Model United Nations
What is the Model United Nations?
The United Nations is a place where delegates from all of the countries meet and debate about current issues going on in the world. We did a model of this. Each of us was a country, except for the chairs, and we had to represent our countries views in debate about different issues going on in the world right now. For our first conference, we debated about the Israeli-Palestinian Issue. We had to decide what to do with the Palestinian refugees that are scattered around the middle east. For our second conference, we debated about the Iranian Nuclear issue. We had to decide what we should do to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear bomb.
Model United Nations 2
MUN 2 Self Assessment
1. How has your perspective changed (on the UN, the world, or the Middle East) based on this project?
a. My perspective has changed in that everything seems more connected. All the problems in the world seem closer to home, and that they actually apply to and affect me. Also this project has opened my eyes to how hard of a job the people in the UN have. They have to get almost 200 people to agree on one thing; where many of them have totally opposite views of one another.
2. Look at what you needed to improve on from you last reflection and discuss how you improved for this conference.
a. In the last conference I said I needed to improve in using caucus time more effectively. I think I improved this conference because I got two or three amendments passed during caucus time, which helped the resolution, get passed. Also I talked with other delegates to see what their opinions were and to see if I could convince them of my side.
3. If we did yet a third conference, what would you most need to improve on from this conference?
a. If we did a third conference, I would try to make my resolution more creative in the solution and very strong so there were no loopholes so it could maybe get on the docket. Also I would make my speech more convincing using evidence and using creative metaphors to make it interesting to listen to. Another thing I would do is make more than one speech.
4. Give yourself a grade for the following categories and explain why that is the grade you deserve:
a. Overall diplomacy, professionalism, and engagement in the conference
i. I think that I deserve an A- for overall diplomacy, professionalism, and engagement in the conference because I used parly-pro, was dressed professionally, and was engaged in the conference but could have made more comments or speeches.
b. Speeches
i. I think I deserve an A- for speeches because I gave a pretty good speech but I could have made more speeches to convince people.
c. Caucusing
i. I think that I deserve an A+ for caucusing because I passed several amendments to resolutions during caucus time that helped the resolution get passed.
d. Comments
i. I think I deserve a B+ for comments because I didn’t have very many comments but I did have one point of information and other thoughtful comments.
a. My perspective has changed in that everything seems more connected. All the problems in the world seem closer to home, and that they actually apply to and affect me. Also this project has opened my eyes to how hard of a job the people in the UN have. They have to get almost 200 people to agree on one thing; where many of them have totally opposite views of one another.
2. Look at what you needed to improve on from you last reflection and discuss how you improved for this conference.
a. In the last conference I said I needed to improve in using caucus time more effectively. I think I improved this conference because I got two or three amendments passed during caucus time, which helped the resolution, get passed. Also I talked with other delegates to see what their opinions were and to see if I could convince them of my side.
3. If we did yet a third conference, what would you most need to improve on from this conference?
a. If we did a third conference, I would try to make my resolution more creative in the solution and very strong so there were no loopholes so it could maybe get on the docket. Also I would make my speech more convincing using evidence and using creative metaphors to make it interesting to listen to. Another thing I would do is make more than one speech.
4. Give yourself a grade for the following categories and explain why that is the grade you deserve:
a. Overall diplomacy, professionalism, and engagement in the conference
i. I think that I deserve an A- for overall diplomacy, professionalism, and engagement in the conference because I used parly-pro, was dressed professionally, and was engaged in the conference but could have made more comments or speeches.
b. Speeches
i. I think I deserve an A- for speeches because I gave a pretty good speech but I could have made more speeches to convince people.
c. Caucusing
i. I think that I deserve an A+ for caucusing because I passed several amendments to resolutions during caucus time that helped the resolution get passed.
d. Comments
i. I think I deserve a B+ for comments because I didn’t have very many comments but I did have one point of information and other thoughtful comments.
MUN 2 Speech
I would like to draw your attention to resolution 1e.
I would like to point out that this is the only resolution that works towards peace. The only resolution that lets Iran keep making nuclear power while also making sure that they do not get a nuclear weapon.
