[thunder_chunky]

A new resolution submitted by the representative for Israel.

Submitted by the State of Israel in response to the UAE's one-sided resolution, we feel the need to counterbalance this to protect our citizens' security.

Resolution 11/07 Concerning the Israeli-Arab Conflict, Israel

Resolution 11/07 Concerning the Israeli-Arab Conflict

Committee: Security Council
Submitted by: The State of Israel

Recalling all past efforts of the State of Israel to achieve piece through negotiations, to no avail;
Desiring peace in the region to advance the interests of all people, regardless of religion or nationality;
Bearing in mind the necessity of security measures to prevent the spread of Islamist terrorism which threatens secular democracy not only in Israel but in Arab countries too;
Alarmed by the increasing support given to Iranian proxies such as Hamas and Hezbollah, both sworn to the destruction of the Jewish people;
Noting the prominence of corruption and terrorist sympathy within the Palestinian Authority;
Seeking security and self-determination for both Palestinians and Jews in their respective lands;

1. Affirms our commitment to a lasting peace.
2. Demands the cessation of anti-Semitic and anti-Israel attitudes at senior levels of the Palestinian Authority.
3. Notes our refusal to negotiate with Hamas, a USA/EU recognised terrorist organisation, whilst they are still sworn to Israel's destruction.
4. Reminds the world that our blockade of Gaza is merely a temporary measure designed to stop unrelenting rocket attacks on Southern Israel, and is well within the legal boundaries of maritime law.
5. Draws the attention of the world to the more than a dozen thousand tonnes of goods that enter Gaza every week from Israel.
6. Calls upon the international community to respect Israeli sovereignty over matters vital to the security of the Jewish people.
7. Reminds the international community that whilst Arabs across the region are fighting for their rights, Israeli Arabs have full civil, economic and political rights in the Jewish State.
8. Expresses that settlements and the future of Jerusalem are matters for the final round of peace talks, as stipulated in the Israeli-Palestinian co-signed Oslo Accords.

החלטה 07/11 בדבר הסכסוך הישראלי ערבי, ישראל

07/11 החלטה בדבר הסכסוך הישראלי ערבי

הוועדה: מועצת הביטחון
נשלח על ידי: מדינת ישראל

נזכרתי כל המאמצים האחרונים של מדינת ישראל על מנת להשיג פיסת באמצעות משא ומתן, אך ללא הועיל;
ברצותן שלום באזור כדי לקדם את האינטרסים של כל האנשים, ללא הבדל דת או לאום;
בהתחשב את הצורך באמצעי אבטחה כדי למנוע את התפשטות הטרור האיסלאמי המאיים על הדמוקרטיה החילונית לא רק בישראל אלא במדינות ערב;
מזועזע את התמיכה הגוברת ניתנה שליחים איראניים כגון חמאס וחיזבאללה, הן נשבעו חורבן העם היהודי;
וציין חשיבותו של שחיתות אהדה הטרור ברשות הפלסטינית;
מחפש אבטחה להגדרה עצמית עבור שני פלסטינים ויהודים בארצות שלהם, בהתאמה;

1. מאשרת את המחויבות שלנו לשלום בר קיימא.
2. דרישות הפסקת עמדות אנטישמיות ואנטי ישראליות בדרגים בכירים של הרשות הפלסטינית.
3. הערות סירובנו לשאת ולתת עם חמאס, ארה"ב / האיחוד האירופי הכיר ארגון טרור, בעוד הם נשבעו עדיין להשמדת ישראל.
4. מזכיר את העולם כי המצור שלנו על עזה הוא רק אמצעי זמני שנועד לעצור את ירי הרקטות הבלתי פוסק על דרום ישראל, היא גם בתוך גבולות המשפטי של החוק הימי.
5. מפנה את תשומת הלב של העולם על יותר מתריסר אלף טון של סחורות לרצועה מדי שבוע מישראל.
6. קוראת הקהילה הבינלאומית לכבד את הריבונות הישראלית על עניינים חיוניים לביטחון של העם היהודי.
7. מזכיר את הקהילה הבינלאומית כי בעוד הערבים ברחבי האזור נלחמים על זכויותיהם, לערביי ישראל יש זכויות אזרחיות, כלכליות ופוליטיות מלא במדינה היהודית.
8. כי מביע ההתנחלויות ואת עתידה של ירושלים הם עניינים לסיבוב האחרון של שיחות השלום, כפי שנקבע בין ישראל לפלסטינים שיתוף שנחתם הסכם אוסלו.

