Comprehension
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.
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.
Question: 1
The US is seen as a major role player in the peace deal between Israel and UAE. Which of the following is not a reason for the involvement of US in the deal ?
The US is seen as a major role player in the peace deal between Israel and UAE. Which of the following is not a reason for the involvement of US in the deal ?
Updated On: Jul 15, 2026
- The deal grants a diplomatic win to the US President Donald Trump ahead of the Presidential election.
- The efforts of the USA to bring the war in Afghanistan to an end have not been a success yet.
- The efforts of USA to bring peace between Israel and the Palestinians have not been successful yet.
- The deal gives a central strategic rule to USA in the Middle East.
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is D
Approach Solution - 1
The correct option is (D) :The deal gives a central strategic rule to USA in the Middle East.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
Approach Solution -2
The question asks which of the following is not a reason for the US being seen as a major role player in the Israel-UAE deal. Let's weigh each option.
- The deal grants a diplomatic win to the US President Donald Trump ahead of the Presidential election: The passage frames the deal as a diplomatic achievement that benefits Trump politically, and this timing, close to an election, is a real driver behind US involvement. This is a genuine reason.
- The efforts of the USA to bring the war in Afghanistan to an end have not been a success yet: A stalled Afghanistan process gives the US an incentive to showcase a foreign policy success elsewhere, which is consistent with why this deal mattered to Washington. This is a genuine reason.
- The efforts of USA to bring peace between Israel and the Palestinians have not been successful yet: The passage notes that a broader Middle East peace process has stalled, and the UAE-Israel deal gives the US something to point to in that space. This is a genuine reason.
- The deal gives a central strategic rule to USA in the Middle East: This describes an outcome or consequence of the deal, not a reason that pushed the US toward brokering it in the first place. It confuses effect with motive.
The first three options describe genuine motives behind US involvement, while the fourth describes a possible result of the deal rather than a reason for it.
Therefore, the correct answer is the deal gives a central strategic rule to USA in the Middle East.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 2
Which of the following is true in relation to the stake of Palestine in the peace deal between UAE and Israel ?
Which of the following is true in relation to the stake of Palestine in the peace deal between UAE and Israel ?
Updated On: Jul 15, 2026
- Israel has recognised Palestine as an Independent Nation.
- This can be an opportunity for the Palestine to establish diplomatic relations with Israel.
- The deal marks both a win and setback to the Israel-Palestine relations.
- A peace treaty would also be signed between Israel and Palestine.
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is C
Approach Solution - 1
The correct option is (C) :The deal marks both a win and setback to the Israel-Palestine relations.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
Approach Solution -2
The question asks which statement is true about Palestine's stake in the Israel-UAE peace deal. Let's go through each option.
- Israel has recognised Palestine as an Independent Nation: Nothing in the deal involves Israel recognising Palestinian statehood, the agreement is between Israel and the UAE. This statement is not true.
- This can be an opportunity for the Palestine to establish diplomatic relations with Israel: The deal is between the UAE and Israel and does not directly open diplomatic relations between Israel and Palestine. This statement is not accurate as framed.
- The deal marks both a win and setback to the Israel-Palestine relations: Israel agreeing to suspend annexation of West Bank territory is a gain for the Palestinian position, while the UAE normalising relations with Israel without Palestinian statehood being settled first is widely seen as a setback for the Palestinian cause, since it removes some of the region's collective leverage. This captures both sides accurately.
- A peace treaty would also be signed between Israel and Palestine: No such treaty is mentioned or implied anywhere in the passage. This statement is not true.
Only the option describing the deal as both a win and a setback correctly reflects the mixed impact on Israel-Palestine relations described in the passage.
Therefore, the correct answer is the deal marks both a win and setback to the Israel-Palestine relations.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 3
Which of the following is not a direct impact of the peace deal in the Middle East region ?
Which of the following is not a direct impact of the peace deal in the Middle East region ?
