Position Paper: Israel Emily Snowball Reflection How were the issues significant to your country? The current conflicts in the Middle East, especially those that deter peaceful resolutions, revolve heavily around the country of Israel. Similarly, the majority of our simulation revolved around issues that Israel is either directly or indirectly involved in, especially in regards to the Israel-Palestine conflict, threats to national security, and the actions taken by the Israeli government intended to mend relations which, in many cases, has tended to work in quite the opposite. Quite possibly the most important issue that arose during the simulation was that of national security and the threats that Arab countries placed upon Israel. Peace, by no means, can be established between the countries in the Arab League and Israel until the violence posed on Israel had ceased. As leaders of this country, Savoula and I determined this fact quickly and ensured that no matter what conflict we were placed in, we would stay true to the fact that Israel would never agree to peace plans on the enemies terms. Considering the fact that a nuclear threat from Iran has become a more realistic matter, Israel has every right to prepare and defend them from being wiped off the map. Due to the increased tensions between Iran and Israel outside of the simulation including the released statement of the completion of Nasr 1 missiles nuclear power has not only become a significant issue to Israel, but one of the utmost urgency. The ways in which Savoula and I acted reflected in many ways the responses Israel may have to the situation. Examples of this can be demonstrated through the position of the United Nations as the security fence constructed to separate Israelis and Palestinians has been deemed illegal, yet
Israel has continued on with this project as it promotes national security from the extreme violence posed against them. Having said that, violence from both sides must cease before peace talks can resume and have even the slightest chance of going anywhere that would promote a change. Israel s hands are not spotless, and though they have the victims of violence and hatred card to fall back on, there are instances in which there is reason to question the truth behind some of their motives. There are an overwhelming number of cases in which Israel has the right to protect them by all means available, such as striking strategic targets as a result of increased threats from the illegitimate terrorist organization of Hamas. Though the majority of these cases are justified, questions regarding the actions of Israel within issues regarding Palestine can be questioned. The Israel-Palestine issue is one that has stumped leaders for decades, and does not appear to be going anywhere quickly. As mentioned, heightened threats in regards to other significant issues made the conflicts between Israel and Palestine that much more vital to the simulation as these problems are directly linked to each other or come as a result of the other. One of the more current problems Israel faces in the real world is that of the settlements in East Jerusalem. Though the area on which they have began to build these settlements were agreed to prior to the freeze, the building has been seen as a violation between Palestinians and themselves in which Palestine states it will not continue peace talks until halted, and Israelis state they will by no means cease construction. As a result, many countries have united themselves against Israel s actions in hopes that it may change its mind. Additionally, reoccurring issues such as a two-state solution or the problems the wall promotes have continued to remain in the spotlight amongst the international community and became a major conflict in the simulation. Though the wall has always been a controversial topic, especially amongst nations allied against Israel, there
is no chance the wall would be disassembled as it again promotes safety for not only Israelis, but Palestinians as well. The wall has proven to decrease the violence rate between these differing people, though it has limited access to Palestinians for things such as health care and holy sites on their land or within Israeli borders. In regards to the two-state solution, at this point it seems like an appropriate measure to be taken in hopes of someday achieving peaceful relations between the two peoples; granting Palestinians the right to be completely self-governing is a step towards making this happen whether they realize it or not. What were the policy objectives of your nation? As established, our number one priority as Israel was the immediate safety and protection of national security. Iran places a threat to their existence, and plays a fundamental role in unsuccessful peace plans. Nuclear weapons in the hands of any Arab nation are a direct threat to Israel. Prevention of anything similar to this is in the best interest of not only Israel, but its allies as well especially the United States of America as, An attack on Israel would be considered an attack on the United States of America. Considering our options carefully, as well as past resolutions regarding an issue such as the Iranian nuclear conflict, we were able to come to multiple plans to reach an objective that would ensure the safety and security of Israel. A UN inspection of nuclear power facilities is essential to resolving any conflicts in the Middle East. As there have been an increasing number of reports revealing, at the very least, plans for nuclear enrichment, the IAEA needs to hold Iran responsible for any fractures it may be making against an agreement it signed on to. National security cannot be stabilized in Israel until the threats posed by Iran and its allies are eliminated which is why our goal was to get the United Nations involved in ensuring security so other matters could be dealt with.
