unsc - chrismun 2017.docx - google docs as representatives of member nations of the unsc, it is your...

Dear Delegates, We, Jamie Clark and Shanmukh Karra, will serve as your chairpersons for the UN Security

Council at ChrisMUN 2017. The dates of September 15th and 16th will be both challenging and

exhilarating. You will all have to deal with the enormous pressure and responsibility that comes

with being a member of this committee, whilst also coming up with befitting solutions to the

issues at hand.

The inception of the UN Security Council (in January 1946) established it as the principal organ

of the UN for maintaining international security. Aptly termed the most powerful council, the

Security Council is able to establish peacekeeping operations, impose sanctions, and even

authorize military action through its resolutions. The UNSC also observes a unique format,

consisting of five permanent members (USA, UK, Russia, China, and France) that can veto any

substantive Security Council resolution, and ten nonpermanent members that are elected on a

regional basis to serve twoyear terms. The P5 members thus wield greater influence over the

committee.

In this council, you must choose whether to condemn or support chemical weapons in Syria,

while weighing their effectiveness in battle against the impact they have on hundreds of

innocent citizens in Syrian war zones. You will also be faced with an issue that requires you to

keep historical context in mind while discussing whether or not Israel has the right to continue

building settlements in occupied Palestinian territory and whether the building of such

settlements ought to be condemned in view of the problems it creates for the Palestinian people.

Delegates, as representatives of member nations of the UNSC, it is your responsibility to weigh

in and deliberate on monumental topics that could change the course of history. We have

complete faith that you will be able to come up with resolutions that will turn the tide of history

and make valued judgements for the future of our world. Please remember that the background

guide is solely to give you an insight into the topic, and that further research on the topics is

highly recommended.

Your Chairs,

Jamie Clark

[email protected]

Shanmukh Karra

[email protected]

Issue 1: Condemning chemical weapon use in Syria

Summary: The use of chemical weapons in Syria has affected hundreds of people, including women and

children. Chemical weapons such as chlorine gas, mustard gas and sarin are banned by most

nations, yet continue to be used in Syria, by the Islamic State. They are especially difficult to

defend against without protective gear, which is mostly absent on the battlefield in Iraq and

Syria.

Delegates should consider the practicality of the use of chemical weapons in Syria and consider

whether to support or condemn their use in the warzone.

Background

What do we know about the regime's use of chemical weapons in Syria?

Martin Chulov, 2017

The Guardian

"How has the Assad regime used chemical weapons?

It has deployed them in a variety of ways over the past five years: in grenades and makeshift

bombs dropped from helicopters; rockets fired from jets; and artillery rounds and custom made

rockets fired from the ground.

Chlorine has frequently been used, but as it has an industrial purpose in Syria it is not banned.

Chlorine gas is a crude weapon that can be fatal in high concentrations. In lower doses, it can

damage lungs or cause severe breathing difficulties and other symptoms, including vomiting

and nausea.

The lethal nerve agent sarin has been deployed less often, but generates more outrage

internationally because it can cause widespread loss of life.

Its most recent use was in an attack on the northern town of Khan Sheikhun on 4 April. Earlier

attacks took place in villages near Aleppo, Homs, Idlib andthe outskirts of Damascus. A large

scale attack involving more than one tonne of sarin killed more than 1,300 people in the

suburbs of of the Syrian capital in August 2013. The overwhelming majority of those killed were

in opposition communities.

What do we know about the regime’s chemical weapons stocks?

It surrendered most of its stockpile of sarin over a sixmonth period after the Damascus attack.

The process was brokered by Russia, as a means of avoiding reprisal airstrikes on the Assad

regime, which had been threatened by the US. The weapons were transported out of Syria by

teams organised by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), which

had identified about 1,300 tonnes of sarin and chemicals used to produce it. While much of the

stockpile was withdrawn, intelligence agencies believe that up to five tonnes was not declared."

What is Sarin? "Sarin is a humanmade chemical warfare agent classified as a nerve agent. Nerve agents are

the most toxic and rapidly acting of the known chemical warfare agents. They are similar to

certain kinds of insecticides (insect killers) called organophosphates in terms of how they work

and what kind of harmful effects they cause. However, nerve agents are much more potent

than organophosphate pesticides.

All nerve agents cause their toxic effects by preventing the proper operation of an enzyme that

acts as the body’s “off switch” for glands and muscles. Without an “off switch,” the glands and

muscles are constantly being stimulated. Exposed people may become tired and no longer be

able to keep breathing.