Updated On: Jul 15, 2026
- The deal smoothens the UAE‘s international campaign to be seen as a beacon of tolerance in the Middle East.
- It puts the UAE as leader in a regional power dynamics among neighbouring Gulf Arab states.
- The deal gives Netanyahu a domestic boost at a time when Israel‘s coalition government is in crisis due to coalition compulsions.
- The deal marks a historic day and a significant step towards peace in the Middle East.
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is D
Approach Solution - 1
The correct option is (D) :The deal marks a historic day and a significant step towards peace in the Middle East.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
Approach Solution -2
The question asks which of the following is not a direct impact of the peace deal in the Middle East region. Let's assess each option.
- The deal smoothens the UAE's international campaign to be seen as a beacon of tolerance in the Middle East: This is a specific, concrete effect of the deal on how the UAE is perceived internationally. It is a direct impact.
- It puts the UAE as leader in a regional power dynamics among neighbouring Gulf Arab states: The deal visibly strengthens the UAE's diplomatic standing relative to other Gulf states, which is a specific, direct effect. It is a direct impact.
- The deal gives Netanyahu a domestic boost at a time when Israel's coalition government is in crisis due to coalition compulsions: This is a concrete political effect inside Israel that follows directly from the deal being signed. It is a direct impact.
- The deal marks a historic day and a significant step towards peace in the Middle East: This is a broad, general characterization of the deal's importance rather than a specific, concrete effect on any actor or dynamic in the region. It reads as an overall assessment, not a direct impact in the same sense as the other three.
The first three options each describe a specific, traceable effect of the deal, while the fourth is a general statement about the deal's significance rather than a direct impact.
Therefore, the correct answer is the deal marks a historic day and a significant step towards peace in the Middle East.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 4
The peace deal between Israel and UAE can also be seen as a great opportunity for India in the Middle East region. Which of the following is not related to strategic goals of India in the Middle East ?
The peace deal between Israel and UAE can also be seen as a great opportunity for India in the Middle East region. Which of the following is not related to strategic goals of India in the Middle East ?
Updated On: Jul 15, 2026
- India should revamp its defence and security relations with the UAE.
- India should move fast to capture the extended neighbourhood market before it comes under the influence of China.
- India should ensure space for Iran in any future security deal in the region.
- None of the above.
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is C
Approach Solution - 1
The correct option is (C) :India should ensure space for Iran in any future security deal in the region.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
Approach Solution -2
The question asks which of the following is not related to India's strategic goals in the Middle East following the Israel-UAE deal. Let's examine each option.
- India should revamp its defence and security relations with the UAE: Strengthening defence ties with a Gulf partner that is now aligning more closely with Israel fits directly into India's regional strategic interests. This is related to India's goals.
- India should move fast to capture the extended neighbourhood market before it comes under the influence of China: Competing with China's growing economic footprint in the Gulf is a recognised part of India's strategic calculus in the region. This is related to India's goals.
- India should ensure space for Iran in any future security deal in the region: India's own regional priorities in this period centre on its Gulf Arab partnerships and its ties with Israel, rather than on pushing Iran's inclusion into a Gulf-Israel security framework, especially given India's own balancing act with Iran being handled separately. This does not fit as a described strategic goal here.
- None of the above: Since one of the other three options does not match India's described strategic goals, this option cannot be correct.
Between the four options, only the one about ensuring space for Iran in a future security deal falls outside what is described as India's strategic priority in this context.
Therefore, the correct answer is India should ensure space for Iran in any future security deal in the region.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 5
Which of the following is correct ?
Which of the following is correct ?
Updated On: Jul 15, 2026
- Israel does not have a Constitution.
- Israeli Constitution is like ordinary law.
- There is no Constitution but a Basic Law of 1950.
- Israel has a Constitution of 1967.
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is C
Approach Solution - 1
The correct option is (C) :There is no Constitution but a Basic Law of 1950.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
Approach Solution -2
The question asks which statement about the Israeli Constitution is correct. Let's assess each option.