In addition to eliminating the threat of nuclear weaponry in the Middle East, came placing stricter sanctions on Iran to ensure that the enrichment program needed to create a nuclear weapon, or even long range missiles, would not be a near future that Israel and its Western allies would have to fear. Another highly important objective we were able to come up with that resembled real life decisions made by Israel, was to stage a strategic precision airstrike without conferencing with our allies more specifically the United States to show that we are capable of taking action when our national security is in danger. As seen in many issues Israel has been faced with, they have continued their objectives regardless of whether or not their actions are condemned, and though they value the support of their Western allies (in fact they depend on it), they are not about to slip into the shadows and allow other countries to dictate their next move. Strategically an airstrike on Beirut, Lebanon made absolute sense as to eliminate the threat of the terrorist organization Hezbollah. This not only makes sense in order to establish security, but in sending the message that Israel is prepared to do anything in defence of itself against Arab nations. Due to past hostilities between Israel and Lebanon, despite the cease-fire, we felt it necessary to take action against Lebanon as their government is responsible for the failure to prevent Hezbollah s provocations. During past conflicts between the two, Israel fulfilled its obligations to withdraw itself from Lebanon, yet, armed with its assortment of weapons, Hezbollah deployed itself along the international borders and attacked Israeli targets repeatedly. Their aim was to provoke an escalation of hostilities with Israel, and their failure to control the terrorist group Hezbollah in the past forced Israel to take pre-emptive measures in defence of its security. Staging an attack directly on Iran at the current time would begin a long war that would strain any chance of
peaceful relations for an extended period of time, making Lebanon the perfect target for our purposes. Though national security remains our fundamental objective, the Israeli-Palestinian issue must not be put on the backburner. In order for there to be peace, Palestine must be fully selfgoverning but there are certain guidelines that must be followed in order to get to this point. Terrorist activities must under every circumstance be abolished. Preventions have been put into place in order to decrease the enormity of these attacks, such as military presence within Palestinian borders or the wall, but attacks still pose an immediate threat to both nations and must be brought to an end. In order to achieve anything, direct peace talks must ensue between Palestinian and Israeli leaders with a possible unbiased mediator to suggest a solution that is acceptable to some extent by both parties. Hamas leaders must be willing to compromise, as Israel by no means intends to submit to the regulations they have posed, rather accommodate everyone to the best of their abilities. Israel will not remove settlements from the West Bank and feel no need to withdraw the settlements being established at the current moment. They have the rights to the disputed land. Israel will not take down the security fence. A decline in successful terrorist bombings has become evident since 2006 as a result of the wall. Israel will not allow Jerusalem to fall into the hands of the Palestinians. It is the home of the world s three major monotheistic religions and allowing one religion access would cause even more controversy. However, they are willing to compromise these conflicts of interest in order to satisfy the needs of Palestine while also ensuring their needs are not forgotten. Lessoning restrictions of the walls while still maintaining adequate border control for security is one option we had come up with as it mirrors some of the solutions Israel has been talking about recently. We want to be flexible enough to maintain peaceful relations and hopefully enforce a two-state solution, but have
enough control of the borders to curb any terrorist activities that would harm the progression of peace. Who were your allies and adversaries on these issues? As the majority of the class followed closely what their countries alliances were, Israel was left with very little aid in terms of the countries that were included. Unfortunately some of the countries that would have been able to aid us in our struggles either had their own political agendas to adhere to, or for some reason isolated us quite a bit more than historically accurate. Our biggest ally was the United States who continually supported us, though they condemned our building in East Jerusalem. Though we have gone behind their backs, not included them in many detrimental decisions regarding conflict, and have increased issues during visits to Israel or meetings with Barack Obama, the United States has continued to maintain an alliance with us as their presence in the Middle East is essential. The Western countries have a greater influence on controlling world issues, and the United States - being the global hegemon is required to promote peaceful resolutions within the Middle East not only for Israel s benefit but their own. Aside from the United States comments during conferences and open debates, we did not have much support from our other allies and especially after our attacks on Lebanon these countries were unsure of what to do and allowed us to defend ourselves rather than organize something to prevent a high scaled attack from Iran, Lebanon, and Syria in retaliation. Fatah in this simulation wanted nothing to do with Israel to begin with, but after certain events occurred and the terms of peace they held in their hands became an issue they were quick to try and establish a closer relationship with Israel though they remained neutral for the most part. Without the support from Fatah in exchange for some of their terms of peace, discussions with Hamas were very difficult as we received absolutely no aid from them and Hamas was
