What India Buys Into When It Buys Israeli Arms
Marcy Newman
The crimes we see happening in Gaza today are being replicated in the rest of Palestine and across the world, because nations buying these weapons will mimic Israel's behaviour. Antony Loewenstein's significant book documents how.
In the last several months, in Karnataka alone, India has put on display the ways in which it colludes with Israel's militaristic economy. In February, the Invest Karnataka meeting in Bengaluru, featured a panel titled 'Sky to Soil: How Indian-Israeli Cooperation in Drones, Agri-Tech, and Clean Energy is Driving Sustainable Innovation.' Just after the brief ceasefire took effect in late January, this meeting presented the ruse of military technology being used to support sustainable agriculture. This is Israel's agro-diplomacy and it's one of the many ways it dupes the Global South into collaborating on militarised agribusiness deals. One doesn't have to look much farther than Israel's scorched earth policy in Gaza, where farmers are met with empty fields and toxic soil, to know that sustainable agriculture is the farthest thing from their agenda.
In fact, in Narendra Modi's India, Israel doesn't have to camouflage its intentions at all. In Bengaluru's Aero India 2025 event, also held in February, the Embassy of Israel – Defense Section, along with its heaviest hitters, Elbit Systems, Rafael Advanced Defense Systems, and Israel Aerospace Industries, exhibited their wares which are responsible for massacring tens of thousands of Palestinians.
Palestine Laboratory: How Israel Exports the Technology of Occupation Around the World, Antony Loewenstein, Verso, 2023.
It's alarming that Israel is allowed to do this in India on the heels of a genocide, and in the midst of a ceasefire that it has broken daily. But that's also the point of Antony Loewenstein's significant book and companion film airing on Al Jazeera, The Palestine Laboratory: How Israel Exports the Technology of Occupation Around the World, which documents precisely how they use their knowledge from an apartheid regime to sell that to countries around the world – including the world's most authoritarian states.
Originally released in 2023, Loewenstein's updated edition, and recently published in India, comes with a new preface titled 'The Gaza Laboratory,' which brings readers up to speed in the context of Israel's recent genocide. He demonstrates how this live-streamed genocide has enabled its tools to be 'proudly displayed on social media for both a domestic and international audience as well as potential global buyers. Israel used artificial intelligence-enabled weapons striking non-military targets with unprecedented ferocity. It's a 'mass assassination factory'' (xvi).
That mass assassination factory is Brand Israel through and through. It's been something Israel's armament companies have long profited from. Dictatorships, repressive regimes, genocidal governments have been Israel's most willing customers from the beginning.
Loewenstein covers this historical trajectory, meticulously highlighting the hypocrisy of a Jewish state selling weapons to countries like Paraguay and Argentina which were, at the time, welcoming Nazis fleeing Europe with open arms. Throughout the twentieth century, Loewenstein reveals, Israel materially supported genocides in Indonesia, Guatemala, Rwanda, and Sudan.
More recently, Israel ignored the arms embargo against Myanmar, because of its genocide against the Rohingya minority, and allowed 'a secret delegation from Myanmar [to visit] Israel's defense industries and naval and air bases to negotiate deals for drones, a mobile phone-hacking system, rifles, military training, and warships'. In addition to its role in training and arming génocidaires, Israel has an even longer history of arming repressive regimes through weapons sales, more often than not as a cover for the United States.
It's a sick logic that finds Israel's so-called 'success' on the battlefield as encouragement to purchase their products of death.
Loewenstein notes:
'Israeli arms sales in 2021 were the highest on record, surging 55 percent over the previous two years to US$11.3 billion. Europe was the biggest recipient of these weapons… Rockets, aerial defense systems, missiles, cyberweapons and radars… The result is that Israel is now one of the top ten weapons dealers in the world, having sold a range of equipment to nations including India, Azerbaijan and Turkey, that worsened conflicts in their own regions. The Israeli government approved every defense deal brought to it since 2007' (9-10).
These nations, including India, are not merely buying military materiel. They're also buying into the brand of ethnonationalist supremacy Israel puts on full display for the world to see. How Israel traffics in genocide, flaunting every law placed in its way, is precisely what these countries hope to emulate.
Israel and India's relationship has grown dangerously enmeshed since 2014. As Loewenstein says:'The growing affection between Israel and India was not just ideological, a mutual embrace of ethnonationalism – the exchange of defense equipment helped enforce it.' (126). That bond has made India Israel's largest weapons export market. When India acquired the cyber-weapon, Pegasus, from Israel's NSO Group, the state compromised a huge swath of civil society.
