Consider the following statements : Statement-I : Israel has established diplomatic relations with some Arab States. Statement-II : The 'Arab Peace Initiative' mediated by Saudi Arabia was signed by Israel and Arab League. Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above statements?

Describes sustained tensions and armed conflict between Israel and surrounding Arab states (1948–1967 and after), implying that formal diplomatic relations were unlikely during those periods.

A student could use this timeline of hostility to infer that any formal relations with Arab states are more likely to have been established after these high-conflict periods.

Notes the PLO's guerrilla warfare against Israel until the 1980s and that it entered peace negotiations in the 1990s, indicating a shift from conflict to negotiation in the 1990s.

One could infer that the 1990s peace-process era is a plausible window when diplomatic recognition/relations between Israel and some Arab actors might have been established.

States that India significantly expanded military and economic collaboration with Israel after the Cold War, reflecting a post–Cold War shift toward normalization of ties with Israel by some states.

A student could generalize this post–Cold War normalization trend to ask whether certain Arab states also adjusted policies in the 1990s–2000s to establish formal relations with Israel.

Describes how states changed foreign-policy alignments during the Cold War and afterward, suggesting diplomatic relations evolved with global shifts.

Using that pattern, one could investigate whether geopolitical shifts enabled some Arab states to move from hostility to formal diplomatic ties with Israel.

Points out variation in Arab governments' stances (some neutral, some pro-American), indicating the Arab world was not monolithic in its relations with Israel.

A student could use this heterogeneity to look for specific Arab states (especially more neutral or pro-Western ones) as more likely candidates to have established relations with Israel.

Identifies Saudi Arabia as a leading conservative Arab monarchy involved in regional politics.

A student could combine this with the fact that major regional initiatives often come from influential monarchies to suspect Saudi involvement and then check records of the 2002 Arab summit.

Shows Saudi Arabia as an active diplomatic partner that other states (e.g., India) engage with for political/economic aims.

Use this pattern to infer Saudi capacity and practice of proposing or sponsoring diplomatic initiatives, then verify who sponsored the Arab Peace Initiative.

Gives a concrete example that peace declarations can be mediated or sponsored by a prominent external leader/state (Kosygin mediating Tashkent).

Apply this general rule—major peace initiatives are often tied to identifiable sponsors—to look for which state or leader sponsored the 2002 initiative.

Describes the centralized authority of Saudi monarchy, implying the state can act decisively in foreign policy and propose regional policies.

Combine this with knowledge of Arab diplomatic practice to hypothesize that Saudi leadership could originate or promote an Arab-wide peace proposal and then check summit records.

Notes Saudi-origin religious/political movements influencing wider Muslim world, indicating Saudi soft power across the region.

A student might take this as evidence Saudi Arabia has regional influence that could be used to propose an Arab initiative, then seek documentary proof of sponsorship.

Shows the PLO entered formal peace negotiations with Israel in the 1990s, indicating a pattern of separate Palestinian–Israel talks rather than multilateral Arab-state signings.

A student could use this to infer that initiatives involving the broader Arab league might have a different addressee (Arab states vs. Israel–PLO) and check whether Israel as a state formally endorsed a 2002 Arab-wide plan.

Describes repeated UN calls for an international peace conference including the PLO and notes U.S. vetoes, highlighting that peace proposals often required multilateral agreement beyond just Israel and Arab states.

This suggests students should distinguish between Arab League proposals and UN-backed accords and then verify which actors actually signed the 2002 initiative.

Notes variation in Arab governments' positions (some neutral, some pro-American), implying the Arab world is not monolithic and may frame collective initiatives to elicit wider acceptance.

A student could use this to predict that an Arab League initiative might be presented collectively by Arab states and then check whether Israel individually signed or simply responded.

Provides a timeline of regional peace efforts (e.g., Agra Summit 2001, other accords), indicating that the early 2000s saw multiple attempts at negotiations.

A student could place the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative in this timeline and then look for who the initiative's signatories or endorsers were relative to contemporaneous talks with Israel.

Gives background on contested land ownership and UN involvement in Palestine, underscoring that peace proposals often hinge on territorial/sovereignty disputes involving multiple parties.

Use this context to reason that a pan-Arab peace plan would address issues Israel might accept or reject; the student should therefore check whether Israel formally signed such a plan in 2002.

Describes how an international 'League' (League of Nations) had a worked‑out Covenant adopted as a formal treaty — showing that leagues can and do have formal, adopted founding documents and agreements.

A student could infer that a modern regional league (Arab League) also likely uses formal adoption or endorsement mechanisms and therefore check Arab League records or summit communiqués for a 2002 adoption.

Gives an example of regional states signing a formal 'pact of mutual cooperation' and later countries joining — showing regional organisations regularly adopt formal agreements by signature.

One could extend this pattern to expect the Arab Peace Initiative to have been adopted via a formal pact or summit statement among Arab states, so look for a 2002 Arab summit communiqué or signatures.

Notes collective foreign‑policy positions by Arab governments (pro‑Arab stand) and differences among member states, implying decisions often come from group fora of Arab states.

Using this, a student might check whether the Arab League (as the forum for Arab governments) issued a collective endorsement in 2002 rather than only individual states doing so.

Describes UN partition resolution and subsequent collective regional reactions, illustrating that major Middle East proposals typically trigger formal responses from regional organisations.

A student could therefore look for a formal Arab League response or summit adoption in 2002 as the expected avenue for a major regional initiative.