Model UN project wrap up
This project is useful because you have to know how to write well, speak well, and use correct language. In this project we learned how the world is run and how ineffective the UN can be at times. We had to know our countries perspective well in order to get a good grade on the project. At the conference we debated on the right of return for the Palestinians and the Israelis.
If I was giving advice to another student I would tell the student how to talk well during the conference and how to make good points that will leave the opponent stumped.
I was most proud of using advocacy during the conference by stand up for what my country thought even though it was not what I thought. My opinion was the two state solution while my countries view was the one state and optional resettlement in Arab countries.
The greatest challenge I faced was staying in character during the conference. I found that if I didn’t think about it that it became easier and easier to stay in character.
I thought that my resolution was the most interesting because it presented more than one option for the Palestinians.
In conclusion I have learned how to write well, speak well, and how to use my knowledge to my advantage.
In this project we studied the United Nation and how it worked. We wrote policy papers and resolutions and practiced parliamentary procedures following Robert's Rules. We had had to write amendments to the resolutions that we needed to change. We needed to stay in character of our countries in order to get a good grade. Lastly we needed to make sure we made good comments and make good points to do well in the conference.
If I was giving advice to another student I would tell the student how to talk well during the conference and how to make good points that will leave the opponent stumped.
I was most proud of using advocacy during the conference by stand up for what my country thought even though it was not what I thought. My opinion was the two state solution while my countries view was the one state and optional resettlement in Arab countries.
The greatest challenge I faced was staying in character during the conference. I found that if I didn’t think about it that it became easier and easier to stay in character.
I thought that my resolution was the most interesting because it presented more than one option for the Palestinians.
In conclusion I have learned how to write well, speak well, and how to use my knowledge to my advantage.
In this project we studied the United Nation and how it worked. We wrote policy papers and resolutions and practiced parliamentary procedures following Robert's Rules. We had had to write amendments to the resolutions that we needed to change. We needed to stay in character of our countries in order to get a good grade. Lastly we needed to make sure we made good comments and make good points to do well in the conference.
North Korea Resolution
First Committee
Session XII
Republic of Mexico
A Call to Arms: Ratifying an Arms Trade Treaty
Recognizing that North Korea is a possible threat, but that they have a right as a sovereign nation to have nuclear weapons,
Understanding that North Korea needs some form of protection from a large attack,
Recalling resolution 2087, The UN condemns the DPRK’s launch of 12 December 2012, which used ballistic missile technology and was in violation of resolutions 1718 (2006) and 1874 (2009),
Affirming that North Korea could have destroyed a country in that launch, but that they may have just
been testing their defenses.
Keeping in mind the horror that goes on inside the country like the starvation and the birth system, that they are a sovereign country all the same, which means they have the right to have nuclear weapons,
a. North Korea needs some nuclear power in case of an attack of a greater force, say Russia,
b. North Korea is threatening many countries including Mexico, but they have trade partners that will not get the goods that they need any more,
Arab Israeli Resolution
Mexico (Sean Thornton)
Resolution
OPTIONAL RESETTLEMENT AND A ONE STATE SOLUTION
The General Assembly,
Understanding that the past resolutions have not stopped the problem, Mexico proposes a solution to the matter,
Recalling resolution 273 of May 11th 1949, in which admission of Israel to membership in the UN was granted, but did not resolve the conflict,
Reaffirming that the problem was not solved and that Palestinian extremists, such as Hamas, are threatening to attack other countries after they take full control of Israel, (“Foreign Terrorist Organizations”)
Keeping in mind that Palestinian terrorists are killing Israeli soldiers and these attacks could lead to another full-out war,
Declaring that the problem must be solved, and that there are many solutions to the problem, but only a few will work,
Recalling resolutions that have failed to stop the problem such as UN resolution 194, guaranteeing that the Palestinians would be granted the right of return, and UN resolution 446, declaring that the Israeli settlements are illegal,
Clarifying that the Palestinians have the choice to live in Israel become citizens of the state, or if they do not want to live with the Israeli people, that they will be relocated to another one of the surrounding countries,
Having considered the one state solution and the two state solution, we decided that the only solution that would have worked would be the one state, but even that one had to be modified to allow for Palestinians who didn’t want to live in Israel,
Right of Return Policy Paper
Thornton 1
The Palestinian right of return
The Palestinians have occupied Israel since the 12th century B.C.E and will not give the land up without a fight, even if the people getting the land truly believe that they are the native inhabitants. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict began in the mid 20th century. Although the Palestinians have many homes and many of their belongings in the country, the Israelis cannot flee into one of the surrounding countries because the surrounding countries will not support them, therefore the Palestinians should not be granted the right of return. (“Right of Return” doc.)