[thunder_chunky]

(Original post by Rhadamanthus)
QFA

I hope this is ok. If you don't want that first bit of text in there then let me know and I'll remove it.

[tehFrance]

The Islamic Republic of Iran acknowledges and does not believe Israel's rebuttal.

-----------------

The Republic of Finland accepts and supports Israel's rebuttal.

[smwhtslghtlydzd]

Lebanon acknowledges the resolutions of both the UAE and Israel and expresses hope that these resolutions can be combined to find a solution that both sides can accept.

[DayneD89]

The UAE certainly did not bring forth a one sided resolution. Our resolution merely calls for negotiations to start and calls for Israel to stop it's illegal occupation. It condemns both sides for attacks and introduces a peacekeeping force to prevent any further violence from either side.

This resolution is a waste of time. It does nothing. It is a defence of illegal activity that must be stopped to bring peace to the region. We are not calling for an end to Israel, we are calling for a two state system and the removal of Israel from the occupied lands.

Why if in the resolution Israel states 'Seeking security and self-determination for both Palestinians and Jews in their respective lands', does Israel not support our resolution calling for both sides to reach an agreement and stop fighting?

دولة الإمارات العربية المتحدة بالتأكيد لم تسفر عن قرار من جانب واحد. قرارنا لمجرد دعوات لبدء المفاوضات، وتدعو اسرائيل لوقف الاحتلال انها غير قانونية. انها تدين الهجمات على الجانبين وتقدم قوة لحفظ السلام لمنع أي مزيد من العنف من أي من الجانبين.

هذا القرار هو مضيعة للوقت. فإنه لا يفعل شيئا. بل هو دفاع عن النشاط غير القانوني الذي يجب أن يتوقف لإحلال السلام في المنطقة. نحن لا ندعو إلى وضع حد لإسرائيل ، ونحن ندعو لنظام الدولتين والعمل على إزالة إسرائيل من الأراضي المحتلة.

لماذا إذا في "البحث عن الأمن وتقرير المصير للفلسطينيين واليهود في الأراضي التابعة لكل منها وينص القرار إسرائيل، هل إسرائيل لا تدعم قرارنا دعا الجانبين للتوصل الى اتفاق ووقف القتال؟

The DPRK follows point 3 with Israel. We do not wish to negotiate with a nation that is a threat to peace in the middle east, a US supported stalite that keeps the area in near constant conflict.

120 nations now recignise the Palestine state. Here is that statistic on map;



The world supports the existance of Palestine, yet the US continues to block any attempt to force it's satelite to follow international law and allow these people self-determination.

조선 민주주의 인민 공화국은 이스라엘과 포인트 3을 따릅니다. 우리는 중동, 근처의 지속적인 갈등의 영역을 유지하는 미국 지원 위성의 평화에 위협이되는 국가와 협상을하고자하지 않습니다.

120 개국은 현재 팔레스타인의 상태를 인식하고 있습니다. 여기지도 그 통계는;



세계는 팔레스타인의 존재를 지원 아직 미국은 국제법에 따라 이들에게 자결을 허용하는 위성의 강제로 모든 시도를 차단하고 있습니다.

[terza021]

China does not support this resolution. China thinks that Israel is actively doing segregation on the Palestine people, treating them like they are lower race (same as Hitler did to the Jews), not just the terrorists that you mentioned. Also you speak about the Hamas being the terrorist organization, that is so, but you till have PLO and you do not even bother to work out any deal between you. You speak about the constant flow of goods into the Gaza strip, than how can you explain that there are more and more poor and hungry every day, plus that they are not allowed to exist the strip. If you send constant supplies there that why not lift the siege totally. So as my colleague Dayne pointed out China already has diplomatic relation with the palestine and that we will do our best to ensure long lasting peace be made there, and to be honest resolutions like these in which ISrael is calling the world to just ignore Palestine wont do any help to that peace, thus I have to conclude that Israel's claim that they are committed to lasting peace is false, when in reality they are only adding fuel to the fire.

