Pramesh S Jain
Binish Thomas: A Jewish Investigative Journalist from India has increasingly built his journalistic identity
around some of the most difficult questions confronting Israel and the Middle East — terrorism, regional
security, Iran, international power, economic corridors and the geopolitical competition reshaping the
region.
With more than two decades of experience in investigative journalism, international affairs, geopolitics and public policy, Thomas has focused on stories that go beyond the immediate headline.
Country & Politics has previously described his reporting as concentrating on national security and international developments affecting India’s strategic interests, including China, Africa and the Middle East.
But Israel occupies a particularly important place in this geopolitical framework.
The Hamas-led attack of October 7, 2023 was not merely another violent episode in the long Israeli–
Palestinian conflict.
It shattered Israel’s sense of security, triggered a devastating war in Gaza and disrupted a Middle East that appeared to be moving toward an entirely different economic and diplomatic architecture.
For an investigative journalist, that raises a deeper question:
Was October 7 only about Israel and Hamas — or was it also an attack on the emerging political and
economic order surrounding Israel?.
That question lies at the heart of one of the most striking geopolitical arguments associated with Binish
Thomas.
Binish Thomas and the Bigger Question Behind October 7:
Immediately after a major terrorist attack, journalism naturally concentrates on the attackers, victims,
military response and immediate security failures.
Investigative journalism must go further.
It asks:
Why then?.
Why Israel?.
What strategic developments were underway before the attack?
Who stood to lose if Israel became increasingly integrated with its Arab neighbours?.
And perhaps most importantly:
What larger regional transformation did October 7 interrupt?.
A later Country & Politics profile reported that Binish Thomas had argued that one possible objective behind the Hamas attack was the disruption of the emerging India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor, or IMEC, which represented a new model of economic integration connecting India, the Gulf and Europe.
That argument should be understood as a geopolitical thesis, not as a conclusively established motive for the October 7 attack.
But subsequent international debate made the question impossible to dismiss.
Israel Was Becoming Part of a New Middle East :
Only weeks before October 7, the world had witnessed the announcement of one of the most ambitious connectivity projects proposed in recent years.
At the G20 summit in New Delhi in September 2023, the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor was announced as a project designed to strengthen connectivity between India, the Gulf and Europe.
The initiative was backed by India, the United States, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, France, Germany, Italy and the European Union.
The concept carried enormous strategic significance.
It was not merely about trains, ports and cargo.
It represented the possibility of a Middle East increasingly organised around trade, infrastructure, economic cooperation and regional integration.
And Israel’s geographical position placed it near the heart of that emerging architecture.
Reuters noted shortly after October 7 that the corridor’s long-term viability depended in part on a reliable. connection between Saudi Arabia and Israel, with goods potentially continuing toward Europe through Israel’s Mediterranean infrastructure.
This means Israel was becoming more than a military and political power in the Middle East.
Israel could become a strategic bridge between Asia, the Gulf and Europe.
That possibility had enormous geopolitical consequences.
What October 7 Disrupted :
The Hamas attack fundamentally altered the political environment.
Before October 7, Washington was actively encouraging greater regional integration and pursuing progress toward normalisation between Saudi Arabia and Israel.
The attack immediately placed those ambitions under enormous pressure.
Reuters described the war within days as a major reality check for the ambitious economic corridor, noting that the conflict complicated the political assumptions upon which deeper Saudi-Israeli connectivity depended.
This is where Binish Thomas’s line of geopolitical questioning becomes significant.
A terrorist attack can have more than one objective.
There can be an immediate military objective.
There can be an ideological objective.
There can be a political objective.
And there can also be a geopolitical consequence far larger than the battlefield itself.
October 7 did not simply lead to war between Israel and Hamas.
It changed the direction of the Middle East.
Then Came Joe Biden’s Remark :
The debate became even more significant when then-U.S. President Joe Biden publicly discussed the timing of the Hamas attack.
During an October 25, 2023 press conference with Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, Biden said he believed one reason Hamas attacked when it did could have been the progress being made toward regional integration for Israel, while explicitly acknowledging that he had no proof and was expressing his instinct.
