The American Jewish community as a whole still remains very much supportive of Israel’s policies. Most American mainstream Jewish organizations and their leaders have hardly criticized Israel’s position regarding the occupation, settlements, and the peace process. But over the last ten years or so, different views and opinions have become more visible in the American Jewish community, as represented by J Street, a “pro-Israel and pro-peace” lobby. What has brought about this diversification in the American Jewish community over their attitude toward Israel’s policies?

Many opinion surveys indicate that younger American Jews have become more critical of Israel’s policies with regard to the Palestine question and the peace process. This may be attributed to a shift in identity among young American Jews. Older American Jews tend to see Israel as democratic, progressive and peace-seeking, etc. In addition, they perceive Israel as a safe haven for Jews. But younger Jews draw from memories and impressions scene in recent events, such as the First and Second Intifada, and the military confrontations with Palestinian groups based in Gaza, all of which are perceived as morally and politically more complex than the wars Israel fought between 1948 and 1974.

Communities in the Jewish diaspora try to influence the policies of their homeland in order to protect their identity and sets of values. While the American Jewish community is still strongly committed to liberal democratic values, its counterpart in Israel has leaned toward the political right and toward ethno-religious nationalism. The diffusion of identities and sets of values in both communities may bring about further shifts in the relations between the two communities.

India’s status in the world has been elevated since the beginning of this century, supported by its accelerated economic growth. In order to grow from a regional to world power, the foreign policy of a nation needs to be adapted to the new circumstances. In this context, the new relations between India and the Middle East attract our attention. We must also consider the repercussions of domestic politics on the subject, particularly since the advent of the BJP government under Narendra Modi in 2014.

Ever since the BJP government came to power in 2014, India has begun to question the assumptions of political principles such as “secularism,” established under the Congress party government since the country’s independence in 1947. The new orientations could be termed as a paradigm change or a watershed in the political framework in the history of independent India. In the domestic field, the BJP government challenges the Indian “secularism” and pursues a sort of “ethnic democracy,” a concept introduced in Israel. Concerning its foreign policies India is gradually discarding its use of the traditional non-alignment principle and pursues a combination of multiple alliances taking into account the rising influence of China.

The ruling party, BJP, is the political wing of the RSS, an influential Hindu right-wing ss organization promoting Hinduism as the national identity of the Indian nation. The BJP and RSS particularly target the Muslim community in their campaign to promote “Hindutva,” a Hinduized national integration concept. The Indian “secularism” traditionally emphasizes equal consideration of every religious community in India. However, the Modi government in 2019 annulled the constitutional clauses that guaranteed special allowances to the Jammu and Kashmir state with Muslim majority and introduced an amendment to the citizenship law which excluded Muslims while considering granting citizenship to illegal refugees.

Under these circumstances, the Modi government pursues three different policies toward the Middle East. The first policy is to promote trade and investment, primarily from the viewpoint of mutual economic interests. India’s dealings with the Gulf countries and East Africa are typical cases where the Modi government employs this policy. The second policy is to enhance India’s regional dominance and neutralize any interventions from neighboring Muslim countries in India’s domestic policies concerning the Muslim citizens in the country. The third policy is a newly emerged special relationship with Israel, which has strategic, technological, and ideological implications in the reorganization of power structure in the South West Asia.

With its geopolitical implications, Israel’s presence in the Middle East is conspicuous. Over the last two decades, Israel has rapidly expanded its sphere of influence to other parts of the world through economic transactions. Its dramatic development has been supported by its economic globalisation and high-tech industry. Israel currently belongs with the developed economies as a member state of the OECD, with a per-capita income of US$ 35,000, and is often referred to as a “success story” that other countries can draw lessons from for their own economic development.

Part One attempts to analyse the factors, mainly related to economic policies, which contributed to the paradigm shift in Israel’s development strategy from the Zionist socialistic ideology to the neoliberal globalising policy orientation. The turning point was the economic reform introduced in 1985, which enabled the Bank of Israel to play an independent and leading role in monetary and fiscal policies against the rampant hyperinflation at the time. However, it should be noted that the reform package was a co-product of Israel and the US administration, supported by financial assistance attached to the reform. For the US, an economically stabilized Israel was an essential strategic asset against the Soviet Union. Since then, various reforms were introduced gradually, such as liberalisation of the labour market, privatisation, liberalisation of the financial market, and capital transfers. However, the voluminous favourable grant from the US was essential in absorbing balance of payment constraints and various social tensions through the transition period. Therefore, Israel’s transition to a neoliberal globalised economy was not a model that could be easily imported by other developing countries in the region.