India-Pakistan Showed What a War Between Equals Looks Like—Gaza Never Had That Chance.

India-Pakistan Showed What a War Between Equals Looks Like—Gaza Never Had That Chance.

By Zoona Javed

In a world inundated with conflict, the phrase “Now the world knows war happens between equals, like India and Pakistan—not between Gaza, Palestine, and Israel” forces us to confront an uncomfortable truth: not all conflicts are created equal, and not all violence deserves to be called “war.” This distinction is not just rhetorical—it shapes global perceptions, responses, and moral responsibilities toward the oppressed.

India and Pakistan: The Definition of a War Between Equals

India and Pakistan represent a classic example of two sovereign, nuclear-armed states with full-fledged military capacity, air defense systems, and international diplomatic leverage. When tensions flare—especially over the Kashmir dispute—both nations stand on relatively equal footing in terms of retaliation and deterrence.

Muhammad Irfan was of the view “War is usually understood as a fight between two sides with similar strength—like the conflict between Pakistan and India, where both countries have strong armies and defense systems. But the situation between Israel and Palestine is very different. Here, a powerful and well-equipped military attacks a population that has very limited ways to defend itself.

It’s like a giant beating a helpless child. Palestinian civilians—including women and children—are being killed, and their homes, schools, hospitals, and other important places are being destroyed. They have nowhere safe to go and no real protection.

This kind of violence goes against basic human rights and international laws. The world cannot stay silent. When one side is so much stronger than the other, and innocent people are being harmed, it is not just a conflict—it’s oppression. The global community must recognize this injustice and act before more lives are lost.”

In the 2025 recent confrontation between India and Pakistan, the Pakistan Air Force once again rose to the occasion, showcasing extraordinary courage, skill, and unity in the face of escalating threats. Among the brave defenders was Pilot Afridi, who led a high-stakes mission to intercept and push back enemy aircraft attempting to violate Pakistani airspace. His calm decision-making and aerial precision helped prevent what could have become a wider conflict. The nation also mourned the loss of Airman Usman, who was martyred while working on a critical radar system during a missile strike. His sacrifice was not in vain—his final actions ensured the protection of a key civilian area. Another standout figure was Flight Sergeant Kamran Masih, a devoted Christian and a shining example of Pakistan’s diversity and unity. Kamran played a crucial role in tracking and disabling an incoming missile barrage, helping save lives at a nearby military installation. These men—alongside heroes like Wing Commander Noman Ali Khan and Squadron Leader Hassan Siddiqui—embodied the spirit of duty, resilience, and honor. Their collective efforts reminded the world that true war happens between equals, where both sides possess the strength to respond and defend. This stands in stark contrast to the tragic reality in Gaza, where there is no air force to protect civilians and no shield against relentless bombardment. The valor of Pakistan’s defenders in 2025 not only safeguarded the nation but also underscored the moral clarity needed when confronting unequal and unjust violence elsewhere in the world.

A notable example of this parity was witnessed during the 2019 Pulwama-Balakot episode. Following Indian airstrikes in Balakot, Pakistan Air Force (PAF) responded with precision, demonstrating its capability to defend national sovereignty. The response included the shooting down of an Indian MiG-21 Bison aircraft by PAF pilot Wing Commander Noman Ali Khan, and the capture of Indian Air Force pilot Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman, who was later returned as a goodwill gesture. Pilots like Squadron Leader Hasan Siddiqui and others from the PAF played crucial roles in intercepting and neutralizing threats, showcasing Pakistan’s ability to respond in kind—militarily and diplomatically.

Air Marshal Aurangzeb’s insight becomes particularly relevant. He has pointed out that people of other countries need training—not just in technical or military fields, but in understanding international norms, ethical frameworks, and the importance of equitable conflict resolution. This training is essential to bridge the gap between power politics and people-centered justice. When citizens and future leaders across the world are educated in human rights, diplomacy, and critical analysis, they are better equipped to challenge double standards and promote fairer global responses to conflict.

This interaction between India and Pakistan, though dangerous, was still within the realm of mutual deterrence—where both sides had the power to defend and the leverage to negotiate.

“There are numerous reasons and ongoing discussions surrounding global perceptions of war. At the heart of these narratives lies a deeply roo Jo ted notion of power—often defined by religion, ideology, nationalism, and extremism. These constructs have historically shaped and justified conflicts across the world. The dynamics of colonialism, neocolonialism, modernism, and postmodernism all play significant roles in how we interpret and respond to war today. However, I personally believe that the true path toward resolution lies in the deconstruction of our modernist thinking—challenging the rigid frameworks that uphold systems of dominance and rethinking our collective understanding of power, identity, and justice.”— Said Farman Hashmi

Gaza and Israel: A One-Sided Battlefield

Now contrast that with Gaza and Israel. Israel commands one of the most technologically advanced militaries in the world, complete with Iron Dome missile defense systems, naval control, air supremacy, and unfettered global alliances. Gaza, meanwhile, is a densely populated enclave under siege, with no air force, no missile defense systems, and no international recognition as a sovereign state.