中国不支持这一决议。� �国认为，以色列是积极� ��好对巴勒斯坦人民的隔 离，治疗他们像他们较� �的种族（犹太人希特勒� ��同），而不仅仅是你所 提到的恐怖分子。你也� �，就是这样的恐怖组织� ��哈马斯，但你，直到有 巴解组织和你甚至不打� �工作你们之间的任何交� ��。请您谈谈比你怎么解 释，有越来越多的贫困� �饥饿的每一天，再加上� ��们是不允许存在的地带 ，在加沙地带的货物不� �流入。如果您发送的不� ��供应，为什么不能完全 解除封锁。因此，正如� �的同事戴恩指出，中国� ��经与巴勒斯坦和外交关 系，我们将竭尽所能，� �确保持久的和平作出，� ��像这样诚实的决议，以 色列呼吁世界不理巴勒� �坦习惯做任何有利于和� ��，所以我不得不得出结 论，以色列声称，他们� �力于持久的和平是虚假� ��，在现实中，他们只需 要添加燃料火。

[andrewmc96]

Poland agrees with Lebanon that both resolutions should be combined into one that will suit the needs of both Israel and Palestine. There are points in both resolutions that Poland is unable to support and therefore is forced to abstain from both resolutions.

[Rhadamanthus]

We do not support the UAE's proposal, as stated, due to its calls for UN peacekeepers to patrol the border between Israel and Palestine. UN peacekeepers have been patrolling the Israel-Lebanon border for years and have done nothing to stop Hezbollah attacks. Israel utterly rejects the idea that we should place our trust in the UN to prevent another invasion like those of 1948, 1967 and 1973. We also reject any resolution which condemns the settlement of Jews on empty land under Israeli military control. Control over the West Bank passed to Israel in 1967 in a war of self-defence. For nearly a quarter of a century afterwards, the Palestinians rejected every Israeli overture, missing opportunity after opportunity to peacefully resolve the dispute through negotiation. It is important to remember that Israel's control of the territories was the result of a war of self-defence, fought after Israel's very existence was threatened. It has continued due to the intransigence of Israel's Arab neighbours, who steadfastly rejected Israel's many offers of peace, including its post-Six Day War message that it would exchange territory in return for peace. Egypt, in 1979, and Jordan, in 1994, signed peace treaties with Israel. But the Palestinians have yet to do so. As long as the future status of the West Bank is subject to negotiation, Israel's claim to this disputed territory is no less valid than that of the Palestinians. We have been involved in direct negotiations for years yet every offer made by us has been rejected.

We are insulted by China's remarks and would like to remind them that any comparison between Israel and the Nazis falls under the definition of anti-Semitic behaviour. We hope China will see the egregious and insulting error made and revoke their remarks.

As for the DPRK's statement, we have explained before why the premature recognition of a Palestinian state would be a bad idea. The State of Israel has been committed to peace-talks with the eventual establishment of a Palestinian state, but we do not feel that a unilateral declaration is beneficial to either party. It has been widely recognised that Israel must make concessions with regards to settlements and military action, and the Palestinians must attempt to combat extremist terrorism and corruption. A unilateral declaration without addressing all of these issues is in violation of many previous accords and very dangerous for both parties.

A unilateral declaration harms true peace, challenging the most basic principles of Mideast peacemaking, and undermines all internationally accepted frameworks for peace. All call for a mutually-negotiated and agreed resolution of the conflict. All reject unilateral actions. Agreements should be respected. They certainly should be respected in the United Nations. Yet in just a few months time, the Palestinian Authority (PA) is expected to violate its agreements with Israel and all the international frameworks for Mideast peace by seeking premature recognition of a Palestinian state in the UN in September.

Israel remains dedicated to direct negotiations as the only method of resolving the conflict. Meanwhile, the Palestinian Authority has long abandoned peace negotiations. Instead, the Palestinian leadership has embarked on the path of unilateral action, preferring to attempt to force their will on Israel through international pressure. It has long been the dream of the Palestinians to bypass a negotiated settlement, bypass the need for necessary compromises through the application of international coercion on Israel. A unilateral declaration harms true peace, challenging the most basic principles of Mideast peacemaking. It undermines all internationally accepted frameworks for peace, including UN Security Council Resolutions 242, 338, 1850 and the Roadmap for peace. All call for a mutually-negotiated and agreed resolution of the conflict. All reject unilateral actions.