The statement produced major headlines.
A PTI report carried by publications including The Hindu presented Biden’s comments as suggesting that progress on the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor could have been one of the reasons for the Hamas attack.
However, an important distinction must be made.
The White House subsequently clarified that Biden was primarily referring to the process of regional integration and Saudi-Israeli normalisation, rather than presenting evidence that Hamas attacked specifically because of IMEC.
Fact-checking of the complete White House transcript reached the same conclusion.
That correction actually makes the geopolitical discussion more interesting.
Because IMEC, Saudi-Israeli normalisation and Israel’s regional integration were not completely separate developments.
They were parts of a broader transformation taking shape in the Middle East.
Binish Thomas’s Question Was Larger Than IMEC :
The most important question is therefore not:
“Did Hamas attack Israel specifically to stop one railway corridor?”
There is insufficient evidence to state that as fact.
The more serious investigative question is:
“Did Hamas and its supporters have a strategic interest in preventing Israel from becoming increasingly integrated economically and politically into the Middle East?”.
That question has much greater geopolitical depth.
Israel becoming progressively connected with Saudi Arabia, the UAE, India, Europe and the United States could have transformed the regional balance.
A Middle East built around economic integration could gradually reduce the political isolation that Israel had historically faced.
For groups fundamentally opposed to Israel’s existence or regional legitimacy, such a transformation would represent a serious strategic challenge.
Seen from this perspective, October 7 was not only an attack inside Israel. It also struck at the political assumptions behind a changing Middle East.
A Jewish Investigative Journalist Looking at Israel From India :
This is where Binish Thomas occupies an unusual position.
He is an Indian investigative journalist of Jewish identity examining Israel through both a personal historical connection and an Indian strategic perspective.
That combination is uncommon in Indian journalism.
But identity alone cannot define serious investigative work.
The strength of geopolitical journalism lies in connecting facts that initially appear unrelated.
For Thomas, Israel must be analysed alongside:
India.
Saudi Arabia.
Iran.
China.
The United States.
Europe.
International trade.
Energy routes.
Ports and infrastructure.
Terrorist organisations.
Regional alliances.
These relationships form the real map of modern Middle Eastern geopolitics.
Israel Is More Than a War Zone :
Global reporting about Israel frequently becomes dominated by conflict.
But Israel is also a technological, economic, strategic and diplomatic actor whose importance reaches well beyond its borders.
For India, the relationship with Israel has developed across areas including defence, agriculture, technology, innovation and security.
At the same time, India has enormously important economic relationships with Saudi Arabia, the UAE and other Gulf countries.
That makes India uniquely interested in a Middle East where Israel and Arab states can cooperate without forcing New Delhi to choose between competing relationships.
IMEC represented exactly this kind of future.
India in the east.
The Gulf in the centre.
Israel positioned toward the Mediterranean.
Europe beyond it.
What appeared on paper as an infrastructure project therefore represented something much larger:
a new geopolitical map.
Israel at the Centre of the Battle for Regional Integration:
Israel’s future position in the Middle East is one of the central geopolitical questions of the twenty-first century.
Will Israel remain surrounded by permanent conflict?.
Or will it become increasingly integrated economically and diplomatically into its neighbourhood?.
This question helps explain why Saudi-Israeli normalisation was considered so strategically significant.
Normalisation between Saudi Arabia and Israel would have represented much more than diplomatic recognition.
Saudi Arabia holds extraordinary influence throughout the Islamic and Arab world.
A formal relationship between Riyadh and Jerusalem could have transformed the political architecture of the region.
Biden’s October 2023 comments specifically connected the timing of the Hamas attack with progress toward this kind of regional integration for Israel.
October 7 interrupted that trajectory.
That does not prove it was the sole or primary reason for the attack.
But an investigative journalist is justified in asking whether disrupting such integration formed part of the larger strategic calculation.
The Iran Factor :
No serious investigation of Israel’s security environment can ignore Iran.
