India and Israel: No More Terror Double Standards

An alarming aviation scare on the Dubai–Tel Aviv route raises urgent questions about international security, the fight against terrorism and the West’s willingness to confront the networks threatening India and Israel.

An Indian pilot’s reported act of extraordinary courage aboard a Dubai–Tel Aviv flight has put the spotlight on a question the international community can no longer afford to dodge: Why does the world celebrate those who confront terrorism while repeatedly struggling to hold its alleged enablers accountable?

The reported aviation emergency drew praise from President Donald Trump, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The Indian captain’s actions, reportedly taken under extreme pressure, offered a powerful reminder of the courage and professionalism required to protect civilian lives when disaster threatens.

But the incident carries implications extending far beyond the cockpit.

For India and Israel, two democracies confronting persistent security threats in volatile regions, the episode underscores the need for international counterterrorism policies that deliver results rather than merely generate diplomatic statements.

Israeli officials reportedly raised suspicions of a jihadist plot. The final findings of the relevant aviation, security and intelligence investigations must establish what actually happened. Until then, allegations of terrorism should not be treated as proven fact.

Nevertheless, the wider strategic challenge confronting India and Israel remains pressing: a global counterterrorism system cannot succeed if governments condemn terrorist violence in principle but apply accountability inconsistently in practice.

The Dubai–Tel Aviv Route Is About More Than Aviation

The growing relationship between Israel and the United Arab Emirates represents a significant shift in Middle Eastern geopolitics.

The Abraham Accords opened the door to normalized relations between Israel and several Arab states, including the UAE, creating opportunities for commerce, tourism, technological cooperation and regional engagement.

For India, which maintains extensive economic and strategic interests across the Middle East, a more connected and stable region offers substantial opportunities. For Israel and the UAE, regular civilian air links demonstrate the practical benefits of diplomatic normalization.

These connections also challenge extremist movements that portray cooperation with Israel as unacceptable and seek to perpetuate regional confrontation.

A civilian aviation route linking Dubai and Tel Aviv therefore carries significance beyond its commercial purpose. It represents the possibility of a Middle East in which trade and cooperation can coexist with profound political disagreements.

Any deliberate attempt to attack such a route would constitute a threat not only to passengers but also to the principle that ordinary people should be able to travel without becoming targets in someone else’s ideological war.

That is why India and Israel have a shared interest in ensuring that aviation security, intelligence coordination and the protection of international transport links receive sustained attention.

India and Israel Must Turn Cooperation Into Action

India and Israel have developed a substantial relationship encompassing defense, intelligence cooperation, advanced technology and counterterrorism.

Both countries have experienced attacks against civilians and confront security threats that extend beyond conventional military confrontation. Both have also invested in capabilities designed to detect, disrupt and respond to those threats.

Yet the changing nature of terrorism demands more than weapons purchases and occasional intelligence exchanges.

India and Israel should continue strengthening cooperation in several areas:

• Intelligence sharing: Improve the timely exchange of actionable information about suspected terrorist networks, financing and cross-border operations.
• Civil aviation security: Enhance procedures for identifying threats to aircraft, airports, flight crews and international passenger routes.
• Digital investigations: Coordinate efforts to track terrorist recruitment, online propaganda and the movement of funds through digital channels.
• Financial enforcement: Improve cooperation in tracing suspicious transactions and identifying organizations that use charitable or commercial structures to conceal illicit activity.
• International diplomacy: Press governments and multilateral institutions to apply counterterrorism standards consistently, regardless of political alliances.

For India and Israel, the objective should be straightforward: translate their strategic relationship into practical measures that prevent attacks, protect civilians and strengthen accountability.

The effectiveness of counterterrorism should ultimately be measured by the threats disrupted and lives protected, not by the number of agreements signed.

Pakistan and the Question of Accountability

Few issues expose the frustrations of Indian counterterrorism policy more clearly than Pakistan.

Successive Indian governments have accused Pakistan-based militant organizations of conducting or supporting attacks against Indian targets. New Delhi has repeatedly called for action against the infrastructure, financing and personnel associated with such groups.

Islamabad has disputed various Indian allegations and rejected accusations that it sponsors terrorism. Those denials do not eliminate the need for scrutiny, but specific claims of state responsibility must be assessed against the available evidence.

The broader concern for India is that international governments have sometimes treated Pakistan as both a counterterrorism partner and a country facing allegations about militant organizations operating from its territory.

Washington has longstanding security interests in South Asia, and successive US administrations have engaged Pakistan for reasons ranging from regional stability to intelligence cooperation. Such engagement may serve identifiable diplomatic objectives. It must not, however, become a substitute for transparent scrutiny of credible terrorism allegations.

For India and Israel, the principle should be consistent: governments accused of tolerating or supporting armed groups should face evidence-based demands for cooperation, investigation and accountability.

