Modi–Netanyahu Meet Draws Fire Over Gaza Killings: Kashmir Calls It a ‘Betrayal of India’s Conscience’

Modi–Netanyahu Meet Draws Fire Over Gaza Killings | Kashmir Leaders Call Israel Visit a Betrayal

By: Javid Amin | 27 February 2026 

A Visit That Sparked Applause in Tel Aviv — and Anger in Kashmir

When Prime Minister Narendra Modi stepped onto the tarmac in Tel Aviv for his two-day state visit to Israel in February 2026, the optics were unmistakable. A red-carpet welcome. Warm embraces. Public praise from Israeli leaders. Front-page coverage in Israeli newspapers.

His meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu symbolized a relationship that has grown steadily stronger over the past decade. Modi visited the Yad Vashem, paying tribute to Holocaust victims — a solemn gesture underscoring diplomatic respect and historical acknowledgment.

Yet back home, the visit triggered a political storm.

As Gaza continued to reel from the devastating war that began in October 2023 — with tens of thousands reported killed and large-scale destruction of civilian infrastructure — Modi’s public silence on the humanitarian crisis during his Israel trip became the focal point of criticism.

In Kashmir especially, political leaders described the visit as a moral rupture — even a betrayal.

The Strategic Context: Why the Visit Happened Now

To understand the backlash, one must first understand the strategic framework behind the visit.

India and Israel today share:

• Deep defense cooperation

• Expanding technology partnerships

• Agricultural innovation exchanges

• Cybersecurity collaboration

• Growing trade and startup linkages

Since establishing full diplomatic ties in 1992, bilateral relations have steadily expanded. Under Modi’s leadership, that expansion became visible and politically confident. His 2017 visit to Israel — the first by an Indian Prime Minister — marked a decisive moment in de-hyphenating India’s Israel and Palestine policy tracks.

The 2026 visit was framed as the next logical step in a maturing strategic partnership.

Government briefings emphasized:

• Advanced defense manufacturing cooperation

• AI and semiconductor collaboration

• Water conservation technologies

• Joint research funds

From New Delhi’s perspective, the visit was about national interest — security, innovation, global positioning.

But timing matters in diplomacy.

And Gaza remains at war.

The Gaza Factor: Why Silence Became the Story

The ongoing conflict in Gaza has generated global controversy. International humanitarian organizations have documented severe civilian casualties and displacement. The International Criminal Court’s scrutiny of Israeli leadership has added a legal dimension to the crisis.

During the visit, Modi reaffirmed India’s “zero tolerance for terrorism” and called for peace and dialogue. However, he did not publicly criticize Israel’s military operations in Gaza during his joint appearances with Netanyahu.

For critics, that omission was louder than words.

Opposition leaders, including Rahul Gandhi and Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, accused the government of ignoring what they described as large-scale civilian suffering. Some used the term “genocide” — a politically and legally charged word — to frame their critique.

Civil society organizations echoed similar concerns, arguing that India’s historical foreign policy identity has been rooted in anti-colonial solidarity and support for oppressed peoples.

Why Kashmir’s Reaction Was Sharper Than Elsewhere

The sharpest criticism came from Kashmir.

Mehbooba Mufti’s Warning

Former Jammu & Kashmir Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti said the visit undermines India’s long-standing support for Palestinian rights. She argued that meeting Netanyahu — who faces international legal scrutiny — sends the wrong moral signal globally.

Her statement framed the issue as not merely diplomatic but civilizational.

“India stood for justice,” she suggested in public remarks. “This is not that India.”

Aga Ruhullah’s Moral Argument

Srinagar MP Aga Ruhullah described the visit as morally indefensible at a time of humanitarian crisis in Gaza. He emphasized that silence on civilian deaths damages India’s credibility as a nation historically aligned with justice movements.

Why It Resonates in Kashmir

In Kashmir, the Palestine issue carries symbolic weight. Many in the region draw parallels between:

• Territorial disputes

• Questions of sovereignty

• Allegations of excessive force

• International legal debates

Thus, Modi standing beside Netanyahu is not viewed solely as foreign policy — it is interpreted through a local political lens.

For many Kashmiris, the optics reinforced a perception that strategic interests are prioritized over humanitarian consistency.

India’s Historical Position on Palestine: What Changed?

