from Hamas after the war — economic recovery, and the end of Hamas’s terrorist rule in the war-torn enclave.
The PA has not only been widely accused of corruption and condemned by the international community for its “pay-for-slay” program, which rewards terrorists and their families for attacks against Israelis, but also lacks public support among Palestinians, with only 40 percent supporting its return to govern the Gaza Strip after the war.
Out of the 27 total European Union member states, Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Sweden have also recognized a Palestinian state.
Meanwhile, Germany, Portugal, and the UK have all stated that the time is not right for recognizing a Palestinian state.
The post Majority of French People Oppose Macron’s Push to Recognize a Palestinian State, New Survey Finds first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Jewish Leaders Plan ‘Emergency Mission’ to Washington, DC to Push US Gov’t for Antisemitism Protections
Thousands of participants and spectators are gathering along Fifth Avenue to express support for Israel during the 59th Annual Israel Day Parade in New York City, on June 2, 2024. Photo: Melissa Bender via Reuters Connect
Amid a record wave of antisemitic attacks and heightened geopolitical tensions in the Middle East, leaders from nearly 100 Jewish communities and over 30 national organizations across the US will descend on Washington, DC next week for an “emergency mission” aimed at pressing the federal government to bolster protections for Jewish Americans and increase support for Israel.
The meeting will be organized by the Jewish Federations of North America and the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. The two-day gathering scheduled for June 25–26 will convene representatives from groups representing approximately 7.5 million American Jews. Participants plan to meet with members of Congress and the Trump administration to demand “strong and aggressive action” to thwart a surge in antisemitic violence and rhetoric, according to a press release.
“We are facing an unprecedented situation in American Jewish history where every Jewish institution and event is a potential target for antisemitic violence,” said Eric Fingerhut, president and CEO of the Jewish Federations of North America. “This is domestic terrorism, plain and simple, and defeating this campaign of terror is the responsibility of government.”
The meeting comes on the heels of a string of attacks on Jewish and pro-Israeli targets in places such as Washington, DC, and Boulder, Colorado, and amid growing fears over Iran’s role in backing groups hostile to Israel. Organizers link the current wave of antisemitism to the aftermath of Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel, in which over 1200 people were killed and 251 hostages were abducted.
In the 20 months since the Oct. 7 massacre, the United States has seen a dramatic surge in antisemitic incidents. According to the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), antisemitism in the US surged to break “all previous annual records” last year, with 9,354 antisemitic incidents recorded. These outrages included violent assaults, vandalism of Jewish schools and synagogues, harassment on college campuses, and threats against Jewish community centers.
Some Jewish institutions have reported being forced to hire private security or temporarily close their doors due to safety concerns. At universities nationwide, Jewish students and faculty have described feeling unsafe amid anti-Israel and pro-Hamas protests where some demonstrators have used antisemitic slogans or glorified violence.
“American Jews are not bystanders to global terror and domestic extremism. We are deliberate targets,” said William Daroff, CEO of the Conference of Presidents. “The federal government has a mandate to act.”
The delegation plans to advocate for a six-point policy agenda that includes expanding the federal Nonprofit Security Grant Program to $1 billion annually, providing financial support for security personnel at Jewish institutions, boosting FBI resources to combat extremism, and strengthening enforcement of hate crime laws. It will also push for more robust federal aid to local law enforcement and new regulations addressing online hate speech and incitement.
In addition to urging legislation, leaders say they intend to thank lawmakers who have consistently supported Jewish communities and the state of Israel, especially in light of the recent barrage of rockets launched at Israeli cities from Iran and Iran-backed terrorist groups.
“The fight for Jewish security is not just domestic — it is global,” Daroff added. “The stakes have never been higher.”
The mission underscores growing concerns among Jewish Americans who say the dual threats of domestic extremism and rising international hostility toward Israel are converging in dangerous ways — and require a coordinated federal response.
The post Jewish Leaders Plan ‘Emergency Mission’ to Washington, DC to Push US Gov’t for Antisemitism Protections first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Columbia University Releases Campus Antisemitism Climate Survey
Pro-Hamas protesters at Columbia University on April 19, 2024. Photo: Melissa Bender via Reuters Connect
Columbia University’s Task Force on Antisemitism has released a “campus climate” survey which found that Jewish students remain exceedingly uncomfortable attending the institution.
