By Omer Ghazi
The Israel-Iran conflict is showing no signs of de-escalation as the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) launched precise strikes deep within Iranian territory, marking a dramatic turning point in the conflict’s intensity and scale.
On the early morning of 26th October, Israeli jets and drones surged across Iran’s skies, executing a well-coordinated assault that battered Iranian air defences and obliterated vital missile and drone production facilities. This three-hour barrage targeted the heavily fortified Parchin military complex near Tehran, a key site for Iran’s missile programs.
Experts analysing the damage estimate that these strikes have significantly curtailed Iran’s capacity to mass-produce missiles, thus striking a blow not only to Iran’s immediate military capabilities but also to its long-term deterrent strategies against adversaries in the region. For the first time, Israel openly acknowledged hitting Iran, underlining the attack as a direct response to “relentless attacks” orchestrated by Iran and its proxies—a stark shift from Israel’s previous stance of calculated ambiguity.
As West Asia braces for the reverberations of this escalation, the political and humanitarian costs are glaringly apparent, prompting urgent calls for restraint.
India, a key diplomatic force in the conflict, issued a grave statement on 26th October, cautioning against the spiralling violence that “benefits nobody” and emphasising the untenable plight of innocent hostages and civilians caught in the crossfire. With a clear-eyed concern for regional stability, India warned of the wider implications for peace, subtly reminding the international community of the fragility that underpins the delicate balance in West Asia.
The above statement underscores India’s longstanding diplomatic stance of non-alignment and prudent restraint, echoing its hopes for de-escalation even as the situation teeters on the brink of a more expansive, unpredictable conflict that could plunge the region—and perhaps even the world—deeper into chaos.
After the heinous October 7 terror attack on Israel, the terror group Hamas has sustained some serious blows in the form of its top leadership being assassinated. Whether the Hamas leadership genuinely miscalculated the intensity of Israeli retaliation or they intentionally sacrificed the lives of countless Palestinian civilians to gain sympathy and funding is a question no one can answer.
The reason is that the October 7 terror attack contributed absolutely nothing constructive for the Palestinian people or, as they themselves put it, their cause. Soon, the Lebanese militant group, Hezbollah, too jumped into the conflict and arguably sustained even bigger blows to its foundations.
The assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in Iran, followed swiftly by the elimination of key operatives like Yahya Sinwar in Gaza and Fatah Sharif in Lebanon, demonstrates that their brazen tactics are leading only to their own undoing. Meanwhile, Hezbollah, with its founder and head Hassan Nasrallah and prominent figures like Ali Karaki and Nabil Kaouk taken out in calculated Israeli strikes, finds its very foundation destabilised.
India’s official position in this complicated scenario is driven both by geo-political pragmatism as well as humanitarian concerns; however, these incidents have given birth to a curious phenomenon within certain sections of Indian intelligentsia: the glorification of terror outfits and their leadership.
This needs to be understood that asking Israel to exercise restraint is completely different from glorifying terrorists on the other side. One can take a humanitarian position for the people of Palestine without branding the likes of Yahya Sinwar as heroes of resistance; in fact, this can be argued that militant outfits like Hamas are the biggest enemies of Palestinian people and their rights. There are documented proofs of Hamas militants using Palestinian civilians as human shields and deliberately constructing their hideouts in heavily populated civilian areas, putting them at risk.
This manipulation is a calculated move, one designed to garner international sympathy by presenting images of devastation without exposing the underlying tactical choices that led to it. The people of Gaza, therefore, become pawns in a propaganda war, their suffering amplified by the very organisation claiming to defend their rights. Moreover, Hamas’ recruitment and indoctrination of minors, training them in militant activities and encouraging martyrdom, further underscores the extent to which the group prioritises its ideological goals over human life.
With significant financial support flowing in from sympathetic nations and organisations, these leaders have settled into lavish residences in places like Qatar and Kuwait, enjoying the fruits of a war economy that thrives on perpetual conflict. Instead of directing resources toward the welfare of the Palestinian people, much of this funding is funnelled into constructing terror tunnels, acquiring weapons, and enhancing military capabilities—priorities that starkly contrast with the urgent needs for education, healthcare, and infrastructure improvements in Gaza.
Given the current circumstances, the remarks from various Indian commentators are profoundly troubling. Journalist Arfa Khanum Sherwani made an attempt at wit with her statement: “Why exactly are Indian fascists celebrating the assassination of Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar? Begaani shaadi mein ye Abdullah kyun deewane ho rahe hain?” Beyond being utterly un-amusing, her comment reveals a concerning admiration for a terrorist figure.