Sarin is the most volatile of the nerve agents. This means it can easily and quickly evaporate

from a liquid into a vapor and spread into the environment. People can be exposed to the vapor

even if they do not come in contact with the liquid form of sarin.

People exposed to a low or moderate dose of sarin by breathing contaminated air, eating

contaminated food, drinking contaminated water, or touching contaminated surfaces may

experience some or all of the following symptoms within seconds to hours of exposure:

Runny nose

Watery eyes

Small, pinpoint pupils

Eye pain

Blurred vision

Drooling and excessive sweating

Cough

Chest tightness

Rapid breathing""

"

Key Facts

Exposure to sarin killed over 80 Syrians in April 2017 as well as 1400 Syrians in 2013.

Countries on the issue: Kazakhstan on the issue:

Seeks a political solution to the problem and condemns the use of chemical weapons in Syria.

“KAIRAT UMAROV (Kazakhstan) said there was no solution to the conflict other than a political

one, and condemned the use of chemical weapons. The Council should preserve its unity at

such a critical stage, he said, expressing Kazakhstan’s readiness to work on a compromise text.”

Italy on the issue: “SEBASTIANO CARDI (Italy) said his delegation had voted in favour to express outrage at the use

of chemical weapons and urge a rapid investigation. Emphasizing the essential importance of

fighting impunity, he said war crimes would continue to be committed until it ended.”

USA on the issue: “NIKKI HALEY (United States), Council President for April, speaking in her national capacity, said

the Russian Federation had said “no” to a text that would have promoted peace in Syria.

Having voted against a text on Syria for the eighth time, the Russian Federation was isolating

itself, she said, adding that Moscow had a lot to prove. To Syria, she said the United States was

watching the regime’s actions. “Your excuses will no longer be heard,” she added. “I suggest

you heed this warning.” “

UK on the issue: Mr. RYCROFT (United Kingdom) pointed out that while the Russian Federation’s Minister for

Foreign Affairs had called for an investigation, its representative on the Council had vetoed a

draft resolution that would have supported such a mission. Moscow’s message was

“confused”, he said, emphasizing that the regime in Syria would be held to account, regardless

of veto. Condemns chemical weapon use in syria.

Syria on the issue: “BASHAR JA’AFARI (Syria), reiterating that Syrians were victims of armed groups that had not

hesitated to use chemical weapons, said the Government was keen to determine who had used

them. It had made unprecedented commitments that had ended its chemical programme “in

record time”, he recalled. In its ongoing cooperation with the OPCW, Syria had requested that

investigations be launched in Khan Shaykhun and at the Shayrat air base in order to ascertain,

among other things, whether sarin gas had been stockpiled there, he said, noting that Nusrah

Front controlled Khan Shaykhun. Syria wanted the truth more than anyone, he stressed.

Rejecting the text’s “sly political language” seeking to accuse the Government of Syria in

advance, he said that whoever read it would understand that truth was not its true goal. Facts

had been doctored and evidence fabricated against the Government, which, for its part, had

sent 90 letters to the OPCW about the involvement of terrorist groups with chemical weapons.

Urging the Council to be rational and obtain clear responses, he cited examples of questionable

evidence, pointing out that all photographs of the Khan Shaykhun incident had come from

organizations supporting the armed groups. The “White Helmets” had worked with the United

Kingdom intelligence service, he added. For its part, Syria continued to heed all its OPCW

obligations, he emphasized. “

“Syria’s representative said that the France, United Kingdom and United States “triangle”

continued to pursue its politicized and dangerous approach to the situation in his country,

thereby subjecting the Government of Syria to the worst form of blackmail. Reiterating Syria’s

firm position against the use of chemical weapons and all weapons of mass destruction, he said

the draft’s main cosponsors had chosen to “ignore reality in order to further their agendas”,

and were attempting to levy all possible obstacles against a political solution to the conflict in

Syria.”

Palestine on the issue: Condemns the use of chemical weapons in syria. The protection of civilians is important and the

use of these weapons endangers citizens

Israel on the issue: Against President Assad of Syria as Israel believes the chemical weapons are a threat to its

national security.