Loewenstein profiles Nihalsing Rathod, a lawyer whose work on the Elgar Parishad case left him, and his entire network, vulnerable to being hacked: 'The role of NSO and cyber hacking actors [are] 'digital infections' that do not 'target civil society actors as individuals, but rather as networks of collaboration.'
Also read: In What Language, Under Total Surveillance, Does Truth Speak to a Tormented People?
The group found that in India, Mexico and Saudi Arabia, one person is initially hacked 'before their professional networks are targeted within a similar time period. In each of these examples the use of Pegasus occurs after or during periods where these civil society networks expose or confront controversial or criminal state policy'' (152). Regardless, there have been no repercussions and no oversight for NSO or the Indian government for introducing spyware into civil society. There's still a great deal we don't know about the damage it's done. Only a few months ago the Catalan government ruled that the NSO group's founders can be charged for hacking a Catalan lawyer's phone.
According to Loewenstein, Israel makes decisions about which nations to sell to based on 'espionage diplomacy.' It calculates that these nations will then support its efforts to gaslight the world about its apartheid and genocidal policies against the Palestinian people, as well as its encroachment of Lebanese and Syrian land. With the weapons deal comes an expectation of reciprocity (especially when they sell arms to countries no one else will sell to). One element of that reciprocity is that the buyer votes to shield Israel from accountability in the United Nations.
As Loewenstein's reporting painstakingly shows his readers, when a nation purchases Israeli missiles, spyware, drones, or any other military materiel, it has blood on its hands. It enables Israel to maintain and profit off of the world's largest open-air prison: 'Gaza is now the perfect laboratory for Israeli ingenuity in domination.…Today its population has been placed in a forced experiment of control where the latest technology and techniques are tested. However, what is happening in Gaza is increasingly occurring globally' (73).
The crimes we see happening in Gaza today are being replicated in the rest of Palestine and across the world, because nations buying these weapons will mimic Israel's behaviour. This is what India is entering into when it does business with Israel, for a drip-irrigation system or drones. The Palestine Laboratory is a book to pore over to gain a sense of what we are all buying into.
Watch episode one and two of The Palestine Laboratory here.
Marcy Newman is author of The Politics of Teaching Palestine to Americans. She is a member of Jewish Voice for Peace and the International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network.
The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Indian Express
11 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Daily subject-wise quiz : International Relations MCQs on ‘Axis of Resistance', EU, Equator Prize 2025 and more (Week 123)
UPSC Essentials brings to you its initiative of subject-wise quizzes. These quizzes are designed to help you revise some of the most important topics from the static part of the syllabus. Attempt today's subject quiz on International Relations to check your progress. 🚨 Click Here to read the UPSC Essentials magazine for July 2025. Share your views and suggestions in the comment box or at Which of the following European countries is/are not a part of the European Union? 1. Liechtenstein 2. Germany 3. Switzerland 4. France 5. Norway Select the correct answer using the codes given below: (a) 1 and 3 only (b) 2 and 4 only (c) 5 only (d) 1, 3 and 5 Explanation — In a bid to soften the impact of steep US tariffs on Indian exports, the Commerce and Industry Ministry is pushing for export diversification and has fast-tracked EU trade negotiations by holding monthly talks with the 27-member bloc, a government official said. — This is significant since the EU is among India's largest export destinations. Duty elimination under a trade deal for goods such as textiles, footwear, and gems and jewellery could boost India's labour-intensive sectors and help offset export declines to the US due to high tariffs and expected demand slowdowns. — The EU countries are: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Republic of Cyprus, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden. — Several European countries are not part of the EU. These include Iceland, Norway, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Monaco, San Marino, the Vatican City, and Andorra. Furthermore, Brexit has resulted in the United Kingdom's departure from the EU. Therefore, option (d) is the correct answer. With reference to the Equator Prize 2025, consider the following statements: 1. It is announced by UNICEF every year. 2. It is presented to honour nature-based solutions led by Indigenous Peoples and local communities that promote sustainable development and ecological resilience. 