Indian Opposition Criticises Modi’s Israeli Parliament Speech, Citing Nehru’s Historic Position

India’s domestic political divisions have sharpened following Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s recent address to Israel’s Parliament, with the opposition Congress party accusing him of undermining India’s traditional diplomatic balance in the Middle East. The debate reflects broader global tensions over the Israel–Gaza conflict — an issue closely watched in countries like New Zealand, which has historically supported a two-state solution while maintaining ties with both Israel and Arab nations.

Congress Says Speech Favoured Israel Too Strongly

India’s main opposition party, Congress, said on Thursday that Modi’s speech to the Knesset amounted to an “unabashed defence” of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and risked diminishing India’s moral standing internationally.

Speaking to Israeli lawmakers on Wednesday, Modi expressed strong solidarity with Israel and described the Gaza Peace Initiative as a pathway towards “just and durable peace”.

He also condemned Hamas’ October 7, 2023 attack, saying: “I carry with me the deepest condolences of the people of India for every life lost… India stands with Israel, firmly, with full conviction, in this moment, and beyond. No cause can justify the murder of civilians. Nothing can justify terrorism.”

Congress general secretary Jairam Ramesh criticised the address in a post on social media platform X, arguing that Modi had emphasised India’s recognition of Israel without reflecting the country’s historically more nuanced position.

Nehru’s Correspondence With Einstein Recalled

In his response, Ramesh pointed to historical correspondence between India’s first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, and physicist Albert Einstein in 1947, when the creation of Israel was under discussion.

According to Ramesh, Nehru expressed sympathy for both Jews and Arabs, writing: “I confess that while I have a very great deal of sympathy for the Jews, I feel sympathy for the Arabs also in their predicament.”

Nehru warned that strong emotions on both sides were making resolution difficult, adding he was not in a position to give a final judgment and emphasising the need for a mutually acceptable solution.

He also questioned why Jewish leaders had not secured broader goodwill among Arabs despite their achievements in Palestine, suggesting that forcing outcomes risked prolonging conflict.

Nehru further argued that ongoing British rule in Palestine had contributed significantly to tensions.

Israeli Criticism Also Highlighted

Ramesh also cited criticism from Israeli human rights lawyer Eitay Mack, who reportedly described Modi’s speech as damaging to India’s moral authority.

The Congress leader said such reactions underscored concerns that India’s foreign policy stance may be shifting away from its historically balanced approach.

India recognised Israel in 1950 but long maintained strong support for Palestinian statehood. In recent decades, however, defence and diplomatic ties between India and Israel have grown significantly.

Foreign Policy Balance Under Scrutiny

India’s position in the Middle East has traditionally sought to balance strategic interests with diplomatic principles — similar to New Zealand’s approach, which involves support for Israel’s right to security alongside advocacy for Palestinian self-determination.

Modi’s government has strengthened ties with Israel, particularly in defence, technology, and trade, while continuing to voice support for peace negotiations.

However, critics say the tone of his Knesset address marked a departure from India’s earlier emphasis on neutrality.

Conclusion

The dispute over Modi’s speech highlights the ongoing political and diplomatic sensitivity surrounding the Israel–Palestine conflict. While India has expanded its relationship with Israel in recent years, opposition figures argue the country must preserve its long-standing commitment to balance and international credibility. The debate reflects broader global divisions as nations navigate one of the world’s most enduring geopolitical conflicts.