Muhammad Iathisam’s reflection highlights a deeply relevant critique of international relations and power politics. He emphasizes the inconsistent global response to conflicts, suggesting that:

In symmetric conflicts (like Pakistan and India), the international community often promotes dialogue, diplomacy, and peacebuilding.
In asymmetric conflicts—where there is a clear imbalance of power (e.g., Palestine-Israel, Kashmir, or other occupation-based conflicts)—global powers prioritize strategic interests over justice, often branding the oppressed or resisting populations as “terrorists” or “extremists”, instead of acknowledging their legitimate grievances or struggles for rights.
Certainly. Below is a refined and structured version of the statement attributed to Sadi Khel, presented with improved language and paragraph formatting:

Sadi Khel, Commentated on Global Politics and this statement draws a sharp and thought-provoking contrast between conflicts involving perceived equals—such as India and Pakistan—and those that are asymmetrical, like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This distinction sheds light on how global powers selectively engage with conflicts based on their strategic interests, rather than on principles of justice or human rights.

On Wars Between Equals:

When two recognized nation-states engage in conflict—such as India and Pakistan—the world tends to frame the situation within the realm of diplomacy and conventional geopolitics. These countries are seen as equal players on the global stage, possessing substantial military capabilities, including nuclear weapons, and internationally acknowledged sovereignty. The focus here is on statecraft, deterrence, and negotiations. Global actors often push for restraint and dialogue because both sides are considered too powerful to be ignored or dismissed.

On Asymmetric Conflicts:

In contrast, conflicts marked by a clear power imbalance—like that of Israel and Palestine—are often framed very differently. Here, one party may be a recognized, well-armed state with broad international support, while the other is a marginalized population fighting for basic rights and recognition. Instead of addressing the root causes or recognizing legitimate resistance, global powers tend to side with the stronger party, driven by political, military, or economic interests. As a result, the weaker side’s struggle is often delegitimized, and their resistance labeled as extremism or terrorism.

This double standard not only exposes the inconsistency in how the world applies the principles of justice, but also reinforces the idea that peace is reserved for the powerful, while the oppressed are left to be vilified or silenced.

This perspective reveals the double standards and moral contradictions in how global institutions and powerful states engage with conflicts, especially when their own geopolitical or economic interests are involved.

Describing what happens in Gaza as a “war” is both misleading and harmful—it falsely suggests parity where there is none. The Palestinian people are not equipped for war; they are trying to survive under occupation and systemic oppression. The destruction of homes, hospitals, schools, and the killing of civilians—including children—is not collateral damage in war; it is the result of unchecked power.

Global Perception: How Language Shapes Reality

The language used to describe these conflicts is powerful. The India-Pakistan dynamic is acknowledged as a geopolitical rivalry between equals, while the Gaza-Israel situation is often reduced to narratives of terrorism versus defense. This framing grants impunity to state-led violence and criminalizes the resistance of the oppressed.

“What I observed during the war is that Pakistan’s strategies and weapons weren’t just built for defense—they were prepared for a situation like this. The kind of military equipment used showed that it wasn’t only about protecting our borders, but also about having the power to push forward if needed. It felt more like we were ready to conquer, not just defend our sovereignty.

This stands in sharp contrast to the situation in Palestine, where the people have no such military capabilities. Unlike Pakistan, which is equipped and prepared for full-scale conflict, Palestinians face one of the world’s most powerful armies with almost no defense. Their struggle is not one of equal sides at war, but of a civilian population under siege. This comparison highlights the difference between a prepared nation standing its ground and a stateless people fighting merely to survive.”— Sajjad

The international community’s failure to distinguish between actual war and structural violence results in a skewed moral lens—one that silences the voiceless and justifies occupation.

We A Call for Moral Clarity

Acknowledging power imbalances is not about taking sides—it’s about truth. If we are to use the word “war” meaningfully, we must reserve it for situations where both parties have the capacity to fight on even terms, like India and Pakistan. What Israel continues to do in Gaza is not war—it is a prolonged siege, a humanitarian crisis, and a failure of the global conscience.

Global powers often show selective empathy, revealing the unfairness in how international justice works. When their allies are involved, human rights are ignored, and those fighting for freedom are labeled as criminals. It’s not about who is right, but who serves their interests. As long as justice isn’t applied equally, peace will only be for the powerful—not for those who truly need it.—Says Sineen Ali

Conclusion

The world knows that war occurs between equals. The 2019 India-Pakistan escalation proved that both sides are capable of mutual defense and restraint, thanks to professional and courageous armed forces like the Pakistan Air Force. But in Gaza, there is no such balance. There is occupation, apartheid, and collective punishment.

It is time we call it what it is—not a war, but a human rights emergency. And it is time the world responds not with apathy, but with accountability and unwavering solidarity with the oppressed.

In conclusion, the distinction between “wars between equals” and asymmetric conflicts is vital to understanding how global powers perceive and respond to different crises. In cases like India and Pakistan, where both nations are established states with nuclear capabilities and formal diplomatic structures, the international community tends to approach conflict through the lens of strategic balance, state sovereignty, and conflict containment. Peace is pursued not necessarily out of moral obligation, but due to the potential consequences of escalation between two powerful actors.

Conversely, in asymmetric conflicts such as the Israeli-Palestinian situation, the stark imbalance of power and the presence of a long-standing occupation shift the moral and legal lens. Here, international law, particularly regarding military occupation and the rights of the oppressed, becomes more relevant. There is a greater perceived responsibility—though not always acted upon—to protect civilian populations and uphold human rights.

The Palestinian cause often draws global attention not because both parties are equal, but precisely because they are not. The imbalance of military might, resources, and global support leads many to view the conflict through the prism of justice, human rights, and decolonization.

Recognizing these distinctions is crucial. It helps explain why the world reacts differently to each conflict, and it underscores the importance of applying consistent principles of justice, whether in South Asia or the Middle East. Without such consistency, the global order continues to reflect not the rule of law, but the rule of power.