Related Articles:
Abstract
This article provides a comparative analysis of the Indo-Pakistani conflict and the Arab-Israeli conflict, with the aim of drawing potential lessons from the Arab-Israeli peace process for conflict resolution in South Asia. It examines the key similarities and differences between the two protracted regional conflicts, focusing on the nature of the core disputes, the role of religion and nationalism, and the history of warfare. The study analyzes the specific mechanisms and strategies that were employed in the Arab-Israeli peace process, such as the "land for peace" formula, the role of a strong third-party mediator (the United States), and the use of phased agreements and confidence-building measures. The research then critically assesses the applicability of these lessons to the South Asian context, particularly the Kashmir dispute. The paper concludes that while the two conflicts are unique, the Arab-Israeli experience offers valuable insights into the importance of sustained dialogue, strong international mediation, and a willingness to make painful compromises.
Full Text
The conflicts between India and Pakistan and between the Arabs and Israel represent two of the world's most enduring and dangerous regional rivalries. This paper undertakes a comparative study to explore what lessons, if any, the nascent Arab-Israeli peace process of the early 1990s might hold for South Asia. The analysis begins by drawing parallels between the two conflicts, noting their origins in the partition of a larger territory, the centrality of a disputed territory (Palestine/Kashmir), and the powerful role of religious nationalism. The core of the paper is an examination of the key elements that made the Madrid and Oslo peace processes possible in the Middle East. This includes the crucial role of the United States as a committed and powerful third-party mediator, the adoption of a clear and internationally accepted framework ("land for peace" based on UN resolutions), and the willingness of key leaders on both sides to take significant political risks for peace. The study then critically evaluates whether these conditions could be replicated in the South Asian context. It highlights the major differences, including the absence of a consensus third-party mediator and the lack of an agreed-upon framework for resolving the Kashmir dispute. The findings suggest that a direct application of the Arab-Israeli model is not feasible. However, the paper concludes that the broader principles of sustained engagement, the use of incremental confidence-building measures, and the necessity of strong political leadership to overcome domestic opposition are universal lessons that hold profound relevance for any future peace process between India and Pakistan.