3. There is no winner from India in 2025. How many of the statements given above are correct? (a) Only one (b) Only two (c) All three (d) None Explanation — On the International Day of the World's Indigenous Peoples, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), through its Equator Initiative, proudly announces the ten winners of the Equator Prize 2025. Hence, statement 1 is not correct. — This renowned award is given each year to recognise nature-based solutions driven by Indigenous Peoples and local communities that promote sustainable development and ecological resilience. Hence, statement 2 is correct. — This year's winners, from Argentina, Brazil, Ecuador, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Papua New Guinea, Peru, and Tanzania, demonstrate the potential of nature-based solutions spearheaded by people on the front lines of climate change. — From India, the Bibifathima Swa Sahaya Sangha (Bibifathima Self Help Group) is a women-led initiative that assists over 5,000 farmers in 30 villages through millet-based multi-cropping, seed banks, and solar-powered processing. Hence, statement 3 is not correct. Therefore, option (a) is the correct answer. (Source: According to a new assessment conducted by the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) and the United Nations Satellite Centre (UNOSAT) through satellite, which of the following regions has 98.5 per cent of cropland that is either damaged or inaccessible? (a) South Sudan (b) Southern Ukraine (c) Eretria (d) Gaza Strip Explanation — As famine looms in the Gaza Strip, a new assessment conducted by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the United Nations Satellite Centre (UNOSAT) through satellite imagery reveals a staggering reality: 98.5 percent of cropland in the Gaza Strip is either damaged, inaccessible, or both. — This means that only 1.5 percent of Gaza's agriculture, or 232 hectares, is currently accessible for cultivation, down from 4.6 percent (688 hectares) in April 2025, in a region with over 2 million inhabitants. — The combination of extremely limited cropland availability, the impact of an ongoing conflict, severe restrictions on the delivery and distribution of humanitarian aid, and widespread destruction of critical infrastructure – including irrigation systems, roads, equipment, storage facilities, and markets – has resulted in catastrophic food security conditions throughout Gaza. Therefore, option (d) is the correct answer. (Source: Which of the following countries, in collaboration with the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), has launched a new initiative to improve food security, boost rural livelihoods, and help Afghan communities better withstand climate and economic shocks? (a) United Kingdom (b) United States (c) Russia (d) India Explanation — The Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) and the UK government have announced a new effort to promote food security, boost rural livelihoods, and assist Afghan people in better coping with climate and economic shocks. — Over the next ten months, the FAO's Resilient Agriculture Livelihoods (ReAL) project will impact over 151 000 people (21 572 households) in 15 provinces across Afghanistan's eight regions. The project will prioritise small-scale farmers, livestock keepers, and landless labourers, with a special focus on widows and women-headed households. — The project is generously sponsored by the UK as part of the 'Promoting Resilient and Equitable Recovery of Agriculture and Livelihoods in Afghan Communities' (PREVALE) program. Therefore, option (a) is the correct answer. (Source: The 'Scarborough Shoal' was recently in the news. It is a disputed territory primarily between: (a) China and Vietnam (b) China and the Philippines (c) Malaysia and Indonesia (d) Indonesia and Brunei Explanation — China's military said it monitored and 'drove away' a U.S. destroyer that sailed near the disputed Scarborough Shoal in the busy waterway of the South China Sea, while the U.S. Navy said its action was in line with international law. — The first documented US military operation in at least six years within the shoal's waters occurred the day after the Philippines accused Chinese boats of 'dangerous manoeuvres and unlawful interference' during a supply mission around the atoll. — Scarborough Shoal is a disputed region, principally between China and the Philippines. The shoal is situated in the South China Sea and is claimed by both countries. Therefore, option (b) is the correct answer. Consider the following international organisations/forum 1. Shanghai Cooperation Organisation 2. Quadrilateral Security Dialogue 3. Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation 4. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Which of the above groupings include India as a member? (a) 1 and 2 only (b) 1, 2 and 3 only (c) 2 and 4 only (d) 1, 2, 3 and 4 Explanation — Prime Minister Narendra Modi was likely to attend the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) leaders' meet in Tianjin, China. The grouping includes nine member nations, including India, China, Pakistan and Russia. — Scholars in China have also questioned India's commitments in both the SCO and BRICS (including Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa), stating that PM Modi attended just three of the last ten SCO leaders' meetings. — They have also pointed to the June meeting in Qingdao for the SCO Defence Ministers, where Indian Defence Minister Rajnath Singh accused Pakistan of supporting cross-border terrorism, and refused to sign the SCO joint statement. — India being a member of the SCO and the US-led QUAD security dialogue (with Australia and Japan). — India is not a part of Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Therefore, option (a) is the correct answer. Operation 'Midnight Hammer' is: (a) a covert Russian operation during the Cold War to tunnel under Alaska. (b) a joint military offensive by Brazil and Argentina during the Falklands War. (c) a cyberwarfare campaign by Israel during the war with Iran. (d) a United States led attack on nuclear facilities in Iran. Explanation — 'Operation Midnight Hammer' is the codename given to the US's precision strikes on three of Iran's nuclear facilities, which marked a dramatic escalation in the Middle East and plunged US-Iran relations to their lowest point since the Iranian Revolution. — The covert operation involved over 125 aircraft and deception tactics, and the fleet included seven B-2 stealth bombers, the press briefing revealed. The US strike targeted three of Iran's most sensitive nuclear facilities — Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. Therefore, option (d) is the correct answer. Consider the following pairs: 1. 