unwilling to compromise their peace terms for the greater good of the Middle East. Due to ineffective negotiations and a minor lack of reality in some countries peace negotiations, we were unable to come up with long term solutions between Israel and Palestine and barely even touched upon any short term solutions that would guide us there. What were the various strategies that could be pursued in the negotiations? My biggest strategy in this simulation was to stay true to Israeli policies and not do anything out of character regardless of what another country may have done out of a personal opinion in order to ensure the integrity of Israel throughout the simulation. It was difficult to stick to Israel s firm policies and their choice to stick to certain things that was creating an intensified conflict, such as the building in East Jerusalem. I understand the actual reasoning for the continuation of construction, but staying true to Israel s views and not necessarily my own such as choosing to budge on a particular issue to guarantee long-term success or promotion of peace. Subsequently, convincing everyone that all our actions were only in the interest of national security and peaceful relations with Palestine was important. When we launched our attack on Lebanon, many questioned why we would stage such an attack if we were not attempting to provoke their country and did not want to be targeted for an attack. Every move we made in the simulation was in the interest of national security, and this was just another example of exactly that. The threats that they posed against us were unapparent to many countries that jumped to rash conclusions about the attack, but in all actuality it is a move I would not put past Israel considering their current position. Nothing we did in the simulation would sacrifice our safety or any of our requirements for peace with Palestine. We were prepared to take drastic measures to get what we wanted out of a peace treaty and, once again, ensure our national
security, but we knew we could not make a move that would jeopardize our position. When Hamas demanded peace on their terms (which was in character aside from the fact that Israel and Hamas have been on more steady relations as of late), they put the countries in the opposition in a position in which they did not want to cooperate with Hamas as they threatened to blow these countries up if they did not get their way. Israel ensured it did not make any decisions such as Hamas did at the Canada Peace Conference as it would guarantee a lack of assistance or mutual aid from the global community. Israel, from the beginning of the simulation, has been targeted and victimized by a majority of the countries present in the international relations. A strategy that worked quite well for us was to embrace this victimization and use it to our advantage as justification. As all of our objectives revolved around the safety of Israeli citizens, it was easier to play the victim card and further actions we may not have been able to get away with prior, using it as a justification for our behaviour. Finally, while trying to work through peace plans regarding Israel and Palestine, tensions were very evident and neither Hamas, Fatah, nor Israel would give in. In an effort to at least accomplish some sort of agreement between the leaders we proposed the idea of going around and sharing exactly what our requirements for peace were and then to contrast these lists and see if there was anything we could compromise on or change in an exchange for something else. It proved a lot more successful than the yelling match we began with and helped us understand each other s viewpoints which is beneficial to finally getting on the track of peace and a solution. Did you reach your objectives? Why or why not? It is hard to judge whether or not we reached all of our objectives, as peace between Israel and Palestine is, and will continue to be, a work in progress. Long term peace plans
between the two, or granting Palestinians sovereignty by the end of this simulation to end the conflict is unreasonable due to the current events we have learned about in regards to this issue. It is not a time to throw up a plan and get both parties to sign with ease, it is a time to re-evaluate relations, use different strengths or condemned actions to a side s advantage, and work towards a successful peace plan not one that will fall apart due to lack of support from one or both governments. Our main objectives in regards to this issue was to not give up our construction in East Jerusalem, not take down or move the security fence, and to maintain a Jerusalem that can be worshipped within by all. All of these objectives, to Israel, had some leeway in which we would be able to compromise for the greater good of our nation which were included in the final peace plans but did not overstep what Israel would actually agree to. Our airstrike on Lebanon was successful as it effectively took attention away from some of the other issues in which we were being accused of. It allowed us to eliminate, strategically, a threat that stood in the way of the hope for peaceful relations in the Middle East. It also allowed us to stand on our own and establish a sense of power in that we are not the puppet of another country, and this seemingly pointless and unrealistic airstrike, as some thought it, contributed to our overall success in the simulation. Regardless of the fact that we went behind the backs of the United States, we were able to maintain the support we needed in order to continue on successfully in the Middle East, and without many people realizing, restore the strong tie between Israel and the United States by instigating a crisis. This just proved the relations between these two allies are, rock solid. Final Recommendations Though some of the topics do not relate directly to the issues I dealt with as Israel, it is easy to tell what may or may not work with the proposed peace plans. Beginning with Arctic