Strategic partnerships cannot become a permanent exemption from counterterrorism obligations.

The same standard should apply to every country, including those considered important by Washington or its allies.

Jaishankar’s Challenge to Washington

Indian External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar has repeatedly emphasized the consequences of cross-border terrorism for India and the importance of international recognition of New Delhi’s security concerns.

India’s argument is that a country repeatedly targeted by militant organizations should not be expected to treat every attack as an ordinary diplomatic disagreement. Nor should international pressure for restraint obscure the responsibility of those who organize, finance or facilitate violence.

This concern has particular relevance to India’s relationship with the United States.

Washington and New Delhi share interests in defense cooperation, technological development and the stability of the Indo-Pacific. Their partnership also has implications for Israel, given the growing connections between security challenges in South Asia and the Middle East.

But strategic alignment requires more than declarations of shared democratic values. It also requires sustained cooperation against organizations responsible for attacks on civilians.

The United States can maintain diplomatic channels with Pakistan while insisting on credible investigations, financial transparency and meaningful action against terrorist organizations. Engagement and accountability are not mutually exclusive.

For India and Israel, a consistent American approach would provide a clearer basis for international cooperation without requiring Washington to abandon its wider regional interests.

From Pahalgam to the Wider Terror Network

The April 2025 terrorist attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, demonstrated the continuing human cost of militant violence in India. The killing of civilians, including attacks reportedly involving the identification of victims by religion, intensified national anger and renewed demands for accountability.

For Indian authorities, the response involved pursuing those suspected of involvement and confronting the networks believed to support them.

India’s security concerns are not identical to Israel’s, and the two countries operate in distinct political and geographical circumstances. Yet both have faced the challenge of responding to attacks against civilians while attempting to prevent further violence.

The comparison also highlights an important international question: how can governments distinguish between legitimate security operations, political disputes and terrorist violence without applying contradictory standards to different countries?

The answer requires evidence, consistent legal principles and a willingness to scrutinize allegations regardless of the identity of the accused.

International institutions, including BRICS and the United Nations, have a role to play in building agreement around practical counterterrorism measures. Such cooperation becomes meaningful when declarations lead to investigations, information sharing and enforcement rather than remaining language in a final communiqué.

India and Israel should continue making the case that attacks on civilians and the financing of terrorist organizations require a coordinated international response.

Follow the Money. Expose the Networks.

Terrorist organizations need more than ideology and weapons. They require money, logistical support, recruitment channels and the ability to move resources without attracting effective scrutiny.

That makes financial enforcement an essential part of the fight.

The Financial Action Task Force (FATF), which establishes international standards for combating money laundering and terrorist financing, provides a framework for assessing whether countries adequately address these risks.

Where credible evidence identifies deficiencies, governments should demand corrective action and use the FATF process in accordance with its established procedures. Any additional measures should be based on documented findings rather than political pressure alone.

India and Israel can support closer international cooperation to identify suspicious transactions, examine alleged front organizations and disrupt financial networks linked to designated terrorist groups.

Authorities should also distinguish between legitimate charitable activity and organizations credibly implicated in financing violence. That distinction is essential to effective enforcement and to protecting innocent people from unjustified restrictions.

The goal is not punishment for its own sake. It is to make it harder for terrorist organizations to recruit, procure weapons, organize attacks and evade accountability.

A government’s diplomatic importance should not determine whether credible evidence of terrorist financing receives serious attention.

Beyond the Applause: A Security Policy That Delivers

The reported Dubai–Tel Aviv aviation scare should prompt careful investigation, not premature conclusions. If investigators establish that an attempted terrorist attack occurred, the findings should be made public to the extent possible without compromising legitimate security requirements, and those responsible should face appropriate legal consequences.

If the investigation establishes a different explanation, the facts should be acknowledged just as clearly.

For India and Israel, the wider lesson remains the need for vigilance, stronger security cooperation and international standards that are applied consistently.

The world cannot eliminate terrorism through summit declarations alone. Nor can it build lasting security by celebrating individual acts of courage while ignoring credible evidence about the networks behind violence.

India has a legitimate interest in ensuring that attacks against its citizens receive sustained international attention. Israel has the same interest in protecting its population and civilian infrastructure. Both countries also have a stake in a regional order where commercial aviation, trade and diplomatic engagement are not held hostage to extremist violence.

Washington and other major powers have their own strategic calculations, but those calculations need not prevent meaningful counterterrorism cooperation.

The message from India and Israel should be clear: investigate the facts, follow the money, expose the networks and hold those responsible accountable. No country should receive a free pass when credible evidence points to support for terrorism.

The Indian captain may be remembered for his courage in a moment of crisis. The international community’s responsibility is to ensure that the next crisis is less likely to happen.