“The Palestinians do not want to leave because of the feeling of home and belongingness. Most of their belongings are stored away in the homes there and they don’t want to give them up.” The argument is valid but the Israelis had that feeling first. They were forced to leave when the Romans took over full control of Jerusalem in the year 4 B.C.E. (“The History of Israel”) The Israeli were then assimilated into various other cultures and eventually left to fight in the war before they had a choice. When the war ended and the place of refuge for the Israeli was destroyed, The Israeli went seeking for another place of refuge, Palestine being that place. (“Why did jews leave Palestine in the first place?”)
“For centuries there was no such conflict. In the 19th century the land of Palestine was inhabited by a multicultural population – approximately 86 percent Muslim, 10 percent Christian, and 4 percent Jewish – living in peace.”(“A Synopsis of the Israeli/Palestinian Conflict”) The Israelis are not able to give the land back to the Palestinians because they are not able to go anywhere else. The Palestinians are Arab and will be supported by the surrounding countries.Give the land to the Israeli and move the Palestinians’ homes to the new location of the supporters.
“In the late 1800s a group in Europe decided to colonize this land. Known as Zionists, they represented an extremist minority of the Jewish population. Their goal was to create a Jewish homeland, and they considered locations in Africa and the Americas, before settling on Palestine. At first, this immigration created no problems. However, as more and more Zionists immigrated to Palestine – many with the express wish of taking over the land for a Jewish state – the indigenous population became increasingly alarmed. Eventually, fighting broke out, with escalating waves of violence. Hitler's rise to power, combined with Zionist activities to sabotage efforts to place Jewish refugees in western countries, led to increased Jewish immigration to Palestine, and conflict grew.” (“A Synopsis of the Israeli/Palestinian Conflict”) “Finally, in 1947 the United Nations decided to intervene. However, rather than adhering to the principle of “self-determination of peoples,” in which the people themselves create their own state and system of
government, the UN chose to revert to the medieval strategy whereby an outside power divides up other people’s land.” (“UN Partition Plan”) The Zionists went looking for a place to start an all Jewish state. Palestine was not their first choice for the state. The Jews believed that Jerusalem is where they originally lived. It was in their religion that that was where they came from and will return to. They were open to any country that was open and willing to support them for the time being. It just so happens that the one they “re-discovered”, after careful planning, was the one where the Jews originated.
The Palestinians should not be granted the right of return. Even though the Palestinians have been living there since the 12th century B.C.E they are not the original residents of Jerusalem. The Jews have nowhere else to go and believe that they belong in Israel. All the evidence cited points toward denying the right of return. The Israeli truly believe that they are the native inhabitants and they do not believe that the Palestinians have the right of return. The Israeli are in the Israeli homeland and the Arabs want to deny the Israeli the right to exist in the Palestinians land.
Arab Israeli Policy Paper
Mexico
Sean Thornton
Country’s View of The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
Mexico is a free state and recognizes Israel as a free state and, like the US believes, the Israelis should be allowed to stay in Israel. The Israeli settlements should not be illegal, but legal in the case of too many immigrants. “Mexico recognizes Israel as a free state, making specific and noteworthy trade agreements and military treaties with the country. However, the country does support UN resolutions, such as the one condemning Israel's actions in Gaza in 2004.” (“Mexico’s view on the conflict”) This choice is mostly based of the US’ decision. “Foreign Minister David Levy and Mexican Foreign Minister Rosario Green and Mexican Minister of Commerce and Industrial Development Dr. Blanco Mendoza Herminio today (Monday) 6.3.2000, in the presence of Presidents Ezer Weizman and Ernesto Zedillo, signed a free trade agreement between Israel and Mexico, which will become valid on 1 July, after it is ratified by the Israeli and Mexican governments.” (“Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs”) Mexico supports Israel and wouldn’t have signed that free trade agreement if they did not support Israel.
The Israeli settlements are not thought of as settlements by Mexico, but are thought of as hotels for the immigrants. We believe that the Israelis should be allowed to stay there in peace. The Palestinians retreat into another surrounding country be it Jordan, Syria, or Lebanon, and we move the homes of the Palestinians into a cleared area of said country. Thus preventing another war and proposing a solution to the Palestinians problems. Of course if some Palestinians don't want to leave Israel then Mexico and the US will support them with military power. If either the Israeli soldiers or the Palestinians do not heed our warnings tight sanctions will be placed on both sides. Any party that violates this agreement will be held accountable in the court of law.
