As tensions flared once again between India and Pakistan following the terror attack is which Pakistani Islamists killed 26 civilians in Pahalgam, in the Indian-administered part of Kashmir, on April 22, Israel’s quiet yet pivotal role in India’s national security response has drawn renewed international attention.
While Jerusalem has refrained from issuing any public statement on the latest escalation, Israeli-made defense systems featured prominently in India’s military operations, triggering a wave of speculation and narrative shaping across geopolitical and digital spaces.
According to Joseph Rozen, a senior fellow at the Misgav Institute for National Security and Zionist Strategy, the relationship between Israel and India is anchored in a robust and resilient strategic partnership.
“India supported Israel’s war against terrorism following the October 7 attacks and supplied arms despite international criticism. Therefore, it was natural for Israel to stand in support of India’s right to self-defense in its fight against terrorism,” Rozen told JNS.
He emphasized that this alignment is far from new, citing Israeli assistance to India during India-Pakistan conflicts in 1965, 1971, and most notably during the 1999 Kargil War.
The Pahalgam attack, carried out by “the Resistance Front,” or TRF, an offshoot of the Pakistan-based, U.N.-designated Islamist terrorist group Lashkar-e-Taiba, bore tactical similarities to Hamas‘s actions during the Oct. 7, 2023, assault on Israel, Rozen noted.
“The attack followed intense incitement and admiration for Hamas’s October 7 attacks,” he explained, framing the violence as part of a broader global jihadist trend.
Israel’s defense partnership with India is more than symbolic—it’s foundational. Joint ventures, technology transfers and defense procurement form the bedrock of this relationship. India sources a wide array of Israeli systems, including UAVs such as the Heron and Harop, the Barak-8 air defense system, advanced radar and surveillance technology, and loitering munitions. This cooperation has not only proven operationally valuable but also showcases the Israeli defense sector’s dual capability to supply India’s needs while supporting the IDF in Gaza simultaneously.
“Pakistani reports of India’s use of Israeli drones serve as excellent marketing for Israeli industries,” Rozen noted, suggesting that the visibility of Israeli systems in live conflict zones bolsters their reputation for reliability and performance. Looking ahead, Rozen sees potential for India to further assist Israel in expanding its defense industrial base.
However, the visibility of Israeli equipment in the Indo-Pakistani theater is not without diplomatic cost.
Regional conflicts
Lauren Dagan Amoss, a researcher of India’s foreign and security policy at Bar-Ilan University in Ramat Gan, warns of the growing narrative that casts Israel as an active participant in regional conflicts.
“The visible use of Israeli-made weapon systems—such as the Harop loitering munitions—by Indian forces has already triggered online narratives framing Israel as an active partner in military action against a Muslim country,” she told JNS.
While she stressed that such claims are “baseless operationally,” Amoss noted that they are rapidly gaining traction within anti-Israel propaganda circles. “This perception may complicate Israel’s diplomatic outreach to Muslim-majority countries, particularly in the Gulf,” she explained.
Kashmir remains one of the most sensitive geopolitical flashpoints in South Asia, and even indirect Israeli involvement risks igniting hostile regional narratives.
Adding another layer of complexity, there are long-standing allegations that Pakistan’s J-10 fighter jets—aircraft of Chinese origin—may have been influenced by Israel’s canceled Lavi fighter program.
Although Israel has denied any direct technology transfers, the possibility that Israeli designs might have indirectly shaped a platform now used by Pakistan is diplomatically awkward, albeit largely inconsequential in practical terms. As both experts emphasized, Pakistan is not a defense partner of Israel, and no bilateral ties exist that could be jeopardized.
Rozen underscored the broader ideological context: “Pakistan maintains anti-Israeli and antisemitic views, which it has expressed more vocally since October 7.”
The South Asian nuclear power has hosted Hamas leadership and organized rallies in their support, reinforcing its place among the group of regional actors, including Iran and Turkey, that Israel views with strategic concern.
Domestically, India’s political climate is also shifting. “One of the most striking developments in this crisis is how swiftly Hindu nationalist voices in India drew explicit parallels between the Pahalgam terror attack and the events of October 7 in Israel,” Amoss noted.
This rhetorical move helped justify India’s retaliatory actions and revealed a new openness in aligning Indian counterterrorism doctrine with Israeli methods.
“For years, Indian officials were cautious about invoking Israel too directly in their domestic security discourse. That caution now appears to have faded,” she said.
Indeed, India’s declaration that future terrorist attacks will be treated as acts of war marks a significant doctrinal shift—one that mirrors Israel’s longstanding model of preemptive deterrence. Rozen characterized this as part of a “global war against radicalism and terror,” positioning the India-Israel axis as a front line in a shared ideological and security battle.
Amoss acknowledged the dual nature of this evolution: “Israel will likely be viewed in New Delhi as a reliable and essential partner in counter-terrorism. … However, as the partnership intensifies, Israel may face a growing dilemma: how to reinforce its strategic ties with India without being perceived—particularly in the broader Muslim world—as taking sides in a religious or geopolitical conflict.”
In this calculus, Israel walks a tightrope—one foot firmly planted in strategic cooperation with India, the other balancing a broader diplomatic agenda in a complex regional environment. The events following the Pahalgam attack have not only deepened defense and intelligence coordination but have also made it harder for Israel to maintain a neutral public posture in conflicts where its defense systems are visible and its values—shared with a like-minded democracy—are invoked.
“One thing is clear,” Amoss said. “Israel is no longer just a behind-the-scenes partner. For many in India—especially among nationalist circles—it is a benchmark for how a sovereign democracy should confront terror.”