Resolution 1a uses military force as a tool to threaten Iran with if they do not comply with the resolution. It says that “in a situation where the Iranian nuclear facilities are getting too out of hand, Israel may use force, with the help of allies that sign on to this resolution to eliminate all nuclear facilities that Iran currently owns and runs.” Also it says that the Iranian supporters in Israel “be branded with the Iranian coat of arms on their wrists to symbolize their rebellion” and be put under curfews that only let them out of the house at certain times of the day. Resolution 1b wants to intensify sanctions even if Iran complies with the demands of the resolution and lets the IAEA into their nuclear power plants. Resolution 1c wants to check Iran's plants biannually and pay Iran $500,000,000 for every check that says that their program is peaceful. It wants the money to come from all countries part of the UN where every country pays the same amount and if one country doesn’t pay, sanctions will be immediately placed on them. Now this may not be a big problem for the big countries like Russia and China, but for little or hostile countries like Israel or Qatar this is not a good thing. The hostile countries will not want to pay and then be put under sanctions, while the smaller, poorer countries will not be able to pay and be put under sanctions for no reason other than that they didn’t have enough money to reward some country for keeping their energy plants peaceful. Resolution 1d could work but has no sure way of keeping Iran from developing a nuclear weapon as the IAEA has to schedule their investigations one month ahead of time and be “under the supervision of Iranian government officials.”
As you can see, all of these resolutions have flaws in them that could make the situation even worse. Branding of innocent citizens, sanctioning Iran for complying with the demands of the resolution, sanctioning countries that can’t or won’t pay Iran; these are all things that these resolutions are proposing to do. That is why resolution 1e is the best because it “Requests that all of the countries that have sanctions against Iran try to improve relations with Iran to settle down heat between countries and lift sanctions relating to the nuclear crisis.” So it is trying to ease tensions between countries and bring peace to this troubled land. Also, it moves the processing of nuclear materials for Iran to another country, which makes sure that Iran cannot get a nuclear bomb. These are the two main goals of this conference, and this is the only resolution accomplishing both of these things.
I would like to point out that this is the only resolution that works towards peace. The only resolution that lets Iran keep making nuclear power while also making sure that they do not get a nuclear weapon.
Resolution 1a uses military force as a tool to threaten Iran with if they do not comply with the resolution. It says that “in a situation where the Iranian nuclear facilities are getting too out of hand, Israel may use force, with the help of allies that sign on to this resolution to eliminate all nuclear facilities that Iran currently owns and runs.” Also it says that the Iranian supporters in Israel “be branded with the Iranian coat of arms on their wrists to symbolize their rebellion” and be put under curfews that only let them out of the house at certain times of the day. Resolution 1b wants to intensify sanctions even if Iran complies with the demands of the resolution and lets the IAEA into their nuclear power plants. Resolution 1c wants to check Iran's plants biannually and pay Iran $500,000,000 for every check that says that their program is peaceful. It wants the money to come from all countries part of the UN where every country pays the same amount and if one country doesn’t pay, sanctions will be immediately placed on them. Now this may not be a big problem for the big countries like Russia and China, but for little or hostile countries like Israel or Qatar this is not a good thing. The hostile countries will not want to pay and then be put under sanctions, while the smaller, poorer countries will not be able to pay and be put under sanctions for no reason other than that they didn’t have enough money to reward some country for keeping their energy plants peaceful. Resolution 1d could work but has no sure way of keeping Iran from developing a nuclear weapon as the IAEA has to schedule their investigations one month ahead of time and be “under the supervision of Iranian government officials.”
As you can see, all of these resolutions have flaws in them that could make the situation even worse. Branding of innocent citizens, sanctioning Iran for complying with the demands of the resolution, sanctioning countries that can’t or won’t pay Iran; these are all things that these resolutions are proposing to do. That is why resolution 1e is the best because it “Requests that all of the countries that have sanctions against Iran try to improve relations with Iran to settle down heat between countries and lift sanctions relating to the nuclear crisis.” So it is trying to ease tensions between countries and bring peace to this troubled land. Also, it moves the processing of nuclear materials for Iran to another country, which makes sure that Iran cannot get a nuclear bomb. These are the two main goals of this conference, and this is the only resolution accomplishing both of these things.