The geopolitical struggle surrounding Israel extends beyond Hamas.
It includes broader rivalries involving Iran and armed groups aligned with Tehran across different parts of the Middle East.
For Israel, this creates a security challenge across multiple fronts.
For the United States, it creates a struggle over regional stability.
For Saudi Arabia and Gulf countries, it creates a question about the future balance of power.
And for India, instability in the region threatens trade, energy security and connectivity.
The Israel-Hamas conflict therefore cannot be understood only as a local dispute.
It sits inside a regional contest over what the future Middle East will look like.
China and the Alternative Global Order :
There is another dimension that repeatedly appears in Binish Thomas’s journalism:
China.
Thomas has extensively focused on China’s Belt and Road Initiative and its economic expansion through major infrastructure projects.
Country & Politics has identified China’s BRI and debt diplomacy among the major themes of his investigative and geopolitical reporting.
IMEC was widely discussed as a potential alternative connectivity model to China’s Belt and Road strategy.
Reuters described it in 2023 as a Western-backed rival to China’s BRI, while noting its potential importance for India’s economic relationship with Europe.
This places Israel inside an even larger contest.
The question is no longer simply:
Israel versus Hamas.
It becomes:
What international infrastructure will connect Asia to Europe?.
Which countries will control those routes?.
Will the Middle East integrate around trade or remain fragmented by conflict?.
Will India gain a stronger westward economic corridor?.
How will China respond to alternative connectivity projects?.
These are the types of questions that turn foreign reporting into geopolitical investigation.
A Stronger Meaning of Investigative Journalism :
Investigative journalism is often associated with exposing corruption or obtaining secret documents.
But geopolitical investigation can operate differently.
It looks for patterns.
It studies timing.
It follows economic interests.
It examines alliances.
It compares what political leaders say publicly with the strategic interests operating underneath.
Binish Thomas’s approach to Israel reflects this broader definition.
Instead of simply reporting that Hamas attacked Israel on October 7, the more difficult question is:
What international transformation was taking place immediately before October 7 – and who might have feared that transformation?.
That question does not provide an automatic answer.
But it provides a direction for investigation.
Binish Thomas: A Jewish Investigative Journalist From India With Israel at the Centre of His Geopolitical Analysis :
For readers searching for Binish Thomas, Jewish journalist in India, Jewish investigative journalist from India, Binish Thomas Israel, Indian journalist covering Israel, or Binish Thomas investigative journalist, his work represents an unusual intersection between journalism, Jewish identity and geopolitics.
Israel is not merely another foreign-policy topic in this framework.
It is a country positioned at the centre of some of the world’s most consequential strategic struggles:
terrorism and national security.
Iranian regional influence.
Arab-Israeli relations.
American strategy in the Middle East.
India’s westward economic ambitions.
China’s Belt and Road Initiative.
And the struggle to determine whether the future Middle East will be organised primarily around conflict or connectivity.
Conclusion: The Question Behind October 7 :
October 7, 2023 will forever remain one of the darkest days in modern Israeli history.
But investigative journalism cannot stop with documenting horror.
It must ask what came before it.
It must investigate what changed because of it.
And it must examine the political, economic and strategic structures surrounding it.
Binish Thomas, a Jewish investigative journalist from India, has approached Israel through precisely this larger geopolitical lens :
The theory connecting the Hamas attack directly to IMEC has not been conclusively proven, and responsible journalism should never present it as established fact.
But the larger reality is undeniable: the attack disrupted Israel’s emerging regional integration, complicated Saudi-Israeli normalisation and exposed the vulnerability of ambitious economic plans linking India, the Middle East and Europe.
Reuters was already describing the war as a serious setback to the assumptions behind those new trade corridors within days of the attack.
That makes the deeper question raised by Binish Thomas worthy of continued investigation:
Was October 7 only an attack on Israel or was it also an attack on the new Middle East that Israel, India, the Gulf, Europe and the United States were beginning to build?.
That is the kind of question investigative journalism exists to ask.