Sovereignty, as both want to abide by the protocols given by the United Nations, it is quite easy to state that this solution, for the time being, will be successful. As has been demonstrated in the past, violations have been made to international law and if one country decides it may be more successful by doing so conflict may arise. As well, if Russia intends to, for some reason, violate this law in its pursuit for Arctic Sovereignty, Canadian claim over the Arctic will run out by 2013 therefore establishing a minor downfall to this solution. Preparation for a long-term solution should be taken into consideration though, as it really is not a far future to imagine. Though the solution seems like a good idea that gives both countries that would have some sort of claim on the Arctic what appear to be equal rights, it is not a solution that will last making it quit idealistic that Canada and Russia would share the arctic. In regards to global terrorism, the solution in which was come upon creates a good stepping stone to achieving an end to terrorism on a larger scale. It is impossible to completely abolish terrorism, but these steps will definitely aid in decreasing and monitoring the effects of terrorist organizations on society. Enforcing a committee whose sole purpose is to deal with terrorism through the United Nations is a good idea, as then there will be no conflicts of interest if, for example, Western countries wanted to enter the East in order to eliminate terrorist organizations this assembled group could deal with it instead and no conflict of imperialism or spread of culture can become evident. Controlling religious education is the only flaw presented with this proposal, so I am glad that Canada included what was wrong with that argument. Exploiting children s education is still going to occur, if not through a school environment, then at home or through another institution a child may go to. It is almost impossible to evaluate what a child is learning and control who is able to speak or contact them as this education can be passed on in a number of ways that cannot
be controlled. I also agree with the fact that it is too difficult to determine falsified teaching and what is, or is not, a correct answer especially when religion is used, which would be quite frequent in a Middle Eastern nation. Nuclear Proliferation is an important topic to the country of Israel and the decisions given in this peace treaty are very controversial. Forcing Iran to cooperate and come up with some plan for monitoring their nuclear power facilities at the risk of further sanctions or even a staged attack is reasonable as if it were to disregard any guidelines set by the IAEA, Iran would not only be in trouble with the international community, but would pose a great threat to any ally of Israel or a Western nation. If they expect other nations to work peacefully with them and they wish the Western countries would pose the same sanctions and responsibilities on other nations as they do Iran, they need to be the first to adhere to international law. If Iran really does not possess the nuclear capabilities it is being accused of it should allow for UN inspectors to enter their nuclear facilities and if nothing is found raise the issue of the inequality it feels it is being granted. Though I agree with the fact that Israel signing on to the NNPT would take away the threat that other Middle Eastern countries are afraid of even if it is only for defensive purposes it is an unrealistic solution that Israel would never agree to. As Israel is put in a very tough position at the current moment and their national security is at risk, they will by no means sign onto this treaty and give up any advantage they have over the Arab League. The Middle East is not very tolerant of Israel who is literally stuck between a rock and a hard place; giving up such an extreme amount of defensive materials if they exist in order to demonstrate willingness to work with other countries is not in Israel s best interest. Finally, the proposed peace plans between Israel and Palestine. Starting with the first point, I completely agree with the fact that Arab nations should refer to, Occupied Palestine,
by its true name. Though it is rooted in deep religious and philosophical disputes, it would definitely show the maturity of the ignorant states that will not recognize a country by its name. Halting the construction in East Jerusalem is not something Israel would have given up for nothing, but as the greater good of the Middle East calls for it, I believe it is fair to halt the construction for a period of time until further decisions can be made. The only problem with this issue is Hamas claims they will not speak to Israel about peace plans unless the settlements are removed and halted for good which is not something the Israeli government is going to submit to, at least not until boundary disputes are agreed upon. Neither party wins, but neither has lost yet with this option, making this a justifiable resolution that shows signs of realistic progress occurring. In regards to stationing third party UN members in Palestinian occupied lands to ensure the safety and rights of all citizens to me is not one of the main issues we need to be focusing on. I agree with the fact that Palestinians will be reluctant to accept Western influential policing forces, and I do not think it will