MUN 2 Resolution
Security Council
Russia (Quinn Haughey)
SOLUTION TO IRANIAN NUCLEAR PROGRAM ISSUE
The Security Council,
Realizing that “Russia has proof that Iran is not engaged in a nuclear weapon programme, a top Russian diplomat ha[s] said. ‘We have verified data showing that there is no reliable evidence for the existence of a military component’ in Iran’s nuclear programme, said Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov.” (Radyuhin),
Aware that “the Russian foreign minister has warned that a Western military strike against Iran would be ‘a catastrophe’.” (Iran Nuclear),
Observing that “Sergei Lavrov said an attack would lead to "large flows" of refugees from Iran and would "fan the flames" of sectarian tension in the Middle East.” (Iran Nuclear),
Acknowledging that “a declaration by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Tuesday that Iran is ready to accept some export scheme for its uranium was received favorably by Russia, and it prompted Chinese officials to call for further negotiations with Tehran.” (LaFranchi),
Noting that “the IAEA called for removing 70 percent of Iran’s low-enriched uranium to France and Russia, where it would be processed and returned a year later as fuel rods for a research reactor” (LaFranchi),
Realizing that everybody wants a solution to this issue as soon as possible (LaFranchi[2]),
1. Notes that the fewer nuclear bombs there are in the world, the safer we will be;
2. Recommends that Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium be relocated to Russia for further processing;
3. Declares accordingly that the country who will be processing the uranium for Iran will pay for 40% of the cost of running the facility, while Iran will pay for the remaining 60%:
a. Which is a good deal for Iran because they are getting all of the power but only having to pay 60% of the cost;
4. Expecting that Iran's nuclear power plants be under a monthly visit from the IAEA to make sure they do not try to make uranium with a weapons-grade enrichment percentage;
5. Further declares that the country processing the uranium for Iran will be under IAEA watch;
6. Resolves that if Iran agrees with this resolution, the sanctions will be lifted with the following conditions:
a. The most recent sanctions being lifted first;
b. One sanction will be lifted every year for four years so as to disturb the economic structure of Iran as little as possible;
7. Proclaims that if Iran does not follow through with or violates this resolution then the sanctions will go back up and be increased;
8. Reminds other countries that this resolution will ensure that Iran doesn’t get nuclear weapons because:
a. The uranium will be only enriched up to 20% at the max;
b. Iran's nuclear plants will be checked monthly by the IAEA.
Work Cited
"Iran Nuclear: Russia's Lavrov Warns against Attack." BBC - Homepage. 18 Jan. 2012. Web. 14 Feb. 2012. <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16613485>.
LaFranchi, Howard. "Iran's Offer on Nuclear Deal: Genuine or Diplomatic Wedge? - CSMonitor.com." The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com. 3 Feb. 2010. Web. 15 Feb. 2012. <http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Foreign-Policy/2010/0203/Iran-s-offer-on-nuclear-deal-genuine-or-diplomatic-wedge>.
LaFranchi[2], Howard. "Iran's Offer on Nuclear Deal: Genuine or Diplomatic Wedge? - CSMonitor.com." The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com. 3 Feb. 2010. Web. 15 Feb. 2012. <http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Foreign-Policy/2010/0203/Iran-s-offer-on-nuclear-deal-genuine-or-diplomatic-wedge/(page)/2>.