Bolivia on the issue: “SACHA SERGIO LLORENTTY SOLÍZ (Bolivia), condemning the use of chemical weapons,

emphasized the need for an independent and thorough investigation into recent events in

Syria. Bolivia had voted against the draft to condemn chemical weapons in syria because the

Council should not be used as a sounding board for warrelated propaganda and

interventionism, he said. Noting that some Council members had been excluded from

negotiations on the text, he said the vote’s outcome had been known in advance. What was

the point of the exercise? he asked, questioning whether the Council was a pawn in the

negotiations between the Russian Federation and the United States. Were the sponsors acting

for the benefit of the Syrian people or for their own political and military ends?”

Sweden on the issue: “OLOF SKOOG (Sweden) deplored the Russian Federation’s further use of its veto power to

block a resolution on condemning chemical weapon use in Syria. The Council must come

together to ensure that those responsible for the horrendous attack were held accountable, he

said, adding that it must act in a united manner once the Joint Investigative Mechanism issued

its report.”

Senegal on the issue: Condemns the use of chemical weapons in syria and is supportive of a resolution to the conflict.

Seeks the truth through a transparent, unbiased and impartial investigation.

Uruguay on the issue: Condemns the use of chemical weapons in Syria and seeks the establishment of a factfinding

mission to find out what is happening in Syria.

China on the issue: “LIU JIEYI (China) said the draft resolution to condemn use of chemical weapons contained

language that his delegation supported, adding that China supported a political solution to the

conflict.”

France on the issue: Condemns the use of chemical weapons in Syria as the harm done to civilians is unacceptable.

Russia on the issue: “As one of Syria's top allies and one with veto power on the U.N. Security Council Moscow

time and time again has stymied efforts to punish Syrian President Bashar alAssad's

government for launching attacks killing innocent civilians and using weaponry derided by the

international community.”

On the resolution to condemn chemical weapon use in syria:

“Mr. SAFRONKOV (Russian Federation) said his delegation had voted against the draft because

of its “erroneous” contents, emphasizing that his country’s concerns and priorities had been

pushed aside. The main problem was that the “troika” of drafters had named a perpetrator

before a proper investigation had been conducted, he said, adding that by presenting a

“doomed” resolution they had undermined the Council’s unity. If partners thought it necessary

to adopt a meaningful resolution and agree upon a valid document, they should have aimed to

ensure the OPCW’s ability to conduct an impartial investigation, he said, pointing out that in the

eight days since the incident, no steps had been taken to investigate. A full and immediate

inquiry must be undertaken, he stressed, adding that Damascus had displayed a readiness to

cooperate and had proposed the immediate launch of an investigation. Some States had

expressed an antiregime slant and a reluctance to ensure a truly impartial investigation, he

said, cautioning that other incidents, involving extremists, could unfold.”

Japan on the issue: Does not support the use of chemical weapons, however, wishes to obtain more information on

the war at hand.

“KORO BESSHO (Japan) said the vote must not affect the Council’s position on the use of

chemical weapons as it shouldered its responsibility to find those responsible for the attack.”

Egypt on the issue: Called upon all parties to cooperate fully with international mechanisms, in accordance with

Council resolutions, for the sake of justice, saying that was the least that the Council owed the

Syrian people amid the great polarization dividing its members.

Condemns the use of chemical weapons.

Ukraine on the issue: “VOLODYMYR YELCHENKO (Ukraine) said his delegation had voted in favour of condemning

chemical weapon use in Syria because the incident must be investigated. “Today, I feel

ashamed,” he said. “This vote was a credibility test for the Council and we have not passed it.”

The inability to act had sent a message to perpetrators that they could “get away with

murder”.”

Ethiopia on the issue: “TEKEDA ALEMU (Ethiopia), urging the Council to remain united, expressed regret that it had

been unable to respond to the reported use of chemical weapons in Syria. No one disagreed

with the thrust of the draft, which was to investigate reports of a grave violation of

international law, but in failing to adopt the text, the Council had lost an opportunity to send a

powerful message on the use of chemical weapons.”

“Ethiopia’s representative, explaining his abstention, also condemned the use of chemical

weapons for any reason under any circumstance. In Syria, however, the Joint Investigative

Mechanism had not been able to find “highly convincing”, “substantial” or even “sufficient”

evidence, but only “sufficient information”, he emphasized. While Ethiopia’s belief that the

conclusions were not firm enough was not intended to cast aspersions on the Mechanism, he

said, it was nevertheless obligated to point out areas requiring further inquiry.”

Jordan on the issue: Condemns the use of chemical weapons in Syria. The effect of fighting should be minimal to

civilians. The use of chemical weapons is irresponsible as their effects persist for decades after

the war.