India’s foreign policy in the early decades after independence strongly supported Palestinian self-determination.

• India recognized the Palestine Liberation Organization in 1974.

• It recognized the State of Palestine in 1988.

• For decades, it voted in favor of pro-Palestine resolutions at the UN.

However, geopolitical shifts after the Cold War changed priorities.

In 1992, India established full diplomatic relations with Israel.

By the 2000s:

• Israel became a major defense supplier to India.

• Intelligence cooperation deepened.

• Agricultural innovation partnerships expanded.

Under Modi (since 2014), ties became highly visible and politically embraced rather than quietly maintained.

India’s official stance still supports a two-state solution. But critics argue that rhetorical support for Palestine now coexists with expanding strategic intimacy with Israel.

Realpolitik vs Moral Diplomacy: The Core Tension

This controversy highlights a classic foreign policy dilemma:

Should a nation prioritize strategic interest or moral positioning?

The Government’s View:

• Israel is a key defense and technology partner.

• Regional dynamics have shifted (many Arab states now engage Israel openly).

• India must pursue national security and economic modernization.

The Critics’ View:

• Aligning publicly with Israel during a war undermines India’s moral authority.

• Silence on Gaza weakens India’s credibility in the Global South.

• Historical solidarity with Palestine is being diluted.

The clash is not simply political — it is philosophical.

The Global South Question

India has projected itself as a voice of the Global South, especially during its G20 presidency and climate negotiations.

Some analysts argue that visible closeness with Israel during Gaza’s humanitarian crisis could complicate India’s image among African, Arab, and Latin American nations that sympathize strongly with Palestinian suffering.

Others counter that today’s Middle East is different:

• UAE and Israel normalized ties under the Abraham Accords.

• Saudi Arabia has engaged in dialogue channels.

• Strategic alignments are increasingly pragmatic.

India’s approach mirrors this broader regional pragmatism.

Defense and Technology: The Quiet Drivers

Behind the symbolism lies material reality.

Israel provides India with:

• Advanced drone systems

• Missile defense technology

• Border surveillance solutions

• Cybersecurity infrastructure

In a volatile neighborhood, India views such cooperation as critical.

The 2026 visit reportedly expanded collaboration in:

• Artificial intelligence

• Semiconductor supply chains

• Water management

• Agri-tech research

From New Delhi’s perspective, these are national development imperatives.

Domestic Political Implications

The backlash also plays into domestic politics.

Opposition parties see the visit as an opportunity to frame the government as morally indifferent to civilian suffering.

In Kashmir, it reinforces narratives of alienation and perceived double standards.

However, nationally, Modi’s support base largely views Israel as a strategic ally and sees defense modernization as essential.

Thus, the controversy reveals India’s internal political diversity more than a unified national dissent.

Does This Mark a Permanent Shift?

India’s foreign policy trajectory suggests continuity rather than rupture.

Since 1992, engagement with Israel has steadily increased.

Since 2014, that engagement became publicly visible.

The 2026 visit is not an abrupt shift but the latest stage in a 30-year recalibration.

India continues to:

• Support a two-state solution.

• Provide humanitarian aid to Palestinians.

• Maintain diplomatic engagement with Ramallah.

But the balance now visibly favors strategic cooperation with Israel.

Kashmir’s Moral Framing: Symbolism and Sentiment

When Kashmiri leaders call the visit a “betrayal of India’s conscience,” they are invoking an older image of India — one associated with anti-colonial solidarity and moral diplomacy.

Whether that image still defines India’s foreign policy is the heart of the debate.

For many in Kashmir, the visit is less about MoUs and more about moral optics.

For the central government, it is about strategic autonomy and modernization.

What Happens Next?

Three likely trajectories:

1. Strategic Continuity

India deepens Israel ties while maintaining rhetorical support for Palestinian statehood.

2. Calibrated Balancing

If Gaza violence escalates dramatically, India may amplify humanitarian language without reversing strategic cooperation.

3. Domestic Polarization

Opposition voices continue using the issue symbolically, especially in politically sensitive regions.

A policy reversal, however, appears unlikely.