Radyuhin, Vladimir. "Iran Has No N-weapon Programme: Russia." The Hindu : Home Page News & Features. 9 Dec. 2011. Web. 14 Feb. 2012. <http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/article2701677.e
Russia (Quinn Haughey)
SOLUTION TO IRANIAN NUCLEAR PROGRAM ISSUE
The Security Council,
Realizing that “Russia has proof that Iran is not engaged in a nuclear weapon programme, a top Russian diplomat ha[s] said. ‘We have verified data showing that there is no reliable evidence for the existence of a military component’ in Iran’s nuclear programme, said Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov.” (Radyuhin),
Aware that “the Russian foreign minister has warned that a Western military strike against Iran would be ‘a catastrophe’.” (Iran Nuclear),
Observing that “Sergei Lavrov said an attack would lead to "large flows" of refugees from Iran and would "fan the flames" of sectarian tension in the Middle East.” (Iran Nuclear),
Acknowledging that “a declaration by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Tuesday that Iran is ready to accept some export scheme for its uranium was received favorably by Russia, and it prompted Chinese officials to call for further negotiations with Tehran.” (LaFranchi),
Noting that “the IAEA called for removing 70 percent of Iran’s low-enriched uranium to France and Russia, where it would be processed and returned a year later as fuel rods for a research reactor” (LaFranchi),
Realizing that everybody wants a solution to this issue as soon as possible (LaFranchi[2]),
1. Notes that the fewer nuclear bombs there are in the world, the safer we will be;
2. Recommends that Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium be relocated to Russia for further processing;
3. Declares accordingly that the country who will be processing the uranium for Iran will pay for 40% of the cost of running the facility, while Iran will pay for the remaining 60%:
a. Which is a good deal for Iran because they are getting all of the power but only having to pay 60% of the cost;
4. Expecting that Iran's nuclear power plants be under a monthly visit from the IAEA to make sure they do not try to make uranium with a weapons-grade enrichment percentage;
5. Further declares that the country processing the uranium for Iran will be under IAEA watch;
6. Resolves that if Iran agrees with this resolution, the sanctions will be lifted with the following conditions:
a. The most recent sanctions being lifted first;
b. One sanction will be lifted every year for four years so as to disturb the economic structure of Iran as little as possible;
7. Proclaims that if Iran does not follow through with or violates this resolution then the sanctions will go back up and be increased;
8. Reminds other countries that this resolution will ensure that Iran doesn’t get nuclear weapons because:
a. The uranium will be only enriched up to 20% at the max;
b. Iran's nuclear plants will be checked monthly by the IAEA.
Work Cited
"Iran Nuclear: Russia's Lavrov Warns against Attack." BBC - Homepage. 18 Jan. 2012. Web. 14 Feb. 2012. <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16613485>.
LaFranchi, Howard. "Iran's Offer on Nuclear Deal: Genuine or Diplomatic Wedge? - CSMonitor.com." The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com. 3 Feb. 2010. Web. 15 Feb. 2012. <http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Foreign-Policy/2010/0203/Iran-s-offer-on-nuclear-deal-genuine-or-diplomatic-wedge>.
LaFranchi[2], Howard. "Iran's Offer on Nuclear Deal: Genuine or Diplomatic Wedge? - CSMonitor.com." The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com. 3 Feb. 2010. Web. 15 Feb. 2012. <http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Foreign-Policy/2010/0203/Iran-s-offer-on-nuclear-deal-genuine-or-diplomatic-wedge/(page)/2>.
Radyuhin, Vladimir. "Iran Has No N-weapon Programme: Russia." The Hindu : Home Page News & Features. 9 Dec. 2011. Web. 14 Feb. 2012. <http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/article2701677.e
Model United Nations 1
MUN 1 Self Assessment
1. What are you most proud of about this conference?
The things that I am most proud of about this conference are my speech and my resolution. I am proud of my speech because I think that is well written and reflects the views of my country well. Also I think that it appeals to delegates of countries on both sides of the issue. I am proud of my resolution because it reflects the views of my country and it is creative so it is not just another way of saying what all of the other solutions said.
2. What did you connect with most in this conference, and how did it affect your performance?
I think that the thing that I connected with most in this conference was how almost all of the countries had to agree to a resolution to get it passed. I think I connected with this because I like to make everybody happy and agreeing on things. I think this affected my performance because I wanted to have almost everyone agree on one resolution.
3. What was the most important thing you learned in this project? Why?
I think that the most important thing I learned in this project is that it is good to have different perspectives on an issue. An example of this is how we had several resolutions for the same issue and had to decide which one was the best one. I think this is important because it makes you see things from another person’s point of view.
4. If you were a teacher or observer, what would you say about your performance in conference? (Good AND Bad!)
I would say that I had good comments but could have commented a little more. I would also that I had a good speech but could have tried to sway other delegates in the un-moderated caucuses. Another thing that I could have done was make a speech about how my resolution was better than the others.