- Israel does not have a Constitution: This overstates the position. Israel has no single written constitution, but it does have a body of quasi-constitutional Basic Laws that function in place of one, so saying it has no constitutional framework at all goes too far.
- Israeli Constitution is like ordinary law: Israel's Basic Laws are treated as holding a higher status than ordinary legislation and can only be amended through special procedures, so this statement does not correctly describe their standing.
- There is no Constitution but a Basic Law of 1950: Israel indeed has no single codified constitution. Instead, following the 1950 Harari Resolution, the Knesset decided to build up a constitution gradually through a series of Basic Laws rather than adopt one document at once. This captures the actual position accurately.
- Israel has a Constitution of 1967: No single constitutional document was adopted by Israel in 1967, and the country continues to rely on its evolving set of Basic Laws instead. This statement is incorrect.
Of the four options, only the one describing the absence of a single constitution alongside the 1950 decision to build one through Basic Laws matches Israel's actual constitutional position.
Therefore, the correct answer is there is no Constitution but a Basic Law of 1950.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 6
Israel is a theocratic Jewish state but it follows legal pluralism. Accordingly it has :
Israel is a theocratic Jewish state but it follows legal pluralism. Accordingly it has :
Updated On: Jul 15, 2026
- Jewish Courts to decide cases of all religious communities.
- Secular Courts will apply Uniform Civil Code in respect of all communities.
- Each religious community has its own Religious Court to deal with Personal law disputes.
- No distinction between Personal law and Public law.
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is C
Approach Solution - 1
The correct option is (C) :Each religious community has its own Religious Court to deal with Personal law disputes.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
Approach Solution -2
The question asks what legal pluralism in Israel actually means in practice, given that it is a theocratic Jewish state that recognises multiple religious communities. Let's weigh each option.
- Jewish Courts to decide cases of all religious communities: Israel does not route the personal law disputes of non-Jewish communities through Jewish religious courts, so this statement does not describe legal pluralism correctly.
- Secular Courts will apply Uniform Civil Code in respect of all communities: Israel does not operate a uniform civil code applied by secular courts to matters like marriage and divorce, that is closer to how a purely secular legal system would work, not a pluralist one. This does not fit.
- Each religious community has its own Religious Court to deal with Personal law disputes: Israel recognises separate religious court systems, rabbinical courts for Jews, Sharia courts for Muslims, and ecclesiastical courts for Christian denominations among others, each handling personal status matters such as marriage, divorce and inheritance for its own community. This is exactly what legal pluralism means here.
- No distinction between Personal law and Public law: Israel does maintain a clear separation between personal law, handled by religious courts, and general public law, handled by the secular judiciary. This statement is incorrect.
Only the option describing separate religious courts for each community's personal law disputes accurately reflects how legal pluralism functions in Israel.
Therefore, the correct answer is each religious community has its own Religious Court to deal with Personal law disputes.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Top CLAT Questions
- In the realm of contemporary literature, the interplay between character and setting is a nuanced dance that shapes the narrative’s essence. The setting, often described with painstaking detail, becomes more than a backdrop; it becomes a character, influencing the plot and character development.
Consider, for instance, the barren expanse of the desert in Jhumpa Lahiri’s The Namesake. The arid landscape mirrors the sense of isolation felt by the protagonist, Gogol, as he navigates his identity crisis in a foreign land. The relentless sun and vast sands are not mere descriptions; they are the silent witnesses to his inner turmoil.