Links

https://www.un.org/press/en/2017/sc12791.doc.htm

http://www.bbc.com/news/worldmiddleeast29052144

http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/lafgisischemicalweapons2017story.html

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/04/timelineassadchemicalweaponscivilians

http://www.un.org/press/en/2017/sc12791.doc.htm


Countries

UK

USA

China

France

Russia

Bolivia

Japan

Egypt

Sweden

Senegal

Uruguay

Ukraine

Italy

Ethiopia

Kazakhstan

Egypt

Jordan

Syria

Israel

Palestine

Issue 2: Condemning the building of settlements in occupied Palestinian territory

Summary: Illegal under international law according to the fourth Geneva convention in 1949, the building

of settlements in occupied Palestinian territory has been an ongoing issue. Israel believes that

the land they are occupying has historical and religious connections and maintains that the

building of settlements represents an extension of their security interests in the face of groups

such as Hamas. Moreover, Israel denies the fact that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies to

territories occupied in the Six Day War in contrast to the Security Council, UN General

Assembly, International Committee of the Red Cross, the International Court of Justice and the

High Contracting Parties.

With this historical context in mind, delegates should discuss whether or not Israel has the right

to continue building settlements and whether the building of such settlements ought to be

condemned in terms of the restrictions and problems it creates for the Palestinian people and

the future of a twostate solution.

Background Israel believes they are within international law because it does not agree that the Geneva

convention applies to the territories occupied in the 1967 Six Day War. Although Israel defends

its actions, many international bodies have condemned their actions, including the UN security

council, the UN General Assembly, International Committee of the Red Cross, the International

Court of Justice and the High Contracting Parties, which all agree that the fourth Geneva

convention does apply to this case.

Israel says it’s a biblical historical and political connection to the land as well as security

interests.

Key Facts

Israel’s view on issue: Israel believes they are within international law because it does not agree that the Geneva

convention applies to the territories occupied in the 1967 Six Day War. Israel says it’s a biblical

historical and political connection to the land as well as security interests.

“[ Israel’s representative said those who had voted “yes” to the resolution had voted “no” to

negotiations, to progress and to a chance for better lives for both Israelis and Palestinians, and

to the possibility of peace. The resolution would continue to provide excuses for the

Palestinians to avoid recognizing Israel’s right to exist, he said, adding that the Council had

voted to condemn the State of Israel and the Jewish people for building homes in the land of

Israel, and to deny “our eternal rights” in Jerusalem. “We will continue to be a democratic

State based on the rule of law and full civil and human rights for all our citizens,” he declared.

“And we will continue to be a Jewish State proudly reclaiming the land of our forefathers.” ]”

Palestine on the issue: “The Permanent Observer of the State of Palestine said the Council’s action, while

longoverdue, was timely, necessary and important. The resolution required vigilant followup

if it was to be meaningful and salvage a twoState solution from relegation to history’s archives.

Israel’s illegal settlements and its wall had undermined the contiguity of Palestinian land and

isolated East Jerusalem. To claims of bias, he said the only bias was against law, reason and the

vision of two States as the most viable solution.”

“RIYAD MANSOUR, Permanent Observer for the State of Palestine, said that the Council’s

action, while long overdue, was timely, necessary and important. Over the years, the

delegation of the State of Palestine had made countless appeals for the Council to uphold its

Charter duties, insisting on the need to confront Israel’s oppression of Palestinians and its

relentless colonization of their land under a halfcentury of foreign occupation. Those appeals

had been calls for the Council to contribute to the cause of peace — for Palestine, Israel, the

Middle East and the world, he said.

The resolution would require vigilant followup if it was to be meaningful and if it would salvage

the twoState solution from relegation to history’s archives, he said. Urgent efforts would be

needed to reverse the dangerous, negative trends on the ground and to advance collective

efforts to end the occupation that had begun in 1967. For five decades, the occupation had

persisted with full force, its illegal settlements and wall having undermined the contiguity of

Palestinian lands and isolated East Jerusalem. In response to claims of bias, he said the only

bias taking place was bias against law, reason and the vision of two States as the most viable

solution.

Urging the Security Council to stand firm by its decision, he expressed hope that the global call

for an end to Israel’s settlement activities and violations would compel its compliance with the

law, deescalate tensions and bring an end to violence. That would be vital for salvaging the

prospects for peace and should be led by responsible Council action, including followup to the

reports requested of the SecretaryGeneral in relation to implementation of today’s resolution.