First Committee
Session XII
Republic of Mexico
A Call to Arms: Ratifying an Arms Trade Treaty
Recognizing that North Korea is a possible threat, but that they have a right as a sovereign nation to have nuclear weapons,
Understanding that North Korea needs some form of protection from a large attack,
Recalling resolution 2087, The UN condemns the DPRK’s launch of 12 December 2012, which used ballistic missile technology and was in violation of resolutions 1718 (2006) and 1874 (2009),
Affirming that North Korea could have destroyed a country in that launch, but that they may have just
been testing their defenses.
Keeping in mind the horror that goes on inside the country like the starvation and the birth system, that they are a sovereign country all the same, which means they have the right to have nuclear weapons,
- Considers that the UN looks upon North Korea with pity, not spite;
a. North Korea needs some nuclear power in case of an attack of a greater force, say Russia,
b. North Korea is threatening many countries including Mexico, but they have trade partners that will not get the goods that they need any more,
Arab Israeli Resolution
Mexico (Sean Thornton)
Resolution
OPTIONAL RESETTLEMENT AND A ONE STATE SOLUTION
The General Assembly,
Understanding that the past resolutions have not stopped the problem, Mexico proposes a solution to the matter,
Recalling resolution 273 of May 11th 1949, in which admission of Israel to membership in the UN was granted, but did not resolve the conflict,
Reaffirming that the problem was not solved and that Palestinian extremists, such as Hamas, are threatening to attack other countries after they take full control of Israel, (“Foreign Terrorist Organizations”)
Keeping in mind that Palestinian terrorists are killing Israeli soldiers and these attacks could lead to another full-out war,
Declaring that the problem must be solved, and that there are many solutions to the problem, but only a few will work,
Recalling resolutions that have failed to stop the problem such as UN resolution 194, guaranteeing that the Palestinians would be granted the right of return, and UN resolution 446, declaring that the Israeli settlements are illegal,
Clarifying that the Palestinians have the choice to live in Israel become citizens of the state, or if they do not want to live with the Israeli people, that they will be relocated to another one of the surrounding countries,
Having considered the one state solution and the two state solution, we decided that the only solution that would have worked would be the one state, but even that one had to be modified to allow for Palestinians who didn’t want to live in Israel,
- Encourages the UN to foresee the negative consequences of the two state solution, which have failed to stop the problem;
- Recommends that Israel takes full control of the land including Jerusalem, and the Palestinians become citizens of the new state;
- The borders of the new state will be Israel’s current borders including the West Bank and the Gaza Strip:
- Both Palestinians and Israelis will have full citizenship and voting rights;
- The government will be a democracy;
- There will be an equal amount of Palestinian and Israel representatives;
- Human rights will be severely enforced by the UN to ensure equality, using UN troops for first five (5) years of its existence;
- Jerusalem will be the capital of this new state and there will be equal access to holy sites;
- Palestinians who refuse to live with Israeli people will be relocated to one of the surrounding countries: Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon;
- Palestinians who don’t wish to live in Israel will be relocated within the first five (5) years of this resolution’s passing;
- Countries that agree to take the refugees will be paid by the UN to help with the cost of the transition;
- Requests that tight sanctions and military action will be used if the following guidelines are not obeyed:
- There will be no war between Israelis and Palestinians;
- There will be no rebellion upon the elected leader of the new state;
- Further requests that if these laws are not followed, the individual that disobeys will be deported;
- Authorizes the UN to change any of these laws at any time if needed;
- Draws the attention of Israel to consider these new laws and the resolution;
- Trusts that the citizens of this new state follows said laws;
- Expresses its hope towards the new state of peace.
Right of Return Policy Paper
Thornton 1
The Palestinian right of return
The Palestinians have occupied Israel since the 12th century B.C.E and will not give the land up without a fight, even if the people getting the land truly believe that they are the native inhabitants. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict began in the mid 20th century. Although the Palestinians have many homes and many of their belongings in the country, the Israelis cannot flee into one of the surrounding countries because the surrounding countries will not support them, therefore the Palestinians should not be granted the right of return. (“Right of Return” doc.)