On the other end of the literary spectrum, there is Arundhati Roy’s The God of Small Things. The lush, vibrant Kerala backwaters are not just the setting; they are a character woven into the fabric of the story. The teeming, humid landscape reflects the complex web of human relationships and secrets that unravel in the narrative. This interplay is not confined to contemporary literature alone. In Shakespeare’s timeless tragedy Macbeth, the eerie and foreboding setting of the Scottish moors casts a dark shadow over the characters’ actions. The moors, shrouded in mist and mystery, serve as an ever-present omen of the impending tragedy. - The crisis of justice that is the subject matter of discussion in the media today is in fact the crisis of “justice for the middle class”. The main difference between India and the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) countries is that whereas the middle class in these countries has reasonable access to justice, in India it does not. A vocal and powerful middle class has emerged in India since 1991. It is demanding reasonable access to justice. Much of the judicial reform effort will help meet this demand…
The question of justice for the poor is, however, an altogether different challenge. No country in the world has been able to secure justice for the poor. Most of the jails of the richest countries are filled with the poorest. The “masses” are more often victims of the criminal justice system than of crime. In India as well, jails are almost exclusively filled with the poor. The civil justice system is hardly accessible to them. They are often victimised by lawyers, touts and court staff. They are docket-excluded, a new type of untouchability. The language and the logic—and the colonial and feudal culture—of the judicial system are alien to them. It rarely takes cognisance of their needs and interests.
Their main concern, therefore, is to escape the attention of the justice system, criminal and civil. A landless Dalit person in the interior of Madhya Pradesh once gave me an insightful definition of a court from the perspective of the masses: “A court is a place where you are forcibly taken by the police to be punished; no one goes to a court.” In contrast, many lawyers and judges colloquially define a court as “a temple of justice where rights are protected”.
These sharply divergent visions mean that justice for one section is often injustice for another. Protecting the livelihood of traditional taxi and auto drivers from predatory pricing by corporate app-based taxi providers by imaginatively using the available tools of law to delay their incursion would be seen by the rich and by sections of the middle class as a failure of the judicial system, and possibly as also resulting in a downgrading of the “ease of doing business” measure. However, the masses would see such a judicial intervention as strong evidence of a good justice system. Although the conflict over competing visions of the nation and conflicting demands from social and economic segments have confined judicial reform of judicial administration mainly to “neutral” areas such as process reform, procedural law, technology, planning and court and case management, judge strength, and the workload of judges, there has been considerable improvement in these areas, and the judicial system has improved its performance.
[Extracted, with edits, from “Justice and the Two Ideas of India”, by G. Mohan Gopal, Frontline] - Everything she wanted was here, at Carignano, in Kasauli. Here, on the ridge of the mountain, in this quiet house. It was the place, and the time of life, that she had wanted and prepared for all her life-as she realized on the first day at Carignano, with a great, cool flowering of relief - and at last she had it. She wanted no one and nothing else. Whatever else came, or happened here, would be an unwelcome intrusion and distraction. This she tried to convey to the plodding postman with a cold and piercing stare from the height of the ridge onto his honest bull back. Unfortunately, he did not look up at her on the hilltop but stared stolidly down at the dust piling onto his shoes as he plodded on. A bullock-man, an oafish ox, she thought bitterly. She stepped backwards into the garden and the wind suddenly billowed up and threw the pine branches about as though to curtain her. She was grey, tall and thin and her silk sari made a sweeping, shivering sound and she fancied she could merge with the pine trees and be mistaken for one. To be a tree, no more and no less, was all she was prepared to undertake.
What pleased and satisfied her so, here at Carignano, was its barrenness. This was the chief virtue of all Kasauli of course-its starkness. It had rocks, it had pines, it had light and air. In every direction there was a sweeping view - to the north, of the mountains, to the south, of the plains. Occasionally an eagle swam through this clear unobstructed mass of light and air, that was all. And Carignano, her home on the ridge, had no more than that. Why should it? The sun shone on its white walls. Its windows were open the ones facing north opened on to the blue waves of the Himalayas flowing out and up to the line of ice and snow sketched upon the sky, while those that faced south looked down the plunging cliff to the plain stretching out, flat and sere to the blurred horizon.
Yes, there were some apricot trees close to the house. There were clumps of iris that had finished blooming. There was the kitchen with a wing of smoke lifting out of its chimney and a stack of wood outside its door. But these were incidental, almost unimportant.