5. For our next MUN conference, what would you most want to improve in your performance? How do you plan on doing this?
The thing that I would most want to improve in my performance would be using un-moderated caucuses to sway other delegates to my side. This previous conference I feel like I wasted my caucus time when I could have been swaying other delegates. To do this I will talk to delegates of other views and see what I would have to change in my resolution to get their vote.
6. Did you have a resolution or amendment on the docket?
Yes.
7. Did any of your resolutions or amendments pass? Which ones?
No.
8. Estimate the total number of:
a. Speeches you made:
Around 2 or 3
b. Comments/Questions you had:
Around 5 to 7
The things that I am most proud of about this conference are my speech and my resolution. I am proud of my speech because I think that is well written and reflects the views of my country well. Also I think that it appeals to delegates of countries on both sides of the issue. I am proud of my resolution because it reflects the views of my country and it is creative so it is not just another way of saying what all of the other solutions said.
2. What did you connect with most in this conference, and how did it affect your performance?
I think that the thing that I connected with most in this conference was how almost all of the countries had to agree to a resolution to get it passed. I think I connected with this because I like to make everybody happy and agreeing on things. I think this affected my performance because I wanted to have almost everyone agree on one resolution.
3. What was the most important thing you learned in this project? Why?
I think that the most important thing I learned in this project is that it is good to have different perspectives on an issue. An example of this is how we had several resolutions for the same issue and had to decide which one was the best one. I think this is important because it makes you see things from another person’s point of view.
4. If you were a teacher or observer, what would you say about your performance in conference? (Good AND Bad!)
I would say that I had good comments but could have commented a little more. I would also that I had a good speech but could have tried to sway other delegates in the un-moderated caucuses. Another thing that I could have done was make a speech about how my resolution was better than the others.
5. For our next MUN conference, what would you most want to improve in your performance? How do you plan on doing this?
The thing that I would most want to improve in my performance would be using un-moderated caucuses to sway other delegates to my side. This previous conference I feel like I wasted my caucus time when I could have been swaying other delegates. To do this I will talk to delegates of other views and see what I would have to change in my resolution to get their vote.
6. Did you have a resolution or amendment on the docket?
Yes.
7. Did any of your resolutions or amendments pass? Which ones?
No.
8. Estimate the total number of:
a. Speeches you made:
Around 2 or 3
b. Comments/Questions you had:
Around 5 to 7
Resolution
UNHCR
Russia (by Quinn Haughey)
PALESTINIAN REFUGEE SOLUTION
The General Assembly,
Aware of the great need for a solution to this issue,
Recognizing that there are (approximately) 7.2 million refugees living throughout the world as a result of this issue (Institute for Middle East Understanding, imeu.net, 2.3 – How many Palestinian refugees are there?),
Alarmed that no solid solution has been as yet followed through with,
Keeping in mind that rights are inalienable and no body can take them away,
Having considered the many possible solutions to this issue,
Recalling that the main goal for this resolution is to bring peace to the Middle East and the world,
Seeking for a solutionary plan that everybody is happy with and willing to agree to,
Observing that 6 times more Palestinians have died than the Israelis (ifamericansknew.org),
Taking into consideration that the US gives approximately 15 billion to the Israeli government and military per day (disturbingfacts.blogspot.com),
1. Emphasizes the need for a suitable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian refugee issue;
2. Authorizes the creation of an organization that allows people to sign up to “sponsor” or aid a Palestinian with monthly donations;
3. Endorses the creation of a Palestinian State to coexist with the current Israeli State under the following conditions:
a. Israeli troops retreat out of the new Palestinian State;
b. For the first two years, UN peacekeepers will secure the borders between Palestine and Israel;
4. Proclaims that the new Palestinian borders will encompass however much of the land that Palestine is willing/able to buy from Israel following these conditions:
a. Palestine can only buy land that is inside the borders of the 1947 UN Partition Plan;
b. If there are any attacks against Israel, Palestine will not be allowed to purchase land for twelve (12) months after;
c. After 10 years have elapsed, Palestine will not able to purchase anymore land;
d. Other Arab countries are encouraged to help Palestine buy land back;
5. Designates that 15% of the money that Israel receives from the purchase of land by Palestine will go to Israelis that are being relocated, while the other 85% will go to the Israeli government:
a. Israel should use the money to help relocate people;
b. Israel may keep whatever money it does not spend on relocation;
6. Recommends that Palestinians get to relocate to new Palestine according to the following conditions:
a. The refugees who are in the country with the highest refugee to citizen percentage will be allowed to return first;
b. Every year, only 10% of the refugees will be allowed to return to Palestine;
c. Refugees will only be allowed to return on years when there are absolutely no attacks against Israel;
7. Suggests that refugees who do not wish to return to Palestine will decide which country to relocate to from a list of countries that have agreed to take them;
a. Such countries will work with host countries to coordinate the relocation of refugees.