make much of a difference if they are put there. Using a third party to come to resolutions or form an unbiased opinion on something being discussed would be useful to the Israel-Palestine issue, but I do not find this solution necessary nor can I see it being successful. More Western influence on the Middle East is not going to aid in peace conferencing. Placing Jerusalem under United Nation control in writing seems like a fantastic approach, but it is just another idealistic resolution that promotes Western influences within the Middle East that will not be tolerated by various governments. Though it makes the most sense to place Jerusalem under control of the international community so that it can be used by all religions and cultures, it means that Israel must denounce it as their capital and Palestinians must tolerate the constant UN presence in the Middle East. Placing it under UN control until a better peace plan is
drawn up is the better idea in this proposal, and is probably the best plan for success between Israel and Palestine in reference to that issue, but I still believe it will not be enough to satisfy both sides. Application The IR simulation was an amazing way to learn about Middle Eastern conflicts while also learning the radical and biased viewpoints that are essential to know about these countries. The key to successfully mirroring real life was in everyone s ability to research and effectively portray their country throughout the entire simulation no matter what was thrown at them. Though there were some cases where real life was not portrayed as well as it could have been, (Example: when North Korea declared war on Saudi Arabia for the reason that it was allied with a westernized country, or when countries publicly announced they had no idea what they were talking about), there was a lot of reality that came out of this which really aided me in discovering middle eastern political conflicts. The struggle for Arctic Sovereignty is one great example of an issue that us up and coming, especially as the Canadian claim will be gone by 2013 as I previously stated. Though it began with real life conflict over this area, the groups involved were able to pull educated guesses on what their countries may do in the next 5 years therefore mirroring what they expect real life to be like. By researching past issues that Israel had been a part of I was able to make decisions and target certain areas that I would not have thought about had I only looked at recent news headlines. Knowing the past about your country, and all the countries for that matter, was a huge help in mirroring what a country would really be like why they refuse to come to peace with a nation, why they are motivated to do something, why they would go about a situation in the manner they did. The majority of the class was very successful in representing real life and
then drawing their own conclusions based on it, such as when they United States stood by Israel no matter what harm they may have caused to already tense relations in the Middle East, or when Hamas used terrorist means of communicating their ideas and threatening to do something drastic if what they said was not accepted by their enemies. One of the most valuable things I learned throughout the simulation was the motivations behind Middle Eastern countries actions. Though before this simulation I did not even know a fraction of the conflict in the Middle East and why it was happening, I feel like I have a deeper knowledge than even someone who knows about the same events I do. The reason I say that is because until you put yourself into the position of a culture that is completely different than your own and has drastically different values, you can never really grasp the bias, the struggle, and the overall impact certain issues have on that society. Before actually placing yourself into the meaning of certain events or an attack on a country, you really have no idea what is going on - you will never understand conflict the way this simulation has assisted us all in learning. I could say any fact from this simulation was something important I learned as I was unfamiliar with everything, but to say that the actual experience of being one of these countries was not the most valuable thing I took from this would be ignorant. When looking at what really worked and what really didn t, there isn t a lot I would change about this simulation. The press conference and open debates are vital to getting people actually involved in the simulation especially for those who need a bit more structure. Instead of having a week before any formal debates or press conferences, maybe it should only be a day or two after the week we had after the concept map just to throw everyone into it more quickly and allow for more to occur. In our simulation I would have liked to see more people actually making their own informed decisions to make headlines, instead of strictly going off the news,
which is why I think introducing the debates earlier may promote more of that. For our simulation we were very lucky as there was a lot of conflict going on that centered directly around our countries in real life, but maybe for a class where there is not as much conflict or even instead of making the debate/press conference earlier introduce a crisis similar what you would so with the MUN simulation to make it more intense between countries and make them resolve something they can t just Google search for the answer. Something similar to that would make them really have to think in their countries perspective in order to be successful in the simulation and come to a resolution. It would also give them a taste of what the next simulation would be like especially for those who have no idea what the format of a United Nations conference is like and don t know what to expect.