[Extracted, with edits and revisions, from “Fire on the Mountain” by Anita Desai] - English literature is a vast and diverse field that has left an indelible mark on the world of letters. From the eloquent plays of William Shakespeare to the complex novels of Jane Austen and the profound poetry of William Wordsworth, English literature offers a window into the human experience. One of the luminaries of English literature is William Shakespeare, often hailed as the greatest playwright in the history of English language. His works, including Hamlet, Macbeth, and Romeo and Juliet, are celebrated for their exploration of human nature, love, ambition, and tragedy. His characters, such as the tormented Hamlet and the star-crossed lovers Romeo and Juliet, continue to captivate readers and audiences worldwide.
The 19th century ushered in a new era of literary giants. Jane Austen’s novels, such as Pride and Prejudice and Sense and Sensibility, provide incisive social commentary through the lens of wit and romance. Austen’s heroines, like Elizabeth Bennet and Elinor Dashwood, remain beloved literary figures known for their intelligence and resilience. The Romantic era brought forth poets like William Wordsworth and Samuel Taylor Coleridge, who celebrated * 8 UG the beauty of nature and the emotional intensity of the individual. Wordsworth’s ‘‘I Wandered Lonely as a Cloud’’ and Coleridge’s ‘‘The Rime of the Ancient Mariner’’ are testament to the power of the written words to evoke profound emotions and imagery. Moving towards 20th century, English literature continued to evolve. Virginia Woolf’s ground-breaking novel Mrs. Dalloway explored the inner thoughts and lives of its characters with a modernist narrative style. Dystopian visions, as seen in George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four provided stark warnings about the dangers of totalitarianism and the erosion of individual freedom.
Today, English literature is a global phenomenon, transcending borders and languages. Indian authors like Arundhati Roy, with her novel The God of Small Things, have won prestigious international literary awards. The book not only explores intricate family dynamics but also delves into the broader socio-political landscape of India. In summary, English literature is a testament to the enduring power of storytelling and the written word. It encompasses an array of authors, themes, and styles that continue to captivate and inspire readers across the world. - On the evening of the 10th, General Dyer arrived at Amritsar, and the Deputy-Commissioner handed over the civil power to him. He issued a proclamation by word of mouth that no meetings should be held. Two days later, after there had been no sort of riot, nor murder, General Dyer heard that a meeting was to be held at the Jallianwala Bagh. He proceeded there with about fifty troops, half British, half Indian, and a certain number of Ghurkas, armed with their kukris. The Jallianwala Bagh is an open space, half a mile square, which has one entry wide enough for three persons. The troops got in and lined up on a mound of debris. The walls, seven feet high, and the surrounding houses enclosed the people. There were, too, three alleys through which the people might have been able to pass. Within thirty seconds of the troops getting in, General Dyer gave orders to fire, and the crowd of people, estimated at anything from 5,000 to 20,000, who were sitting on the ground peacefully listening to the mob oratory, were fired on. The result of the troops’ fire into the mass of people we do not know. But we do know that Dyer’s own estimate of the casualties resulting from ten minutes continual individual firing, was 400 to 500 killed and 1,500 wounded. The people were not able to escape. They were people who had not offered any violence and who had not been warned. These people were shot down. After ten minutes, the ammunition was exhausted and the troops marched off, and they left 1,500 wounded there. There were men lying there for two days, dying of thirst, eating the ground, bleeding to death and nobody to look after them. Those who lived nearby came and carried away some of the wounded from the heap of dead and dying, but the unfortunate country people died there miserably of their wounds. This is what is done in 1919 in British India…
Centuries hence you will find Indian children brought up to this spot, just as they visit now the Cawnpore Well, and you can imagine the feelings of these Indians for generations over this terrible business.
[Col. Wedgwood, MP, speaking in the British Parliament, 22 December 1919]
View More Questions