'axis of evil' — refers to Iran, Iraq and North Korea 2. 'axis of resistance' — refers to a coalition of Iranian-backed groups Which of the above given pairs is/are correctly matched? (a) 1 only (b) 2 only (c) Both 1 and 2 (d) Neither 1 nor 2 Explanation — A coalition of Iranian-backed groups is known as the 'axis of resistance'. Hezbollah, Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), and the Houthis are some of the major groups in the alliance. — The roots of the 'axis of resistance' go back to the Iranian Revolution of 1979, which paved the way for radical Shia Muslim clerics to come to power. To expand its political and military influence in a region where most powers — such as US-ally Saudi Arabia — are Sunni-majority nations, Iran's new regime began to support non-state actors. Another reason for this was to deter threats from Israel and the US — Iran has seen Israel's creation in 1948 as a means for the US (and the West) to influence the region for its strategic interests. — The coalition's name is said to be inspired by former US President George W Bush's use of the term 'axis of evil' — referring to Iran, Iraq and North Korea — in his 2002 State of the Union address. Therefore, option (c) is the correct answer. Daily Subject-wise quiz — History, Culture, and Social Issues (Week 121) Daily subject-wise quiz — Polity and Governance (Week 123) Daily subject-wise quiz — Science and Technology (Week 123) Daily subject-wise quiz — Economy (Week 123) Daily subject-wise quiz — Environment and Geography (Week 123) Daily subject-wise quiz – International Relations (Week 122) Subscribe to our UPSC newsletter and stay updated with the news cues from the past week. Stay updated with the latest UPSC articles by joining our Telegram channel – IndianExpress UPSC Hub, and follow us on Instagram and X.
&w=3840&q=100)

First Post
11 minutes ago
- First Post
What are the challenges of a new Palestine state?
Australia is set to recognise the Palestinian state at the UN General Assembly this year, joining the UK, Canada and France. While recognising a Palestinian state is symbolic, the formation of a future Palestinian state consisting of the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem is far more difficult to achieve. Here's why Palestinians see East Jerusalem as an indispensable part of any future state. File image/AP Australia will recognise a Palestinian state at the UN General Assembly meeting in September, joining the United Kingdom, Canada and France in taking the historic step. Recognising a Palestinian state is, at one level, symbolic – it signals a growing global consensus behind the rights of Palestinians to have their own state. In the short term, it won't impact the situation on the ground in Gaza. Practically speaking, the formation of a future Palestinian state consisting of the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem is far more difficult to achieve. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The Israeli government has ruled out a two-state solution and reacted with fury to the moves by the four G20 members to recognise Palestine. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called the decision ' shameful'. So, what are the political issues that need to be resolved before a Palestinian state becomes a reality? And what is the point of recognition if it doesn't overcome these seemingly intractable obstacles? Settlements have exploded The first problem is what to do about Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, which the International Court of Justice has declared are illegal. Since 1967, Israel has constructed these settlements with two goals in mind: to prevent any future division of Jerusalem and expropriate sufficient territory to make a Palestinian state impossible. There are now more than 500,000 settlers in the West Bank and 233,000 in East Jerusalem. Palestinians see East Jerusalem as an indispensable part of any future state. They will never countenance a state without it as their capital. In May, the Israeli government announced it would also build 22 new settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem – the largest settler expansion in decades. Defence Minister Israel Katz described this as a 'strategic move that prevents the establishment of a Palestinian state that would endanger Israel'. The Israeli government has also moved closer to fully annexing the West Bank in recent months. Geographical complexities of a future state Second is the issue of a future border between a Palestinian state and Israel. The demarcations of the Gaza Strip, West Bank and East Jerusalem are not internationally recognised borders. Rather, they are the ceasefire lines, known as the 'Green Line', from the 1948 War that saw the creation of Israel. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD However, in the Six-Day War of 1967, Israel captured and occupied the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem, Egypt's Sinai Peninsula (since returned), and Syria's Golan Heights. And successive Israeli governments have used the construction of settlements in the occupied territories, alongside expansive infrastructure, to create new 'facts on the ground'. Israel solidifies its hold on this territory by designating it as ' state land', meaning it no longer recognises Palestinian ownership, further inhibiting the possibility of a future Palestinian state. For example, according to research by Israeli professor Neve Gordon, Jerusalem's municipal boundaries covered approximately seven square kilometres before 1967. Since then, Israeli settlement construction has expanded its eastern boundaries, so it now covers about 70 square km. Israel also uses its Separation Wall or Barrier, which runs for around 700km through the West Bank and East Jerusalem, to further expropriate Palestinian territory. According to a 2013 book by researchers Ariella Azoulay and Adi Ophir, the wall is part of the Israeli government's policy of cleansing Israeli space of any Palestinian presence. It breaks up contiguous Palestinian urban and rural spaces, cutting off some 150 Palestinian communities from their farmland and pastureland. