4640 words in this article

Estimated reading time: 12 minutes

Author | Sumit Ahlawat

Translated by | Long Fengmu

Translation Reviewers | Hu Keyi, Jiang Bo

Editor of This Issue | Zhu Yilin, Zhang Mimi

Reviewers of This Issue | Shan Minmin, Chen Jueke

Editor's Note

This article is clearly another "black work" fabricated by Indian scholars. Its core logic compares the China-Pakistan all-weather strategic partnership to the "special relationship" between the US and Israel. The author argues that China has built Pakistan as its "Israel" to counterbalance India's rapid rise, thereby pressuring India with a two-front war on the west and north, and posing a potential threat from a united front formed by China and Pakistan. Finally, the author reflects on the limitations of India's "multi-directional alliance" strategy, suggesting that it must balance "strategic autonomy" with "ensuring support at critical moments." However, upon deeper consideration, the article is full of flaws. First, the bilateral relationship between China and Pakistan, which is "companionship without alliance," cannot be equated with the bilateral alliance between the US and Israel. Second, if using Chinese military equipment means an alliance between China and Pakistan, then according to this logic, India, which uses "international brand" military equipment, would be allied with the entire Western world and Russia. Then, how can we talk about "strategic autonomy" and "not getting support at critical moments"? More importantly, the author does not answer what "effective support" is. Is it diplomatic support? Indirect military assistance? Or direct intervention? Therefore, the policy recommendations in this article are very vague. Overall, this article actually reflects the deep anxiety of various circles in India over their defeat, that they cannot accept that India failed to beat its archenemy Pakistan alone, so they have to find external excuses for this failure and create an illusion that India fought against the "China-Pakistan alliance" and lost (or even slightly won). The South Asian Research Newsletter translates this article for your critical reference.

Image Source: Internet

Israel is often accused of being a "colonial outpost," with its existence aimed at deliberately disrupting the stability of the oil-rich and strategically important Middle East. According to this view, Western countries (mainly the United States, but also including Western European countries such as the UK and France) provide Israel with the latest weapons, financial support, diplomatic cover in the UN, and share intelligence resources to ensure that Israel not only survives in a difficult environment but also thrives, which overall harms the interests of the Middle East.

Arab countries often complain that when they fight against Israel, they are actually confronting the collective power of the West. Take the U.S. "Qualitative Military Edge" (QME) policy as an example, which explicitly commits to ensuring that Israel maintains a military technological advantage over any potential adversary in the Middle East, making the Israeli army technologically superior to its opponents in advanced weapons, command and control systems, and intelligence capabilities (Editor's note: QME is a concept in U.S. foreign policy, stating that the U.S. has an obligation to ensure that Israel "has the capability to confront and defeat any single country, possible coalition of countries, or non-state actors that pose a credible conventional military threat," and this concept has been clearly defined in U.S. law).

In practice, the "Qualitative Military Edge" principle requires that the weapons provided by the United States to Israel must be technically superior to those supplied to other Middle Eastern countries. For example, although the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and other long-term U.S. allies have also requested the U.S. government to purchase fifth-generation fighter jets, Israel remains the only country in the Middle East deploying U.S.-made F-35 stealth fighters.

According to a study by the Council on Foreign Relations, since 1946, Israel, although not a NATO member and even without a formal defense agreement with the United States, has received over $22.8 billion in U.S. military aid, becoming the largest recipient of U.S. military aid during this period. 78% of Israel's weapons are supplied by the United States.

U.S. aid to countries from 1946 to 2024. Image Source: Council on Foreign Relations

Additionally, the United States has vetoed more than 45 critical resolutions against Israel in the UN Security Council. Since the Hamas attack on October 7, 2023, the U.S. has used its veto five times to block five resolutions related to Israel in the Security Council—these resolutions explicitly called for a ceasefire or demanded solutions to the Gaza situation.

In summary, the U.S. support for Israel means that it can destabilize the Middle East. Thanks to this policy, the Arab pan-nationalism in the early 1950s and 1960s never succeeded. Instead, today's Middle Eastern countries, although possessing key strategic locations and oil resources, are a fragmented political entity, with some regions heavily dependent on U.S.-supplied weapons, while others firmly resist American regional influence.

About the Author: Sumit Ahlawat is a senior Indian commentator with over ten years of experience in the news media industry. He has worked for Press Trust of India, Times Now, Zee News, Economic Times, and Microsoft News.

This article was translated from an article published in Eurasian Times on June 10, 2025, titled "China Adopts 'Israel Model' To Checkmate India; Can Beijing Emulate The U.S. To Keep Delhi Restrained?"

Original Link: https://www.eurasiantimes.com/israel-is-preparing-to-attack-india/

Original: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7557037887654248995/

Statement: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the publication. Please express your opinion by clicking the [Up/Down] buttons below.