The declaration of Palestinian statehood outside the context of a negotiated settlement would violate existing bilateral Palestinian-Israeli peace agreements. The important Interim Agreement from 1995, which expressly prohibits unilateral action by either side to change the status of the West Bank and Gaza, would be breached. A unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood will do nothing to solve the conflict. Indeed, it would intensify rather than end it. The Palestinians would no longer have any incentive to negotiate and compromise. Unilateral measures will not settle any of the key permanent status issues, such as borders, Jerusalem and refugees. As has been agreed previously between the sides - and supported by the international community - these complicated issues can only be resolved in direct negotiations between the parties. Premature recognition would ignore Israel’s legitimate concerns, especially regarding security issues. It would also allow the Palestinians to continue to avoid the important step of mutual recognition, which includes Israel’s right to exist as the nation-state of the Jewish people. This issue lies at the core of the conflict and its avoidance will harm efforts to reach a genuine peace.

Moreover, recognition of Palestinian statehood at this time is an untenable move as the Palestinian Authority currently fails to meet the established legal tests for statehood. In particular, the PA does not pass the test of effective government: it does not rule the territory in question. According to existing agreements, the PA exercises varying degrees of control only over relatively small areas of the West Bank. Furthermore, the PA does not have effective control over the Hamas-run Gaza Strip, despite the recent reconciliation agreement among Palestinian factions. Recognition at this time would constitute recognition of a terrorist entity. Hamas seeks Israel's destruction and rejects the most basic conditions of the international community for recognition as a legitimate actor in the region (recognition of Israel's right to exist, acceptance of existing agreements and an end to violence). In preparation for the unilateral declaration of a state, the Palestinian Authority has signed a reconciliation agreement with the Hamas. Supporting this agreement without any change in position by Hamas would serve as de facto international recognition of Hamas' legitimacy. It should be remembered that Hamas continues to be recognised as a terrorist organization, outlawed in numerous states throughout the world, including the UK and the US.

On the other hand, Israel has a long proven track record of making strategic concessions for peace. It has proved its willingness to negotiate land transfers, abandoning Sinai for peace with Egypt and leaving the Gaza Strip and South Lebanon. The fact that Israeli peace steps in the last two instances were answered with rockets and violent attacks should be a sobering warning about the risks Israel takes for peace and the importance of reaching a solution that serves the interest of all sides to the conflict. Clearly, premature recognition of a Palestinian state would render the negotiating process and the ideals of compromise and dialogue meaningless. All who desire true peace in this region should reject Palestinian efforts to act unilaterally and forsake the negotiating process. Only through direct negotiations can a lasting peace agreement be reached.

[DayneD89]

(Original post by andrewmc96)
Poland agrees with Lebanon that both resolutions should be combined into one that will suit the needs of both Israel and Palestine. There are points in both resolutions that Poland is unable to support and therefore is forced to abstain from both resolutions.

There is nothing in this resolution though. This resolution does not look to building a peaceful middle east. Instead this resolution would have no effect, while ours would promote peace in the region.

لا يوجد شيء في هذا القرار بالرغم من ذلك. هذا القرار لا ننظر إلى بناء السلام في الشرق الأوسط. بدلا من ذلك فإن هذا القرار ليس لها أي تأثير، في حين أن بلدنا من شأنها تعزيز السلام في المنطقة.

(Original post by Rhadamanthus)
We do not support the UAE's proposal, as stated, due to its calls for UN peacekeepers to patrol the border between Israel and Palestine. UN peacekeepers have been patrolling the Israel-Lebanon border for years and have done nothing to stop Hezbollah attacks. Israel utterly rejects the idea that we should place our trust in the UN to prevent another invasion like those of 1948, 1967 and 1973. We also reject any resolution which condemns the settlement of Jews on empty land under Israeli military control. Control over the West Bank passed to Israel in 1967 in a war of self-defence. For nearly a quarter of a century afterwards, the Palestinians rejected every Israeli overture, missing opportunity after opportunity to peacefully resolve the dispute through negotiation. It is important to remember that Israel's control of the territories was the result of a war of self-defence, fought after Israel's very existence was threatened. It has continued due to the intransigence of Israel's Arab neighbours, who steadfastly rejected Israel's many offers of peace, including its post-Six Day War message that it would exchange territory in return for peace. Egypt, in 1979, and Jordan, in 1994, signed peace treaties with Israel. But the Palestinians have yet to do so. As long as the future status of the West Bank is subject to negotiation, Israel's claim to this disputed territory is no less valid than that of the Palestinians. We have been involved in direct negotiations for years yet every offer made by us has been rejected.