Similarly, actress Swara Bhasker posted on X: “I didn’t know anything about Yahya Sinwar till I saw the footage of his last moments & assassination by the Zionist State and now I think he’s a revolutionary hero. Listen to his will, his last words and tell me that you are unmoved. #FreePalestine”
The usual suspect, Arundhati Roy, wrote an extremely troubling piece in Dawn wherein she asserted: “I am expected to equivocate to protect myself, my ‘neutrality’, my intellectual standing. This is the part where I am meant to lapse into moral equivalence and condemn Hamas, the other militant groups in Gaza and their ally Hezbollah, in Lebanon, for killing civilians and taking people hostage. And to condemn the people of Gaza who celebrated the Hamas attack… I refuse to play the condemnation game. Let me make myself clear. I do not tell oppressed people how to resist their oppression or who their allies should be.”
This is not just apologia for terror outfits, it’s their glorification. It is allegedly provoking people to get recruited into terror outfits, kill civilians, take people hostage if they can fit themselves into the very vague definition of “oppressed”.
Several politicians, specifically in Kashmir, also gave extremely troubling statements. PDP chief Mehbooba Mufti called off her political campaign in “solidarity” with ‘martyrs’ of Lebanon and Gaza. “Cancelling my campaign tomorrow in solidarity with the martyrs of Lebanon & Gaza, especially Hassan Nasarullah. We stand with the people of Palestine & Lebanon in this hour of immense grief & exemplary resistance,” she tweeted.
Aga Syed Ruhullah Mehdi, Member of Parliament, Srinagar called Nasrallah a spirit of resistance and expressed complete solidarity with him. Sajad Lone, MLA from Handwara, Kashmir tweeted: “Mourning the supreme martyrdom of Shaheed Syed Hassan Nasrallah. May Allah (SWT) bless his soul & grant us strength to carry forward his legacy against oppressors.”
It is extremely concerning that these observations have been made by individuals on responsible positions; journalists, political commentators and elected representatives that not only influence masses within the national framework but whose words also carry international weight.
We also saw huge masses protesting the killing of Nasrallah in the streets of Lucknow and Kashmir, singing eulogies and expressing condolences for the head of the terror outfit.
Any viable solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict would only begin with the realisation of a two-state framework. Slogans like “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” may sound revolutionary but, in reality, carry disturbing genocidal and anti-Semitic undertones.
Organisations like Hamas and Hezbollah have shown no interest in peaceful solutions; rather, their agendas hinge on radicalising Palestinian youth for the sake of sustaining their own power and influence. The Palestinian people deserve leaders who put the future of their children first, choosing dialogue over militancy and channelling resources into Gaza’s development instead of fuelling cycles of violence through terror tunnels and weapon stockpiles.
Palestinian leaders like Mahmoud Abbas, Hanan Ashrawi, and the late Saeb Erekat have long championed a peaceful two-state solution as the viable path forward, envisioning a future where Israel and Palestine coexist side by side.
Abbas, as President of the Palestinian Authority, has consistently advocated for diplomacy over violence, while Erekat, one of the most recognised Palestinian negotiators, dedicated his life to the peace process. Figures like Ashrawi and Mustafa Barghouti, both known for their unwavering commitment to nonviolent resistance, have called for international support and human rights as pillars of the Palestinian cause.
Additionally, Salam Fayyad’s pragmatic governance style—focused on state-building and economic stability—offered a blueprint for Palestinian self-sufficiency. Collectively, these leaders embody a vision of Palestinian statehood grounded in diplomacy, rights, and resilience, striving to overcome the barriers of conflict with a focus on long-term coexistence and peace.
Therefore, between Abbas and Ashrawi, who advocate for a peaceful resolution and a two-state solution, and Sinwar and Nasrallah, whose militant ideologies perpetuate violence and conflict, Indian commentators and observers face a clear choice. This decision reflects not only their stance on the Israel-Palestine issue but also their commitment to the broader principles of peace, coexistence, and the protection of human rights.
By aligning with leaders like Abbas and Ashrawi, who prioritize dialogue and diplomacy, commentators can contribute to a narrative that seeks constructive engagement and the betterment of Palestinian lives. Conversely, endorsing figures like Sinwar and Nasrallah only serves to amplify extremism and hinder the prospects for a sustainable peace, further entrenching cycles of violence that have plagued the region for decades.
Contributing Author: Omer Ghazi is a proponent of religious reform and identifies himself as “an Indic Muslim exploring Vedic knowledge and cultural heritage through music”. He extensively writes on geo-politics, history and culture and his book “The Cosmic Dance” is a collection of his poems. When he is not writing columns, he enjoys playing drums and performing raps.
Support Our Journalism
The global Indian Diaspora and Australia’s multicultural communities need fair, non-hyphenated, and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. The Australia Today—with exceptional reporters, columnists, and editors—is doing just that. Sustaining this requires support from wonderful readers like you.
Whether you live in Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States of America, or India you can take a paid subscription by clicking Patreon and support honest and fearless journalism. LINK: https://tinyurl.com/TheAusToday