Comparative Chart – India’s UN Voting Patterns on Palestine (2000–2026)

Overview of Phases

India’s voting behavior on Palestine-related resolutions at the United Nations can broadly be divided into four diplomatic phases:

1. 2000–2013: Consistently Pro-Palestine

2. 2014–2017: Strategic Balancing Begins

3. 2018–2022: Visible Abstentions Appear

4. 2023–2026: Calibrated Neutrality Amid Gaza War

Comparative Voting Chart

Voting Pattern Analysis

Phase 1: 2000–2013

India voted overwhelmingly in favor of Palestine-backed resolutions. No abstentions on core occupation or sovereignty issues.

Phase 2: 2014–2017

Despite deepening Israel ties under Narendra Modi, India maintained traditional voting behavior — including voting against the US move on Jerusalem.

Phase 3: 2018–2022

Abstentions begin appearing — particularly where resolutions explicitly targeted Israel or involved investigative mechanisms.

This period marks the clearest visible diplomatic recalibration.

Phase 4: 2023–2026 (Gaza War Period)

India:

• Supports humanitarian ceasefire resolutions.

• Avoids explicit condemnation of Israel.

• Abstains on war crimes investigative expansions.

This indicates a policy of humanitarian affirmation + legal caution + strategic insulation.

Key Diplomatic Observations

1. India has not voted against Palestine sovereignty resolutions.

2. Abstentions increase when resolutions become punitive toward Israel.

3. India continues formal support for a two-state solution.

4. Post-2023 votes reflect crisis management rather than ideological reversal.

Kashmir Political Reaction Timeline (2000–2026)

This timeline tracks major moments when Kashmir-based leaders publicly reacted to India’s Israel–Palestine diplomacy.

2000–2008: Symbolic Solidarity Era

• Protests in Srinagar during Second Intifada.

• Kashmir civil society frequently drew parallels between Palestine and Kashmir.

• No major friction with New Delhi since India was firmly pro-Palestine.

2014: Gaza War & BJP Government Transition

After Modi came to power:

• Local protests erupted during Israel’s Gaza operations.

• Political parties in Kashmir urged stronger condemnation of Israel.

However, India still voted pro-Palestine at UN — limiting escalation in rhetoric.

2017: Modi’s First Israel Visit

When Modi became the first Indian PM to visit Israel:

• Mehbooba Mufti avoided sharp direct criticism at the time due to coalition complexities.

• Separatist groups held protests in parts of Kashmir.

• Symbolism became sharper: Modi did not visit Ramallah during the same trip.

This marked the first significant perception of “policy shift” in the Valley.

2018–2019: Visible Abstentions at UN

As India began abstaining on certain Israel-critical resolutions:

• Civil society in Kashmir accused New Delhi of diluting support for Palestine.

• Political commentaries began framing the shift as ideological rather than strategic.

2021: Gaza Escalation

• Valley protests resurfaced.

• Social media amplification intensified.

• National Conference leaders issued statements calling for humanitarian intervention.

2023: Post-October 7 War

After Hamas’ October 7 attack and Israel’s military campaign:

• Aga Ruhullah publicly condemned civilian killings in Gaza.

• Valley-based groups demanded India adopt a stronger pro-ceasefire stance.

• India voted in favor of humanitarian ceasefire — calming some criticism.

2026: Modi–Netanyahu Meeting Controversy

During the February 2026 visit:

• Mehbooba Mufti called it “against India’s historical policy.”

• Aga Ruhullah termed silence on Gaza morally indefensible.

• Opposition figures nationally, including Rahul Gandhi, criticized the visit.

• Kashmir writers described it as a “betrayal of India’s conscience.”

This marks the strongest coordinated political pushback from Kashmir since 2017.

Reaction Pattern Assessment

Strategic vs Symbolic Divide

For New Delhi:

• Israel = Defense, AI, strategic tech, counter-terrorism.

For many in Kashmir:

• Palestine = Symbol of resistance, sovereignty, justice.

The friction arises not from voting data alone — but from optics and timing.

Core Conclusion: A Visit That Defines a New Diplomatic Era

India’s UN voting pattern from 2000 to 2026 shows evolution, not abandonment:

• Sovereignty votes remain pro-Palestine.

• Accountability votes increasingly see abstentions.

• Humanitarian language consistently supported.

Kashmir’s reaction, however, tracks symbolism more than procedural votes.

The 2026 controversy reflects:

• A strategic consolidation of India–Israel ties.

• A domestic moral discomfort in politically sensitive regions.

• A broader global tension between realpolitik and ethical diplomacy.