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The barrier is reinforced by other methods of separation, such as checkpoints, earth mounds, roadblocks, trenches, road gates and barriers, and earth walls. Then there is the complex geography of Israel's occupation in the West Bank. Under the Oslo Accords of the 1990s, the West Bank was divided into three areas, labelled Area A, Area B and Area C. In Area A, which consists of 18 per cent of the West Bank, the Palestinian Authority exercises majority control. Area B is under joint Israeli-Palestinian authority. Area C, which comprises 60 per cent of the West Bank, is under full Israeli control. Administrative control was meant to be gradually transferred to Palestinian control under the Oslo Accords, but this never happened. Areas A and B are today separated into many small divisions that remain isolated from one another due to Israeli control over Area C. This deliberate ghettoisation creates separate rules, laws and norms in the West Bank that are intended to prevent freedom of movement between the Palestinian zones and inhibit the realisation of a Palestinian state. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Who will govern a future state? Finally, there are the conditions that Western governments have placed on recognition of a Palestinian state, which rob Palestinians of their agency. Chief among these is the stipulation that Hamas will not play a role in the governance of a future Palestinian state. This has been backed by the Arab League, which has also called for Hamas to disarm and relinquish power in Gaza. Fatah and Hamas are currently the only two movements in Palestinian politics capable of forming a government. In a May poll, 32 per cent of respondents in both Gaza and the West Bank said they preferred Hamas, compared with 21 per cent support for Fatah. One-third did not support either or had no opinion. Mahmoud Abbas, leader of the Palestinian Authority, is deeply unpopular, with 80 per cent of Palestinians wanting him to resign. A 'reformed' Palestinian Authority is the West's preferred option to govern a future Palestinian state. But if Western powers deny Palestinians the opportunity to elect a government of their choosing by dictating who can participate, the new government would likely be seen as illegitimate. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD This risks repeating the mistakes of Western attempts to install governments of their choosing in Iraq and Afghanistan. It also plays into the hands of Hamas hardliners, who mistrust democracy and see it as a tool to impose puppet governments in Palestine, as well as Israel's narrative that Palestinians are incapable of governing themselves. Redressing these issues and the myriad others will take time, money and considerable effort. The question is, how much political capital are the leaders of France, the UK, Canada and Australia (and others) willing to expend to ensure their recognition of Palestine results in an actual state? What if Israel refuses to dismantle its settlements and the Separation Wall, and moves ahead with annexing the West Bank? What are these Western leaders willing or able to do? In the past, they have been unwilling to do more than issue strongly worded statements in the face of Israeli refusals to advance the two-state solution. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Given these doubts around the political will and actual power of Western states to compel Israel to agree to the two-state solution, it begs the question: what and who is recognition for? Martin Kear, Sessional Lecturer, Department of Government and International Relations, University of Sydney This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.


Time of India
25 minutes ago
- Time of India
EC stands 'thoroughly exposed' for incompetence, partisanship: Congress
The Congress on Sunday alleged that the Election Commission stood "thoroughly exposed" not only for its "incompetence" but also for its "blatant partisanship" after the poll body hit out at the opposition party for its "vote chori" charges. Independence Day 2025 Modi signals new push for tech independence with local chips Before Trump, British used tariffs to kill Indian textile Bank of Azad Hind: When Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose gave India its own currency The Congress also termed as "laughable" the claims made by the EC that it makes no distinction between the ruling party and the Opposition. Soon after Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and the two election commissioners addressed a press conference over the Congress' charges, party general secretary Jairam Ramesh asked whether the poll body will implement the Supreme Court 's August 14 orders in letter and spirit. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like You might be interested Undo "Today, a short while after Shri Rahul Gandhi launched the INDIA janbandhan's Voter Adhikar Yatra from Sasaram, the CEC and his two ECs began by saying they make no distinction between the ruling party and the opposition. "This is laughable, to put it very mildly, in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary. Notably, the CEC answered none of the pointed questions raised by Shri Rahul Gandhi meaningfully," Ramesh said in a post on X.