India’s move to add its voice to the joint statement criticising Israel’s actions in the West Bank is not a surprise. Initially, Indian media outlets had reported that New Delhi had seemingly refused to join 85 other nations criticising Israeli settlement expansion in the West Bank. Diplomats counter this by saying there was no way India could have avoided not signing the document, as the language used in the joint statement echoes what is India’s official stance on Palestine.
Statement Rejects Demographic Changes In Occupied Palestinian Territories
The document expresses its “rejection of all measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem. Such measures violate international law, undermine the ongoing efforts for peace and stability in the region, run counter to the Comprehensive Plan, and jeopardize the prospect of reaching a peace agreement ending the conflict.”
The language used echoes India’s official position on the Palestinian cause. Repeated MEA statements have stated.
India supports a negotiated two-State solution, resulting in a sovereign, independent, viable and united State of Palestine, living within secure and recognised borders, side by side at peace with Israel.”
Reference To UN Resolutions And Madrid Principles Reinforces 1967 Borders Position
Expanding on this position, India has spoken of its support “based on relevant UN resolutions, the Madrid principles, the principle of land for peace, and the Arab Peace Initiative.” The words “Madrid principles” and “land for peace” signify that New Delhi supports a solution based on the 1967 borders language that the joint statement has stated. Diplomats stated that by not signing it, New Delhi would have signalled that it was abandoning these principles and its traditional stance, something it could ill afford, especially before the Prime Minister’s visit to Israel.
Senior diplomats stated that the signing should be seen in this context rather than be seen as a signalling effort to either Israel or the Palestinians. As former foreign secretary Nirupama Rao pointed out, India has had “strong pro-Palestine voting patterns at the UN coexisted with quiet engagement with Israel long before full diplomatic relations.” None of this has altered its traditional position on Palestine, and this has so far not bothered Israel or the Arab nations.
Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) leader Yasser Arafat had in fact publicly urged New Delhi to recognise Israel in the late 1980s. This was because the PLO itself had recognised Israel under UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 in 1988, and India’s non-recognition did not make any sense. Therefore, India was able to establish diplomatic relations with Israel in 1992 while keeping its position on Palestine without being seen as duplicitous by either side. Israel will also see the statement in this light rather than as a signal from India.
Delay In Signing Seen As Due Diligence Before High-Level Visit
Diplomats state one should not over-read into India’s delay in signing the joint statement. Statements are read through carefully to see if any of the clauses conflict with India’s traditional stance on Palestine. Extra care would also have been taken given that Prime Minister Modi is visiting Israel on the 25th and 26th of this month, and the last thing he and India would have wanted was to be accused of any change in India’s traditional stance on Palestine. Senior diplomats argue that it was only logical for the MEA to take its time.The same was true on September 12, 2025, when India supported the “New York Declaration,” calling for a peaceful resolution of the Israel-Palestine conflict and supporting a negotiated two-state solution. Israel, however, opposed the resolution. India had to support the resolution given its traditional policy on Palestine, which demands a “two-state solution,” but this did no harm to its relationship with Israel, nor did it change its relationship with Arab nations.
Joint Statement Seen As Symbolic Signal Rather Than Binding Measure
The question then comes as to the importance of the joint statement. A careful reading of the statement shows that the majority of countries that signed are middle powers and those unlikely to be able to exert much pressure on Israel. Also, while voicing condemnation, there are no punitive measures announced for Israel should it fail to comply. The statement, which refers to the “New York Declaration,” lays out principles and intentions, but it is not a legally binding treaty. It can therefore be seen as a signal of world anger, but given Israel’s indifference to such statements and declarations in the past, it holds little meaning.