Recognizing the efforts of Arab States in the context of the Arab Peace Initiative, as well as

those of France, the Quartet, Egypt and the Russian Federation, he called for intensified

international and regional efforts to end Israel’s occupation and build a just and lasting peace in

an independent, sovereign and contiguous State of Palestine, side by side with Israel and within

secure and recognized borders.”

Egypt’s view on the issue: “Egypt’s representative said the text expressed the painful reality of illegitimate settlements

and confiscation of Palestinian land. Noting that his delegation had been compelled to

withdraw its own draft resolution, he emphasized that it was unacceptable for some Council

members to have warned Egypt, recalling that his country had been the first to make peace

with Israel.”

France on the issue: “FRANÇOIS DELATTRE (France) described the resolution’s adoption as an important and historic

event, noting that it marked the first time that the Council had clearly stated the obvious:

settlement activities undermined a twoState solution. Israel’s settlement building had

accelerated, fuelling tension on the ground, and it was now part of a deliberate policy aiming to

create facts on the ground in the West Bank and east Jerusalem. Acts of violence, incitement

and terrorism also undermined the chances for a twoState solution, he said, pointing out that

the resolution strongly reiterated its condemnation of all acts of terrorism and called on the

Palestinian Authority to discourage them. The resolution was also meant to create the

conditions for a resumption of negotiations. Emphasizing that peace could only be based on a

twoState solution, he said France would organize an international conference in Paris to

relaunch the negotiation process. Today’s resolution and the Paris conference were both

aimed at reiterating support for a twoState solution, he added.”

UK on the issue: “MATTHEW RYCROFT United Kingdom said the adoption [of the resolution] reaffirmed the

belief that a twoState solution was the only way to a just and lasting peace. In that context, it

was critical to end all terrorism and incitement, he emphasized, adding that it was also

necessary to end the expansion of settlements. The United Kingdom rejected all efforts to

delegitimize Israel, and it was as a friend of that country that it supported the resolution text,

since it was in the best interests of both sides and renewed efforts for a peaceful twoState

solution. He stressed, however, that he did not anticipate an easy road to that goal.”

China on the issue: “WU HAITAO (China), welcoming the adoption, said the resolution reflected the common

aspiration of the international community. He urged Israel to implement the resolution and

called upon both sides to reestablish mutual trust so that a just and lasting solution could be

reached in the form of two secure States coexisting peacefully. China would continue to

support efforts to achieve that goal, he pledged.”

“China will continue supporting the Palestinian people, the country’s president said during a

press conference with his Palestinian counterpart July 18th 2017. According to Palestinian news

agency Wafa, Xi Jinping said China would continue to support the “Palestinian cause and

struggle to regain their national rights regardless of the international developments,” and

would continue to provide assistance to the Palestinian people.”

Russia on the issue: “VITALY I. CHURKIN (Russian Federation), explaining that he had been puzzled by the process

around the resolution and by the haste with which it had been “pushed” to the vote, agreed

with other speakers that settlement activities undermined the chances for a twoState solution,

as did acts of terror and incitement to violence. Emphasizing that his country had been

involved in the peace process for a long time, he said the work of the Middle East Quartet

(European Union, Russian Federation, United Nations, United States) remained important and

effective. Its July report was still relevant, and implementation of its recommendations would

help to return the process to the political track, he added.”

Japan on the issue: “KORO BESSHO (Japan) said he was deeply concerned about the current stagnation in the peace

process. Noting that settlement activities were in violation of international law and had been

eroding the viability of a twoState solution, he emphasized the importance of the parties

committing themselves to the resolution. Peace in the Middle East could only be realized

through negotiations, he said, stressing that Japan would not recognize any unilateral change

by either party that might prejudge the final resolution of the conflict.”

Uruguay on the issue: “LUIS BERMÚDEZ (Uruguay) said the resolution represented a critical effort to address negative

trends in the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. Hopefully it would be a call for action

towards the resumption of negotiations on a peaceful, negotiated twoState solution. Uruguay

would continue to support that goal, he pledged, noting that both Israelis and Palestinians

deserved it, exhausted as they were by many decades of conflict.”

Senegal on the issue: “GORGUI CISS (Senegal), welcoming the adoption, affirmed that the settlements were illegal

under international law. They encouraged violence against both Israelis and Palestinians, and

harmed the aspirations of both to a peaceful future. Renewing condemnations of all acts of

terrorism and violence while expressing support for initiatives that could move the peace

process forward, he called for the coordination of all such initiatives.”