The middle east has many peacekeeping missions, and most of these are due to the agressive policy of Israel. Golan Heights is Israeli occupied Syria for example. These peacekeeping missions are not always successful in maintaining peace, but they show that the world is taking action and the UN is dedicated to peace in that area. It has been shown that, without placing blame on either side, Israel and Palestine cannot reach an agreement. That is why we have set a timeline for talks, so that an agreement is to be reached, and if it has not been then a report can be made, the reasons looked into and more provisions made to ensure peace in the area and ongoing negotiations to resolve the conflict.

We are not here to place blame on history. We are attempting to resolve the problem we have now. Where there is an ongoing war and an illegally occupied territory it is important that peacekeeping forces be brought in and negotiations are forced to continue. Unless your offers are to withdraw from Palestinian lands however I can see why they would be rejected. Does Israel not understand that these lands are not the lands of Israel?

الشرق الأوسط والعديد من بعثات حفظ السلام، ومعظم هذه هي نتيجة لسياسة إسرائيل العدوانية. مرتفعات الجولان السورية المحتلة واسرائيل على سبيل المثال. هذه بعثات حفظ السلام ليست دائما ناجحة في الحفاظ على السلام، لكنها تظهر أن العالم اتخاذ إجراءات ومكرس للأمم المتحدة للسلام في هذا المجال. وقد تبين أنه من دون وضع اللوم على أي من الطرفين، اسرائيل وفلسطين لا يمكن التوصل إلى اتفاق. هذا هو السبب لدينا وضع جدول زمني للمحادثات ، بدا الأسباب بحيث يتم التوصل إلى اتفاق يتم التوصل إليها، وإذا لم يكن ثم يمكن وضع تقرير، وإلى مزيد من الأحكام التي بذلت لضمان السلام في المنطقة والمفاوضات الجارية من أجل حل الصراع.

نحن لسنا هنا لإلقاء اللوم على التاريخ. نحاول حل المشكلة التي نواجهها الآن. عندما يكون هناك حرب مستمرة والأراضي المحتلة بشكل غير قانوني من المهم أن تعرض قوات حفظ السلام في ويجبرون على مواصلة المفاوضات. ما لم يتم العروض الخاصة بك على الانسحاب من الأراضي الفلسطينية ولكن أستطيع أن أرى ماذا سيكون رفضوا. لا اسرائيل لا تفهم أن هذه الأراضي ليست أراضي إسرائيل؟

[Rhadamanthus]

(Original post by DayneD89)
The middle east has many peacekeeping missions, and most of these are due to the agressive policy of Israel. Golan Heights is Israeli occupied Syria for example. These peacekeeping missions are not always successful in maintaining peace, but they show that the world is taking action and the UN is dedicated to peace in that area. It has been shown that, without placing blame on either side, Israel and Palestine cannot reach an agreement. That is why we have set a timeline for talks, so that an agreement is to be reached, and if it has not been then a report can be made, the reasons looked into and more provisions made to ensure peace in the area and ongoing negotiations to resolve the conflict.

We are not here to place blame on history. We are attempting to resolve the problem we have now. Where there is an ongoing war and an illegally occupied territory it is important that peacekeeping forces be brought in and negotiations are forced to continue. Unless your offers are to withdraw from Palestinian lands however I can see why they would be rejected. Does Israel not understand that these lands are not the lands of Israel?

The representative clearly doesn't understand the difference between aggression and someone responding to aggression. In 1967 Israel was invaded by Syria and in response we occupied the Golan as a security measure. We have not returned it due to the Syrian funding of terrorist networks committed to Israel's destruction, showing that Syria is not interested in peace. Our offers on numerous occasions have been a full withdrawal from Palestinian land, however we have been rejected. I fail to see why Israel should be punished for Palestinian rejectionism when it's become quite clear that the goal of the Palestinian national movement is the total elimination of the Jewish State.