“The Palestinians do not want to leave because of the feeling of home and belongingness. Most of their belongings are stored away in the homes there and they don’t want to give them up.” The argument is valid but the Israelis had that feeling first. They were forced to leave when the Romans took over full control of Jerusalem in the year 4 B.C.E. (“The History of Israel”) The Israeli were then assimilated into various other cultures and eventually left to fight in the war before they had a choice. When the war ended and the place of refuge for the Israeli was destroyed, The Israeli went seeking for another place of refuge, Palestine being that place. (“Why did jews leave Palestine in the first place?”)
“For centuries there was no such conflict. In the 19th century the land of Palestine was inhabited by a multicultural population – approximately 86 percent Muslim, 10 percent Christian, and 4 percent Jewish – living in peace.”(“A Synopsis of the Israeli/Palestinian Conflict”) The Israelis are not able to give the land back to the Palestinians because they are not able to go anywhere else. The Palestinians are Arab and will be supported by the surrounding countries.Give the land to the Israeli and move the Palestinians’ homes to the new location of the supporters.
“In the late 1800s a group in Europe decided to colonize this land. Known as Zionists, they represented an extremist minority of the Jewish population. Their goal was to create a Jewish homeland, and they considered locations in Africa and the Americas, before settling on Palestine. At first, this immigration created no problems. However, as more and more Zionists immigrated to Palestine – many with the express wish of taking over the land for a Jewish state – the indigenous population became increasingly alarmed. Eventually, fighting broke out, with escalating waves of violence. Hitler's rise to power, combined with Zionist activities to sabotage efforts to place Jewish refugees in western countries, led to increased Jewish immigration to Palestine, and conflict grew.” (“A Synopsis of the Israeli/Palestinian Conflict”) “Finally, in 1947 the United Nations decided to intervene. However, rather than adhering to the principle of “self-determination of peoples,” in which the people themselves create their own state and system of
government, the UN chose to revert to the medieval strategy whereby an outside power divides up other people’s land.” (“UN Partition Plan”) The Zionists went looking for a place to start an all Jewish state. Palestine was not their first choice for the state. The Jews believed that Jerusalem is where they originally lived. It was in their religion that that was where they came from and will return to. They were open to any country that was open and willing to support them for the time being. It just so happens that the one they “re-discovered”, after careful planning, was the one where the Jews originated.
The Palestinians should not be granted the right of return. Even though the Palestinians have been living there since the 12th century B.C.E they are not the original residents of Jerusalem. The Jews have nowhere else to go and believe that they belong in Israel. All the evidence cited points toward denying the right of return. The Israeli truly believe that they are the native inhabitants and they do not believe that the Palestinians have the right of return. The Israeli are in the Israeli homeland and the Arabs want to deny the Israeli the right to exist in the Palestinians land.
Arab Israeli Policy Paper
Mexico
Sean Thornton
Country’s View of The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
Mexico is a free state and recognizes Israel as a free state and, like the US believes, the Israelis should be allowed to stay in Israel. The Israeli settlements should not be illegal, but legal in the case of too many immigrants. “Mexico recognizes Israel as a free state, making specific and noteworthy trade agreements and military treaties with the country. However, the country does support UN resolutions, such as the one condemning Israel's actions in Gaza in 2004.” (“Mexico’s view on the conflict”) This choice is mostly based of the US’ decision. “Foreign Minister David Levy and Mexican Foreign Minister Rosario Green and Mexican Minister of Commerce and Industrial Development Dr. Blanco Mendoza Herminio today (Monday) 6.3.2000, in the presence of Presidents Ezer Weizman and Ernesto Zedillo, signed a free trade agreement between Israel and Mexico, which will become valid on 1 July, after it is ratified by the Israeli and Mexican governments.” (“Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs”) Mexico supports Israel and wouldn’t have signed that free trade agreement if they did not support Israel.
The Israeli settlements are not thought of as settlements by Mexico, but are thought of as hotels for the immigrants. We believe that the Israelis should be allowed to stay there in peace. The Palestinians retreat into another surrounding country be it Jordan, Syria, or Lebanon, and we move the homes of the Palestinians into a cleared area of said country. Thus preventing another war and proposing a solution to the Palestinians problems. Of course if some Palestinians don't want to leave Israel then Mexico and the US will support them with military power. If either the Israeli soldiers or the Palestinians do not heed our warnings tight sanctions will be placed on both sides. Any party that violates this agreement will be held accountable in the court of law.