Russia (by Quinn Haughey)
PALESTINIAN REFUGEE SOLUTION
The General Assembly,
Aware of the great need for a solution to this issue,
Recognizing that there are (approximately) 7.2 million refugees living throughout the world as a result of this issue (Institute for Middle East Understanding, imeu.net, 2.3 – How many Palestinian refugees are there?),
Alarmed that no solid solution has been as yet followed through with,
Keeping in mind that rights are inalienable and no body can take them away,
Having considered the many possible solutions to this issue,
Recalling that the main goal for this resolution is to bring peace to the Middle East and the world,
Seeking for a solutionary plan that everybody is happy with and willing to agree to,
Observing that 6 times more Palestinians have died than the Israelis (ifamericansknew.org),
Taking into consideration that the US gives approximately 15 billion to the Israeli government and military per day (disturbingfacts.blogspot.com),
1. Emphasizes the need for a suitable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian refugee issue;
2. Authorizes the creation of an organization that allows people to sign up to “sponsor” or aid a Palestinian with monthly donations;
3. Endorses the creation of a Palestinian State to coexist with the current Israeli State under the following conditions:
a. Israeli troops retreat out of the new Palestinian State;
b. For the first two years, UN peacekeepers will secure the borders between Palestine and Israel;
4. Proclaims that the new Palestinian borders will encompass however much of the land that Palestine is willing/able to buy from Israel following these conditions:
a. Palestine can only buy land that is inside the borders of the 1947 UN Partition Plan;
b. If there are any attacks against Israel, Palestine will not be allowed to purchase land for twelve (12) months after;
c. After 10 years have elapsed, Palestine will not able to purchase anymore land;
d. Other Arab countries are encouraged to help Palestine buy land back;
5. Designates that 15% of the money that Israel receives from the purchase of land by Palestine will go to Israelis that are being relocated, while the other 85% will go to the Israeli government:
a. Israel should use the money to help relocate people;
b. Israel may keep whatever money it does not spend on relocation;
6. Recommends that Palestinians get to relocate to new Palestine according to the following conditions:
a. The refugees who are in the country with the highest refugee to citizen percentage will be allowed to return first;
b. Every year, only 10% of the refugees will be allowed to return to Palestine;
c. Refugees will only be allowed to return on years when there are absolutely no attacks against Israel;
7. Suggests that refugees who do not wish to return to Palestine will decide which country to relocate to from a list of countries that have agreed to take them;
a. Such countries will work with host countries to coordinate the relocation of refugees.
MUN Prepared Speech
I would like to draw your attention to resolution 2E.
Even though this resolution is not immediately beneficial to Israel, it is a solution that everyone should agree to because it helps everyone. Palestine gets the land and statehood they want, Israel gets the security they want, and everyone gets the peace that is the ultimate goal.
Although Palestine doesn’t get the amount of land they had before the British Mandate of Palestine, they have the opportunity to acquire much more land than they have at this point in time. The Palestinians have been losing land for over half a century. This is demonstrated in Map 3 of the Articles Packet. As you can see, Palestine has lost around 75-80% of its original borders. This is the main reason they attacked Israel after the UN Partition Plan. They were angry about the land that they had lost. Now that the Palestinians only have what is left of The Gaza Strip and The West Bank, they will be more willing to accept and be happy with all of the land that they can get. With this resolution the Palestinians won’t feel the need to attack Israel because they will feel that they have been given the chance to get back the land that they lost.