נציג בבירור אינו מבין את ההבדל בין תוקפנות מישהו מגיב בתוקפנות. בשנת 1967 ישראל פלשה סוריה בתגובה אנו הכבושים בגולן כאמצעי אבטחה. אנחנו לא חזרו זה בגלל מימון הסורי של רשתות טרור המחויב להשמדת ישראל, מראים כי סוריה אינה מעוניינת בשלום. הצעות שלנו פעמים רבות להיות נסיגה מלאה מן האדמות הפלסטיניות, אולם אנו נדחו. אני לא מבין מדוע ישראל צריכה להיענש על הסרבנות הפלסטינית כאשר זה נהיה די ברור כי המטרה של התנועה הלאומית הפלסטינית היא חיסול מוחלט של המדינה היהודית

[DayneD89]

(Original post by Rhadamanthus)
The representative clearly doesn't understand the difference between aggression and someone responding to aggression. In 1967 Israel was invaded by Syria and in response we occupied the Golan as a security measure. We have not returned it due to the Syrian funding of terrorist networks committed to Israel's destruction, showing that Syria is not interested in peace. Our offers on numerous occasions have been a full withdrawal from Palestinian land, however we have been rejected. I fail to see why Israel should be punished for Palestinian rejectionism when it's become quite clear that the goal of the Palestinian national movement is the total elimination of the Jewish State.

נציג בבירור אינו מבין את ההבדל בין תוקפנות מישהו מגיב בתוקפנות. בשנת 1967 ישראל פלשה סוריה בתגובה אנו הכבושים בגולן כאמצעי אבטחה. אנחנו לא חזרו זה בגלל מימון הסורי של רשתות טרור המחויב להשמדת ישראל, מראים כי סוריה אינה מעוניינת בשלום. הצעות שלנו פעמים רבות להיות נסיגה מלאה מן האדמות הפלסטיניות, אולם אנו נדחו. אני לא מבין מדוע ישראל צריכה להיענש על הסרבנות הפלסטינית כאשר זה נהיה די ברור כי המטרה של התנועה הלאומית הפלסטינית היא חיסול מוחלט של המדינה היהודית

We do understand the difference. Indeed we agree that all sides need to be protected from attack, including Israel. Israel is however in breach of international law. This has been overlooked for a long time as it has been understood that Israel is trying to defend itself. It is for this reason that peacekeeping forces are introduced in our resolution. Would Israel support our resolution if a temporary demilitarized zone was set up and maintained by UN forces between Israel and palestinian forces?

Israel was invaded by hezbollah, and we urge both Israel and hezbollah to listen to UN Resolution 1701.

Our resolution is only for talks. It would create a report that would show the international community what offers is made and what needs to be done to create peace in the region. It does not force the Israel government to agree to anything that would compromise their safty.

To bring the debate back to the topic of your resolution, what will this achieve? This resolution does not move the region forward towards peace. It maintains the current situation, including the constant war. We are willing to discuss changes to our, or your, resolution that we can all agree on, but only if we feel the resolution will make movements towards peace, especially the creation of a Palestine state.

نحن لا نفهم الفرق. في الواقع نحن نتفق على أن جميع الأطراف في حاجة إلى الحماية من الهجمات، بما في ذلك اسرائيل. ولكن في اسرائيل هو خرق للقانون الدولي. وقد تم تجاهل هذا لفترة طويلة كما كان مفهوما أن اسرائيل تحاول الدفاع عن نفسها. وهذا هو السبب في أن يتم إدخال قوات حفظ السلام في قرارنا. فإن إسرائيل تدعم قرارنا اذا كان اقامة منطقة منزوعة السلاح مؤقت وصيانتها من قبل قوات الامم المتحدة بين اسرائيل والقوى الفلسطينية؟

وغزت اسرائيل من قبل حزب الله، ونحن نحث اسرائيل على حد سواء و . حزب الله للاستماع الى قرار الامم المتحدة رقم 1701

قرارنا هو فقط من أجل المحادثات. فإنه إنشاء تقرير أن المعرض هو بذل المجتمع الدولي ما تقدم وما يجب القيام به لتحقيق السلام في المنطقة. لا اجبار الحكومة الاسرائيلية للموافقة على أي شيء من شأنه أن يضر بسلامتهم.

لجعل العودة إلى مناقشة موضوع القرار الخاص بك ، سيكون هذا ما تحقق؟ هذا القرار لا يتحرك في المنطقة قدما نحو السلام. فإنه يحافظ على الوضع الراهن ، بما في ذلك حرب مستمرة. ونحن على استعداد لمناقشة التغييرات لدينا، أو القرار الخاص بك ، يمكننا أن نتفق جميعا، ولكن فقط إذا كنا نشعر القرار سيجعل تحركات نحو السلام، وخصوصا اقامة دولة فلسطين

[Rhadamanthus]

(Original post by DayneD89)
We do understand the difference. Indeed we agree that all sides need to be protected from attack, including Israel. Israel is however in breach of international law. This has been overlooked for a long time as it has been understood that Israel is trying to defend itself. It is for this reason that peacekeeping forces are introduced in our resolution. Would Israel support our resolution if a temporary demilitarized zone was set up and maintained by UN forces between Israel and palestinian forces?

