India’s recent elections delivered a decisive victory to the sitting prime minister, Narendra Modi, and his BJP party. Noting Modi’s consistent commitment to bettering relations between Jerusalem and New Delhi, Vijeta Uniyal comments on what this portends for the Jewish state:

Though some [of the improvements in the relationship between the two countries] have taken place gradually since the early 1990s and can equally be credited to the previous Israeli and Indian governments, bilateral ties today bear Modi’s distinct signature. In keeping with his policy of forging a strong bond with the Indian diaspora worldwide, India’s government has made specials effort in reaching out to the nearly 85,000 Jews of Indian origin living in Israel. During his July 2017 visit to the Jewish state, Modi addressed a gathering of 8,000 Indian Jews and Indian nationals. No modern Indian leader before Modi has managed to galvanize the Indian diaspora in such large numbers. . . .

Unlike his predecessors, Modi’s foreign policy has been shaped by his personal relationships with world leaders. If he has been warm toward Donald Trump, Benjamin Netanyahu, and Vladimir Putin, his dealings with the Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau can fairly be described as frosty. Therefore, much will rest on the personal rapport between him and the next Israeli premier. . . .

[In the meantime], the media’s speculations over possible hostilities from India’s large Muslim population over Modi’s diplomatic “pivot” toward Israel have largely been unfounded. Beating predictions, he doubled his share of the Muslim vote in the recent election, increasing it from 4 percent in 2014 to 9 percent this election cycle. The Arab countries as well haven’t shown any inclination toward punishing India for building stronger ties with the Jewish state. These factors, combined with an increased mandate, give Modi even greater leverage in cementing diplomatic ties with Israel than he had in his previous term.

For some time, opponents of U.S support for Israel have been urging the White House to end the war in Gaza, or simply calling for a ceasefire. Douglas Feith and Lewis Libby consider what such a result would actually entail:

Ending the war immediately would allow Hamas to survive and retain military and governing power. Leaving it in the area containing the Sinai-Gaza smuggling routes would ensure that Hamas can rearm. This is why Hamas leaders now plead for a ceasefire. A ceasefire will provide some relief for Gazans today, but a prolonged ceasefire will preserve Hamas’s bloody oppression of Gaza and make future wars with Israel inevitable.

For most Gazans, even when there is no hot war, Hamas’s dictatorship is a nightmarish tyranny. Hamas rule features the torture and murder of regime opponents, official corruption, extremist indoctrination of children, and misery for the population in general. Hamas diverts foreign aid and other resources from proper uses; instead of improving life for the mass of the people, it uses the funds to fight against Palestinians and Israelis.

Moreover, a Hamas-affiliated website warned Gazans last month against cooperating with Israel in securing and delivering the truckloads of aid flowing into the Strip. It promised to deal with those who do with “an iron fist.” In other words, if Hamas remains in power, it will begin torturing, imprisoning, or murdering those it deems collaborators the moment the war ends. Thereafter, Hamas will begin planning its next attack on Israel:

Hamas’s goals are to overshadow the Palestinian Authority, win control of the West Bank, and establish Hamas leadership over the Palestinian revolution. Hamas’s ultimate aim is to spark a regional war to obliterate Israel and, as Hamas leaders steadfastly maintain, fulfill a Quranic vision of killing all Jews.

Hamas planned for corpses of Palestinian babies and mothers to serve as the mainspring of its October 7 war plan. Hamas calculated it could survive a war against a superior Israeli force and energize enemies of Israel around the world. The key to both aims was arranging for grievous Palestinian civilian losses. . . . That element of Hamas’s war plan is working impressively.