While Israel doesn’t like losing land, they do want security from the terrorist attacks on them. With this resolution, Israel can get that. According to Tony Williams’ “UN Issue Brief,” “Regular terrorist attacks in Israel have been happening since at least 1994.” And that “the terrorists have been killing Israeli civilians and soldiers quite frequently. These attacks include shootings, suicide bombings, and even killings by Palestinian policemen.” As you can see, there is a lot of hatred towards Israel; all Israel wants is peace and security from attacks like these. Supporters of Israel should agree to this resolution because it gives Israel a certain amount of security from terrorist attacks. If you will please look at operative 6c, you can see that “Refugees will only be able to return on years when there are absolutely no attacks against Israel.”
Both sides have equal blame for this sticky situation. Therefore, each side should have to give a little to find a solution to end this situation once and for all. That is why you should vote for this resolution because it has something that both sides can benefit from, at a certain price.
Even though this resolution is not immediately beneficial to Israel, it is a solution that everyone should agree to because it helps everyone. Palestine gets the land and statehood they want, Israel gets the security they want, and everyone gets the peace that is the ultimate goal.
Although Palestine doesn’t get the amount of land they had before the British Mandate of Palestine, they have the opportunity to acquire much more land than they have at this point in time. The Palestinians have been losing land for over half a century. This is demonstrated in Map 3 of the Articles Packet. As you can see, Palestine has lost around 75-80% of its original borders. This is the main reason they attacked Israel after the UN Partition Plan. They were angry about the land that they had lost. Now that the Palestinians only have what is left of The Gaza Strip and The West Bank, they will be more willing to accept and be happy with all of the land that they can get. With this resolution the Palestinians won’t feel the need to attack Israel because they will feel that they have been given the chance to get back the land that they lost.
While Israel doesn’t like losing land, they do want security from the terrorist attacks on them. With this resolution, Israel can get that. According to Tony Williams’ “UN Issue Brief,” “Regular terrorist attacks in Israel have been happening since at least 1994.” And that “the terrorists have been killing Israeli civilians and soldiers quite frequently. These attacks include shootings, suicide bombings, and even killings by Palestinian policemen.” As you can see, there is a lot of hatred towards Israel; all Israel wants is peace and security from attacks like these. Supporters of Israel should agree to this resolution because it gives Israel a certain amount of security from terrorist attacks. If you will please look at operative 6c, you can see that “Refugees will only be able to return on years when there are absolutely no attacks against Israel.”
Both sides have equal blame for this sticky situation. Therefore, each side should have to give a little to find a solution to end this situation once and for all. That is why you should vote for this resolution because it has something that both sides can benefit from, at a certain price.
Country Research - Israeli Palestinian Issue
1. “Russia Voting for Palestinian State at UN Next Week”- forbes.com
a. The Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, will be voting for a Palestinian state at a U.N. Security Council meeting on September 26. Russia is estimated to have the third largest Jewish population, after the U.S. and Israel. The Obama administration opposes a Palestinian state because it thinks that it wouldn’t help bring Palestinians and Israelis to negotiate. Russia disagrees. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that Palestine should only be its own state after a negotiated peace accord.
b. Russia is in support of the Palestinian right of return. Lavrov voted to have Palestine become its own state. There are a lot of Jews living Russia.
2. “Israel—Russia relationsàHistory”- wikipedia.org
a. Joseph Stalin adopted a pro-Zionist policy in late 1944, believing the new country would be socialist and would speed the decline of British influence in the Middle East. The Soviet Union voted in support of the UN Partition Plan for Palestine. May 17, 1948 the Soviet Union officially granted de jure recognition of Israel. The Soviet Union supported Israel when they were attacked by 5 Arab countries in the war of 1948. In 1955, members of the Warsaw Pact sold arms to Egypt and Syria. The USSR threatened to attack Israel in 1956 and 1973. The political relations between Israel and Russia was bad for more that forty years, as the Soviet Union supported Arab countries with state-of-the-art weaponry and training. It is debated whether or not the USSR orchestrated the UNGA resolution that labeled “Zionism” as “racism.” In December of 1991 the dissolution of the Soviet Union happened. Then there was a large immigration of Jews from Soviet states. In 2006, evidence of Russian anti-tank systems were found in Hezbollah’s possession by Israeli troops. Russia planned to sell advanced surface to air missiles to neighboring countries in order to dissuade Israel from attacking. Russia sent 60 tons of tent medicines, food and other humanitarian aid to the Palestinians.
b. At first Soviet Russia was in support of Israel, but then decided to back the Arabs. There were a lot of Jews living in the USSR that left when it was ended.