Israel was invaded by hezbollah, and we urge both Israel and hezbollah to listen to UN Resolution 1701.

Our resolution is only for talks. It would create a report that would show the international community what offers is made and what needs to be done to create peace in the region. It does not force the Israel government to agree to anything that would compromise their safty.

To bring the debate back to the topic of your resolution, what will this achieve? This resolution does not move the region forward towards peace. It maintains the current situation, including the constant war. We are willing to discuss changes to our, or your, resolution that we can all agree on, but only if we feel the resolution will make movements towards peace, especially the creation of a Palestine state.

نحن لا نفهم الفرق. في الواقع نحن نتفق على أن جميع الأطراف في حاجة إلى الحماية من الهجمات، بما في ذلك اسرائيل. ولكن في اسرائيل هو خرق للقانون الدولي. وقد تم تجاهل هذا لفترة طويلة كما كان مفهوما أن اسرائيل تحاول الدفاع عن نفسها. وهذا هو السبب في أن يتم إدخال قوات حفظ السلام في قرارنا. فإن إسرائيل تدعم قرارنا اذا كان اقامة منطقة منزوعة السلاح مؤقت وصيانتها من قبل قوات الامم المتحدة بين اسرائيل والقوى الفلسطينية؟

وغزت اسرائيل من قبل حزب الله، ونحن نحث اسرائيل على حد سواء و . حزب الله للاستماع الى قرار الامم المتحدة رقم 1701

قرارنا هو فقط من أجل المحادثات. فإنه إنشاء تقرير أن المعرض هو بذل المجتمع الدولي ما تقدم وما يجب القيام به لتحقيق السلام في المنطقة. لا اجبار الحكومة الاسرائيلية للموافقة على أي شيء من شأنه أن يضر بسلامتهم.

لجعل العودة إلى مناقشة موضوع القرار الخاص بك ، سيكون هذا ما تحقق؟ هذا القرار لا يتحرك في المنطقة قدما نحو السلام. فإنه يحافظ على الوضع الراهن ، بما في ذلك حرب مستمرة. ونحن على استعداد لمناقشة التغييرات لدينا، أو القرار الخاص بك ، يمكننا أن نتفق جميعا، ولكن فقط إذا كنا نشعر القرار سيجعل تحركات نحو السلام، وخصوصا اقامة دولة فلسطين

Israel is not in the position to comment on the creation of a demilitarised zone. We are unwilling to put full faith in the United Nations in protecting our security from a fractured Palestinian state with a violent political temperament. Israel is in the position to negotiate with the Palestinian Authority and we would like to settle matters without the intervention of the international community until after a Palestinian state has been established.

Our resolution is designed to protect the sovereign integrity of Israel and affirm our commitment to peace. We reject the UAE's resolution and its condemnations of Israeli security measures, notably the defensive blockade of Gaza. Many issues have to be settled amongst the Palestinians and Israel alone, and our resolution recognises this.

[DayneD89]

(Original post by Rhadamanthus)
Israel is not in the position to comment on the creation of a demilitarised zone. We are unwilling to put full faith in the United Nations in protecting our security from a fractured Palestinian state with a violent political temperament. Israel is in the position to negotiate with the Palestinian Authority and we would like to settle matters without the intervention of the international community until after a Palestinian state has been established.

Our resolution is designed to protect the sovereign integrity of Israel and affirm our commitment to peace. We reject the UAE's resolution and its condemnations of Israeli security measures, notably the defensive blockade of Gaza. Many issues have to be settled amongst the Palestinians and Israel alone, and our resolution recognises this.

We do recognise that these negotiations need to be conducted between Israel and the Palestine authority. This is why we haven't included terms to the negotiations in our resolution. It does however force both sides to come to the table in peace. The UAE feels a demilitarised zone may be effective in this aim and are considering putting that in our resolution. As we have said, we are happy to work with, rather than against, Israel to find a conclusion to this issue.

Your resolution doesn't have any effect though. It is a smokescreen. It is a resolution for a resolutions sake. We believe that the blockade does have to be lifted to aid the people of Palestine, however if it will help the situation move forwards we can remove any condemnation of Israels actions.