According to the survey, 53 percent of Jewish students said they have been subjected to discrimination because of being Jewish, while another 53 percent reported that their friendships are “strained” because of how overwhelmingly anti-Zionist the student culture is. Meanwhile, 29 percent of Jewish students said they have “lost close friends,” and 59 percent, nearly two-thirds, of Jewish students sensed that they would be better off by electing to “conform their political beliefs” to those of their classmates.
Nearly 62 percent of Jewish students reported “a low feeling of acceptance at Columbia on the basis of their religious identity, and 50 percent said that the pro-Hamas encampments which capped off the 2023-2024 academic year had an “impact” on their daily routines.
Jewish students at Columbia were more likely than their peers to report these negative feelings and experiences, followed by Muslim students.
“As a proud alumna who has spent decades championing this institution, I found the results of this survey difficult to read,” acting Columbia University president Claire Shipman said in a statement. “They put the challenges we face in stark relief. The increase in horrific antisemitic violence in the US and across the globe in recent weeks and months serves as a constant, brutal reminder of the dangers of anti-Jewish bigotry, underscores the urgency with which all concerned citizens need to act in addressing it head-on, and the fact that antisemitism can and should be addressed as a unique form of hatred.”
Shipman added that university officials are “aware of the extent of the immense challenges faced by our Jewish students” and have enacted new policies which strengthen the process for reporting bias and prevent unauthorized demonstrations which upend the campus.
“I am confident we can change this painful dynamic. I know this because we share a commitment to protect all members of our community. We owe it to our students — and to each other,” she said.
Columbia University recently settled a lawsuit brought by a Jewish student at the School of Social Work (CSSW) who accused faculty of unrelenting antisemitic bullying and harassment.
According to court documents, Mackenzie “Macky” Forrest was abused by the faculty, one of whom callously denied her accommodations for sabbath observance and then held out the possibility of her attending class virtually during pro-Hamas protests, which according to several reports and first-hand accounts, made the campus unsafe for Jewish students. Her Jewishness and requests for arrangements which would allow her to complete her assignments created what the Lawfare Project described as a “pretext” for targeting Forrest and conspiring to expel her from the program, a plan that involved fabricating stories with the aim of smearing her as insubordinate.
Spurious accusations were allegedly made by one professor, Andre Ivanoff, who was the first to tell Forrest that her sabbath observance was a “problem.” Ivanoff implied that she had failed to meet standards of “behavioral performance” while administrators spread rumors that she had declined to take on key assignments, according to court documents. This snowballed into a threat: Forrest was allegedly told that she could either take an “F” in a field placement course or drop out, the only action that would prevent sullying her transcript with her failing grade.
Forrest left but has now settled the lawsuit she filed to get justice in terms that Columbia University has buried under a confidentiality agreement.
Columbia was one of the most hostile campuses for Jews employed by or enrolled in an institution of higher education. After Hamas’s invasion of and massacre across southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, the university produced several indelible examples of campus antisemitism, including a student who proclaimed that Zionist Jews deserve to be murdered and are lucky he is not doing so himself and administrative officials who, outraged at the notion that Jews organized to resist anti-Zionism, participated in a group chat in which each member took turns sharing antisemitic tropes that described Jews as privileged and grafting.
Amid these incidents, the university struggled to contain the anti-Zionist group Columbia University Apartheid Divest (CUAD), which in late January committed an act of infrastructural sabotage by flooding the toilets of the Columbia School of International and Public Affairs (SIPA) with concrete. Numerous reports indicate the attack may have been the premeditated result of planning sessions which took place many months ago at an event held by Alpha Delta Phi (ADP) — a literary society, according to the Washington Free Beacon. During the event, the Free Beacon reported, ADP distributed literature dedicated to “aspiring revolutionaries” who wish to commit seditious acts. Additionally, a presentation was given in which complete instructions for the exact kind of attack which struck Columbia were shared with students.
The university is reportedly restructuring itself to comply with conditions for restoring $400 million in federal funding canceled by US Education Secretary Linda McMahon in March to punish the school’s alleged failure to quell “antisemitic violence and harassment.”
In March, the university issued a memo announcing that it acceded to key demands put forth by the Trump administration as prerequisites for releasing the funds — including a review of undergraduate admissions practices that allegedly discriminate against qualified Jewish applicants, the enforcement of an “anti-mask” policy that protesters have violated to avoid being identified by law enforcement, and enhancements to the university’s security protocols that would facilitate the restoration of order when the campus is disturbed by pro-Hamas radicals and other agitators.
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
The post Columbia University Releases Campus Antisemitism Climate Survey first appeared on Algemeiner.com.