The Kashmir-Palestine Parallel: Accountability Gaps and Strategic Implications for Pakistan

The 21st century has witnessed a troubling shift in the enforcement of international law, especially in conflict zones like Palestine and Kashmir, where international mechanisms have repeatedly failed to ensure accountability. Powerful states have undermined international law with impunity. Prolonged military occupation, systemic human rights abuses, and the suppression of self-determination movements characterise both Israel’s occupation of Palestine and India’s actions in Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (IIOJK). However, both have escaped meaningful international accountability. This insight reviews the Kashmir-Palestine parallel through the lens of deteriorating international law, focusing on the failures of international legal mechanisms and their implications for Pakistan.

Both Palestine and Kashmir are among the oldest issues on the United Nations (UN) agenda, each rooted in colonial legacies and the denial of the right to self-determination. United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolutions—such as UNSC Resolution 242 for Palestine and UNSC Resolution 47 for Kashmir —call for democratic processes, such as plebiscites, to determine the future of these regions. Yet, despite these efforts, the world has seen little progress towards a resolution.

A critical legal parallel between Palestine and Kashmir is the transformation of self-determination struggles into narratives of ‘terrorism.’ Both the Palestinian and Kashmiri populations, in asserting their rights to self-determination, have faced systemic criminalisation and labelling by Israel and India as terrorists. This characterisation directly violates international law, particularly Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which guarantees the right of all people to self-determination.

Furthermore, both regions have experienced violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which prohibits the occupying power from transferring its civilian population into occupied territory. This practice has been carried out by Israel in the West Bank and by India in IIOJK, through the establishment of settlements and demographic alterations. Israel and India, in many ways, have aligned their strategies in suppressing these movements, employing similar justifications for their illegal actions.

However, after Israel's aggressive actions on the ground, the legal position of Palestine has become stronger. This is due in part to the international condemnation of Israel’s occupation of Palestine, including International Court of Justice (ICJ) rulings and numerous General Assembly resolutions consistently supporting the Palestinian cause. In contrast, Kashmir remains trapped in a status quo of territorial and political freeze.

Since the 1972 Simla Agreement, both India and Pakistan have refrained from changing Kashmir's status. However, the revocation of Articles 370 and 35A on August 5, 2019, marked a significant shift in India's approach. India effectively altered the region's status by unilaterally altering the framework established by decades of UN resolutions. This action violates international law and constitutes a material breach of the Simla Agreement.

For both Palestine and Kashmir, international accountability has been limited. While Israel’s actions in Palestine have consistently been recognised and condemned by UN bodies, the consequences for these violations remain largely symbolic. On the other hand, Kashmir has faced a growing international indifference.

Today's global environment, marked by the weakening of international law, has further emboldened states like India to pursue unilateral resolutions to these disputes. Seeing Israel act with impunity in Palestine, India now feels increasingly secure in pushing its territorial ambitions in Kashmir.

The recent escalation following the Pahalgam attack reinforces India's increasing disregard for international norms. Under the pretext of counterterrorism, it accused Pakistan of orchestrating the attack without providing credible evidence. Based on this claim, India launched missile strikes in multiple Pakistani cities, killing 31 civilians and injuring 46 others. Despite the grave breach of Pakistan’s territorial sovereignty, the global community remained largely silent. Despite facing tactical setbacks that led to the loss of six aircrafts and a ceasefire being established within four days, the lack of international condemnation highlights a troubling decline in accountability, contributing to a perception of impunity.

India’s approach mirrors that of Israel, which often justifies strikes on civilian areas under the guise of counterterrorism without presenting evidence. However, unlike the Israel-Palestine conflict, any confrontation between India and Pakistan carries far more dangerous implications due to their nuclear capabilities. Additionally, India violated international law by suspending the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) , demonstrating its growing sense of impunity and disregard for international law.

The influence of global powers, particularly the United States (US), continues to be significant. While the US has not been the sole actor in facilitating the impunity of Israel or India, its strategic alliances with both nations have played a role in shaping the current dynamics. The US's close relationship with Israel has, at times, resulted in a lack of meaningful consequences. Similarly, US support for India, in the military and economic spheres —and more recently, its muted response to India’s missile strikes on Pakistani cities —has contributed to the perception that India can act with little regard for international law. However, it is not just a matter of US policy; the overall shift in the global order is weakening multilateralism, and unilateral actions are becoming more common.

In today’s shifting global order, where the rule of law is increasingly deteriorating, Pakistan must look beyond traditional approaches to advance the Kashmir cause. Pakistan must challenge the terrorism narrative that has long been used to undermine Kashmir’s legitimate struggle for self-determination. An opportunity lies in tapping the support of Arab countries, Ireland, South Africa, and Türkiye, which have long championed Palestine's right to self-determination.

Pakistan must expand its cooperation beyond traditional partners in response to evolving geopolitical dynamics. It must recognise that its legal case on Kashmir can only be effectively advanced with the backing of key global powers. Therefore, Pakistan should engage China, Russia, South Africa, and Türkiye (key members of the Global South). With their distinct geopolitical perspectives, these nations are well-positioned to offer support that balances global power dynamics.

Moreover, Pakistan can leverage regional organisations such as SAARC to generate collective regional pressure on the Kashmir issue. Building strong relationships with Western neighbours, particularly Afghanistan, Iran, and Central Asian countries, can enhance Pakistan's strategic positioning. To this end, Pakistan’s National Security Policy should be operationalised to strengthen these regional ties, with a pivot to geo-economics.

Simultaneously, recent developments—notably India’s suspension of the IWT—have significantly strengthened Pakistan's legal position. Considering this, Pakistan should engage with international legal institutions, such as the World Bank, the Permanent Court of Arbitration, and the International Court of Justice (ICJ), to seek redress and accountability for the treaty breach.

In conclusion, Pakistan must adapt to the changing global order by broadening its strategic partners. Embracing a more balanced and multifaceted foreign policy will enable Pakistan to navigate the complexities of contemporary geopolitics effectively.