فإننا ندرك أن هذه المفاوضات يجب أن تجرى بين اسرائيل والسلطة الفلسطينية. هذا هو السبب في أننا لم يدرج شروط للمفاوضات في قرارنا. ومع ذلك فإنه لا قوة كلا الجانبين على الجلوس الى طاولة في سلام. دولة الإمارات العربية المتحدة تشعر منطقة منزوعة السلاح قد يكون فعالا في هذا الهدف ، ويتم النظر في وضع هذا القرار لدينا. كما قلنا، ونحن سعداء للعمل مع ، وليس ضد اسرائيل لايجاد الختام لهذه المسألة.

القرار الخاص بك لا يكون له أي تأثير بالرغم من ذلك. ذلك ما هو الا ستار. بل هو قرار لمصلحة القرارات. نعتقد أن الحصار لا بد من رفع لمساعدة شعب فلسطين، ولكن إذا أنها سوف تساعد هذه الخطوة إلى الأمام الحالة يمكننا إزالة أي إدانة الإجراءات الإسرائيلية.

[rockrunride]

The United Kingdom will unfortunately be abstaining from both resolutions, as there are points in both that are accepted and rejected: the UK feels that the UAE's position is too hardline and considers little continuing hostility from Hamas, whereas the Israeli resolution does little to stem the situation.

Bydd y Deyrnas Unedig yn anffodus fod yn ymatal rhag y ddau penderfyniadau, gan fod yn bwyntiau yn y ddau sy'n cael eu derbyn a'u gwrthod: y DU yn teimlo bod yr Emiradau Arabaidd Unedig sefyllfa yn rhy gryf ac yn ystyried llawer o elyniaeth parhaus o Hamas, tra bod y penderfyniad Israel yn gwneud llawer i atal y sefyllfa.

[andrewmc96]

(Original post by DayneD89)
There is nothing in this resolution though. This resolution does not look to building a peaceful middle east. Instead this resolution would have no effect, while ours would promote peace in the region.

Although Poland officially recognises Palestine, we feel that the UAE's resolution is too hardline while Israel's resolution does not do enough to ensure peace in the region.

[DayneD89]

(Original post by andrewmc96)
Although Poland officially recognises Palestine, we feel that the UAE's resolution is too hardline while Israel's resolution does not do enough to ensure peace in the region.

What in our resolution does Poland consider hard line? It condemns acts of violence from both sides.

ما في قرارنا لا تنظر بولندا الخط الثابت؟ انه يدين أعمال العنف من كلا الجانبين.

[tinytadpoletim]

South Korea realises that both sides should work together for peace, and so support the peace making terms of this resolution. However, we completely reject Israel's demands to not negotiate with Hamas and Fatah, as we feel the only way out of this situation is for all sides to peacefully come to a conclusion.

[andrewmc96]

(Original post by DayneD89)
What in our resolution does Poland consider hard line? It condemns acts of violence from both sides.

Poland feels that Palestine would not be ready to become a fully-independent state by 2014. There are still deep problems between Palestine and Israel that will take longer to resolve. Poland fears that if Palestine becomes fully-independent too quickly that it could create instability in the area and conflict could break out. This would put the Israel - Palestine relationship 'back to square one' and would undermine the peace negotiations that have taken place in recent years. The deploying of a UN peacekeeping force is not always effective at ensuring peace is maintained (as with Kosovo) and Israel may feel that the force is 'invading' their land.

Poland agrees with many aspects of both the UAE's and Israel's resolutions. Poland does agree with the UAE that the Palestinian people should be able to live in a peaceful, safe independent state without restrictions imposed by Israel.

[Ethereal]

There is, in my opinion, a fundamental problem with the wording of this resolution. Israel does not have sovereignty over the "Jewish people", it's reach at best extends to Israelis and foreign nationals within its borders who have leave to remain.

As a matter of international law Israel is only sovereign within its recognised borders; it can, therefore, put at its absolute highest only ever have sovereign control over security within its own borders. As currently drafted this resolution purports to invite the MUN to extend international recognition of Israel's advances beyond its borders and thereby legitimising them. This goes far beyond the remit of the general assembly and the security council and risks undermining the MUN's position of being able to mandate action against the state of Israel if necessary.

[thunder_chunky]

(Original post by Rhadamanthus)
QFA

Please see the above comments.