3. “Palestinian Jericho Names Street After Medvedev”- Ria Novosti
a. A central street in Jericho, Palestine was named after the Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, demonstrating the Russian-Palestinian friendship that has lasted for centuries.
b. This article shows that Russia is very good friends with Palestine. This means that Russia is in favor of the right of return.
4. “Palestine meets all UN requirements – Russian envoy”- Ria Novosti
a. Palestinian statehood bid meets all of the UN Charter requirements to be a UN member. Russia’s envoy to the UN, Vitaly Churkin, backs the bid based on the fact that it doesn’t hinder the negotiations with Israel. Churkin expressed concern over the continued building of Israel on occupied territories.
b. This article shows that Russia thinks that Palestine should become a state and that Israel should stop building on occupied territories.
5. “IPCRI: Russian involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict”- The Theory of Lines
a. This article is saying that Russia is in support of the “two state solution.” A professor from Israel says that Russia’s main reasons for interest in the region are political and economic.
b. Russia is in favor of the “two state solution” and making a peaceful border between Israel and Palestine.
a. The Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, will be voting for a Palestinian state at a U.N. Security Council meeting on September 26. Russia is estimated to have the third largest Jewish population, after the U.S. and Israel. The Obama administration opposes a Palestinian state because it thinks that it wouldn’t help bring Palestinians and Israelis to negotiate. Russia disagrees. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that Palestine should only be its own state after a negotiated peace accord.
b. Russia is in support of the Palestinian right of return. Lavrov voted to have Palestine become its own state. There are a lot of Jews living Russia.
2. “Israel—Russia relationsàHistory”- wikipedia.org
a. Joseph Stalin adopted a pro-Zionist policy in late 1944, believing the new country would be socialist and would speed the decline of British influence in the Middle East. The Soviet Union voted in support of the UN Partition Plan for Palestine. May 17, 1948 the Soviet Union officially granted de jure recognition of Israel. The Soviet Union supported Israel when they were attacked by 5 Arab countries in the war of 1948. In 1955, members of the Warsaw Pact sold arms to Egypt and Syria. The USSR threatened to attack Israel in 1956 and 1973. The political relations between Israel and Russia was bad for more that forty years, as the Soviet Union supported Arab countries with state-of-the-art weaponry and training. It is debated whether or not the USSR orchestrated the UNGA resolution that labeled “Zionism” as “racism.” In December of 1991 the dissolution of the Soviet Union happened. Then there was a large immigration of Jews from Soviet states. In 2006, evidence of Russian anti-tank systems were found in Hezbollah’s possession by Israeli troops. Russia planned to sell advanced surface to air missiles to neighboring countries in order to dissuade Israel from attacking. Russia sent 60 tons of tent medicines, food and other humanitarian aid to the Palestinians.
b. At first Soviet Russia was in support of Israel, but then decided to back the Arabs. There were a lot of Jews living in the USSR that left when it was ended.
3. “Palestinian Jericho Names Street After Medvedev”- Ria Novosti
a. A central street in Jericho, Palestine was named after the Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, demonstrating the Russian-Palestinian friendship that has lasted for centuries.
b. This article shows that Russia is very good friends with Palestine. This means that Russia is in favor of the right of return.
4. “Palestine meets all UN requirements – Russian envoy”- Ria Novosti
a. Palestinian statehood bid meets all of the UN Charter requirements to be a UN member. Russia’s envoy to the UN, Vitaly Churkin, backs the bid based on the fact that it doesn’t hinder the negotiations with Israel. Churkin expressed concern over the continued building of Israel on occupied territories.
b. This article shows that Russia thinks that Palestine should become a state and that Israel should stop building on occupied territories.
5. “IPCRI: Russian involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict”- The Theory of Lines
a. This article is saying that Russia is in support of the “two state solution.” A professor from Israel says that Russia’s main reasons for interest in the region are political and economic.
b. Russia is in favor of the “two state solution” and making a peaceful border between Israel and Palestine.