Sweden on the issue: Sweden is the first EU member state in western Europe to recognize Palestine. It condemns the

building of illegal settlements in Palestine and wants to see peace talks between Israel and

Palestine start.

Kazakhstan on the issue: Kazakhstan hopes that both parties respect international law and that failure to do so would

mean being unable to resolve the country. The building of illegal settlements hinders the peace

process between Israel and Palestine. Kazakhstan hopes that a two state solution will soon be

reached.

Ethiopia on the issue: “The President of Ethiopia said that his country supports the Palestinian cause and Palestinian

rights based on the twostate solution, Anadolu has reported. President Teshome supports the

twostate solution in the Middle East through negotiations.”

Italy on the issue: “The Italian Foreign Minister Frederico Mogherini told Italians “not to get involved in financial

activity and investments” in settlements in the West Bank, Italian media reported.”

Bolivia on the issue: “In a statement during a Security Council debate on Palestine, Bolivian ambassador Sacha

Llorenti, who is currently the President of the Council for June, expressed “great concern about

the grave political, economic, social, humanitarian, and security situation in the occupied

Palestinian territories, as a result of ongoing and loathful policies by Israel, the occupying

power.” Llorenti used the opportunity to warn the international community not to turn its back

on Palestine.”

“Bolivia reaffirms its support for the selfdetermination of the Palestinian people, and their

right to a state providing freedom and sovereignty,” he said in his opening remarks to the

council.

Referencing what he called the “widespread human trauma and humanitarian disaster” caused

by the military actions taken by Israel in Gaza in 2014, the Bolivian ambassador said that his

government “condemns Israels continuing military occupation of the Palestinian territories in

breach of international law... including... reported war crimes by use of excessive,

indiscriminative force, that over the years has killed and injured thousands of Palestinian

civilians, including children.”

Bolivian President Evo Morales formally broke diplomatic ties with Israel in 2014 following the

Gaza attacks, condemning it as a “terrorist state.”

Ukraine on the issue: Believes that Israel is going against international law by creating illegal settlements in

Palestinian territory. Israel should not be above the law.

Jordan’s view on the issue: “Jordan’s Foreign Minister Nasser Judeh says Israel’s illegal settlement activities in the

Palestinian occupied territories should be completely frozen.

"Settlement activities should be completely stopped in the occupied Palestinian territories as

well as all unilateral Israeli measures," Judeh told UN special coordinator for the Middle East

talks, Robert Serry.

He said that the demographic and geographic changes occurring in the occupied Palestinian

territories resulting from the construction of illegal settlement activities are the main cause of

the longfrozen talks between the Palestinians and the Israelis.

Judeh said the unilateral Israeli measures in the occupied West Bank and illegally annexed East

alQuds (Jerusalem) are illegal.

These measures have destroyed the twostate solution as they divide the Palestinian territories

and make them geographically unconnected, Judeh pointed out.

The Jordanian foreign minister stressed that the international community must adopt stringent

measures and pressure Israel to move the realization of the twostate solution.”

Syria’s view on the issue: Condemns the building of illegal settlements. Syria believes that Israel is breaking international

law and hindering the peace process with Palestine.

US view on the issue: “SAMANTHA POWER, Explaining her delegation’s abstention, the representative of the United

States said it had been a longstanding position of her country that settlements undermined

Israel’s security and eroded prospects for peace and stability. She emphasized, however, that

her vote today had not been straightforward. Explaining that Israel had been treated

differently from other States for as long as it had been a member of the United Nations, she

noted that during the course of 2016, 18 resolutions adopted in the General Assembly and

others in the Human Rights Council had all condemned Israel. It was because of that bias that

the United States had not voted in favour of the resolution, she said, emphasizing that her

delegation would not have let the resolution pass had it not addressed terrorism and

incitement to violence.”

Links

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/israelisettlementscontroversyexplainedwhyitmatte

rsn700761


http://www.bbc.com/news/av/worldmiddleeast40136166/sixdaywarwhathappenedin60

seconds

http://www.bbc.com/news/worldmiddleeast39960461

http://english.alakhbar.com/node/22258

https://www.rt.com/news/168912spainitalyisraelisettlements/

http://www.arabamerica.com/ongoingloathfulboliviacondemnsisraelisettlements/

www.palestinechronicle.com/jordanisraelisettlementsillegal/?print=pdf

unsc - chrismun 2017.docx - google docs as representatives of member nations of the unsc, it is your...

Documents