Question Details

In the middle of a pandemic, the geopolitics of the world‘s most troubled region took a historic turn this week, when the UAE and Israel, under the benevolent gaze of US President Donald Trump, signed an agreement to ―normalise‖ relations. The deal opens up new opportunities for India to play a much larger role in the regional security and stability in the Gulf, where New Delhi enjoys special relations with both Abu Dhabi and Jerusalem. The barebones of the deal envisages establishing regular diplomatic relations between the UAE, the rising influential power in the Gulf, and Israel, the ―Incredible Hulk‖ of the region, but a country officially not on speaking terms with most of its Arab neighbours. In his first tweet, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed said: ‗During a call with President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu, an agreement was reached to stop further Israeli annexation of Palestinian territories. The UAE and Israel also agreed to cooperation and setting a roadmap towards establishing a bilateral relationship.‖ In return, Israel agreed to ―suspend‖ its annexation plans for West Bank that would have been deeply destabilising. Benjamin Netanyahu gets a diplomatic victory, which may be short - lived, given the nature of Israeli politics. But Israel gets a diplomatic and economic opening with the big power in the Gulf that could open other doors, give its security interests legitimacy and, perhaps, open the door to Middle East peace.

Many of the other Arab powers, such as Oman, Bahrain, Egypt and Jordan, apart from the big global powers, and India, have welcomed the deal. Iran has slammed it, as have Turkey and Syria. Saudi Arabia has been very quiet. Given the close ties between Mohammed bin Zayed and Mohammed bin Salman, it is unthinkable that KSA was not consulted, particularly when the US is the third pole in this agreement. The deal gives UAE pole position as the premier Gulf Arab power, with diplomatic leverage with Israel and the US. ―This deal is about positioning in Washington, DC,‖ said James Dorsey, Gulf and Middle East expert.

Source: Excerpt from the Economic Times, written by Indrani Bagchi. (Dated – 16th August, 2020)

Which of the following is not a direct impact of the peace deal in the Middle East region?

Options

A

The deal smoothens the UAE‘s international campaign to be seen as a beacon of tolerance in the Middle East.

B

It puts the UAE as leader in a regional power dynamics among neighbouring Gulf Arab states.

C

The deal gives Netanyahu a domestic boost at a time when Israel‘s coalition government is in crisis due to coalition compulsions.

D

The deal marks a historic day and a significant step towards peace in the Middle East.

Show Answer

Correct Answer :

Option D

The deal marks a historic day and a significant step towards peace in the Middle East.

Solution :

Correct Option: The deal marks a historic day and a significant step towards peace in the Middle East.


Explanation:

To determine which option is not a direct impact of the peace deal as described in the passage, let us analyze the details provided in the text:


1. Leadership in Regional Power Dynamics: The passage explicitly states, "The deal gives UAE pole position as the premier Gulf Arab power, with diplomatic leverage with Israel and the US." This directly supports the impact of putting the UAE as a leader in regional power dynamics among neighboring Gulf Arab states.


2. Domestic Boost for Netanyahu: The passage states, "Benjamin Netanyahu gets a diplomatic victory, which may be short - lived, given the nature of Israeli politics." This highlights the domestic political boost for Netanyahu.


3. Positioning and International Image: The passage quotes Middle East expert James Dorsey stating, "This deal is about positioning in Washington, DC," alongside discussing the UAE establishing itself as a rising influential power with a strong diplomatic standing.


4. Not a guaranteed broad step towards peace: While the deal opens new doors, the text specifically notes that it gives a diplomatic/economic opening that could "perhaps, open the door to Middle East peace." Furthermore, the passage highlights significant opposition and regional divide: "Iran has slammed it, as have Turkey and Syria." Thus, stating definitively that the deal marks a significant step towards general peace in the Middle East is an overstatement and not a direct, established impact according to the text.


Therefore, the statement "The deal marks a historic day and a significant step towards peace in the Middle East" is not mentioned as a direct impact in the passage.

Unlock Our Free Library

Access expert-curated educational resources and study materials—completely free.

Discover more resources

You may also like

Mock Tests

View All
  • CLAT
  • intermediate
  • 2 hours
  • current affairs, general knowledge, legal reasoning, logical reasoning, quant

  • CLAT
  • intermediate
  • 2 hours
  • current affairs, english, general knowledge, legal reasoning, logical reasoning, quant

Ask AI Tutor
5 left
Q1 View Question & Options
AI Tutor is solving this question...
Reading question context & options...