Topic: Emergency Session on the current situation in the Middle … · (This happened during the second week of May of 1967, the 6 Day War has not happened, If a delegate brings up

Historical Security Council l UPAMUN 2018

Topic: Emergency Session on the current

situation in the Middle East (1967)

.

President: Paola Zárate Aragón

VicePresident: Claudia Pamela García Ortega

Historical Security Council l UPAMUN 2018

Content Disclaimer: ............................................................................................................................ 2

General description of the Problem: ....................................................................................... 2

Antecedents ........................................................................................................................... 3

Legal Support ........................................................................................................................ 4

Agenda .................................................................................................................................. 5

Delegations ............................................................................................................................ 5

R2P ..................................................................................................................................... 11

Additional research links ..................................................................................................... 12

References ........................................................................................................................... 12

Disclaimer:

The following committee has been thought under the dynamics of a counterfactual exercise;

the idea is not to recreate the exact same situation, but to innovate inside the possibilities of

what could had happen; to that purpose some events have been slightly altered to open new

lines of possibility (you will be informed of this and other changes through the footnotes). Be

creative but remember to respect your country's official posture at the time of the events.

Good Luck.

General description of the Problem:

In May of this year the United Nations received a formal petition from the United Arab

Republic1 to withdraw the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) from their territory (and

the Gaza Strip). Since this is the only neutral force that prevents a mayor collision between

Israeli and Arab forces, the petition has been denied2, so it will be called for a debate in the

Security Council, given the fact that the petition still reflects that nation’s intentions and the

unsolved disputes between Israel and the Arab countries; even more, this is a clear indication

on the ongoing situation of conflict in the Middle East. It is important to recognize the

1 Egypt’s official name at the time. James P. Jankowski, Nasser's Egypt, Arab Nationalism, and the

United Arab Republic. (United States: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2002).

2 This event has been altered, in reality former secretary general U Thant decided the withdrawal of

UNEF, without consulting the rest of the UN. (This happened during the second week of May of

1967, the 6 Day War has not happened, If a delegate brings up an event or document occurred

after this period of time, they will be subject to a warning).

Historical Security Council l UPAMUN 2018

situation as an effect of the Arab-Israeli War of 1948, and the lack of action from this

committee at that time. The mayor concern now is the growing tension in the region and the

way the Israeli-Palestinian conflict seems to be extending over time.

The longer3 this conflict remains in the agenda the harder it will be to find a solution that

brings real peace to all parties involved, and the more complex it will become. In this regard,

the objective of this discussion is to find an alternative solution to change the conflictive

narrative in this region, which brings us to the reason why, is important to include this kind of

topics in this committee’s agenda. The Security Council must concentrate on strengthening

its ability to create a lasting peace rather than merely observe a ceasefire during a

peacekeeping mission; as well as on developing the ability to prevent potential conflicts.

Antecedents

In July 1956, Egypt nationalized the Suez Canal Company, later, in October of that year; the

Security Council adopted a resolution setting forth certain principles for the operation of the

Canal. Consultations on the implementation of those principles were been discussed when

new hostilities broke out in the area.

On 29 October 1956, Israeli forces launched an attack on Egypt and occupied Sinai and the

Gaza Strip. A few days later British and French troops landed in the Suez Canal Zone. The

Security Council was unable to act due to the vetoes of France and the United Kingdom.

Under the "Uniting for Peace" resolution, the matter was then referred to the General

Assembly, which met in emergency special session from 1 to 10 November.

3 You must discuss this issue, keeping in mind that the 6 Day War was at the time one of the main

reasons why the Arab-Israeli Conflict still remains unsolved to this day (2018) “UN Secretary-General

U Thant's decision to abruptly remove UN forces, in response to Egyptian President Gamal Abdal-

Nasser's demand, is seen as one of the factors that led to the 1967 War, as well as to a failure in

peacekeeping. This article discusses the rights and wrongs of that choice and also the role of the UN

and other countries in the crisis” Michael K. Carroll, “From peace(keeping) to war: The United Nations

and the withdrawal of the UNEF” The Middle East Review of International Affairs, June 2005, Volume

9, No. 2, Article 5.

Historical Security Council l UPAMUN 2018

The Assembly called for a ceasefire and the withdrawal of all foreign forces from occupied

territories, and it also established the first United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) to secure

and supervise the cessation of hostilities. Following the dispatch of the Emergency Force to

the area, European forces left the Suez Canal Zone by 22 December 1956 and the withdrawal

of the Israeli forces was completed by 8 March 1957.

In May 1967, a request from the Egyptian Government, has informed the Secretary-General

that it would no longer consent to the stationing of the Force on Egyptian territory and in

Gaza. Due to the manner this situation compromises international security (as it has already

been shown through the constant hostilities between Israeli and Arab forces since 1947) this

shall be one of the main topics in the agenda (other topics will be describe later in this

document).

First, it is important to understand that the motivations behind Egypt’s request, corresponds

to a series of complexities and constant hostilities, that have been unleashed by the Arab-

Israeli Conflict in the Middle East since 1948. The war of that year was but a symptom of the

illness itself and the General Armistice Agreement of 19494 was just a superficial remedy that

has not being of much use in the most important area; bringing real peace to the region.

Legal Support

According to the United Nations Founding Charter, chapter V, Article 24, the Security

Council has the responsibility to maintain international peace and security under the

conformity of this organization’s principles. Chapter VII contains provisions related to

“Action with Respect to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace and Acts of Aggression’ The

Security Council’s invocation of Chapter VII in these situations, can be seen as a statement of

firm political resolve and a means of reminding the parties in conflict of their obligation to

give effect to Security Council decisions. The Emergency Force (UNEF) established by the

General Assembly through resolution 1001 (ES-I) of 7 November 1956

4 After the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, a set of set of armistice agreements were signed between

Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Syria and Israel in order to officially end the hostilities and also to establish

the new de facto borders of the State of Israel (the Green Line), the armistice agreements or General

Armistice Agreement has been repeatedly violated until October of 1956 when it collapsed completely

when Israel and two major Powers occupied large portions of Egyptian territory, what started the Suez

Crisis. "Glossary: Israel", Library of Congress Country Studies

Historical Security Council l UPAMUN 2018

Agenda

❖ Revision of the status of the UNEF, emphasizing the importance of achieving its main

goal: permanent peace in the region

❖ The current status of the “Green Line” as opposed to the boundaries of the 1948

partition plan (according to resolution 181)

❖ Revision of resolution 194 of the General Assembly in the matter of the right of return

of the Palestinian refugees

❖ The Arab-Israeli conflict as a matter of international security and also an indication

of the failure of united nations in the consolidation of a lasting peace

❖ The Security Council’s responsibility to prevent mayor conflicts5

Delegations

China (Republic of China, Taiwan): During the 50s and the 60s the, the Nationalist Party

(the Kuomintang) occupied the representation of China in the Security Council due to the

support they received from the United Statas during that time; their foreign policy as a whole

during this period was not very proactive, they did not tend to get involved with international

conflicts, their main interest is for their own case to be revised by the UN6

United Kingdom (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland): Britain built

a strong bond with Israel during Harold Wilson's government, providing them with weapons

of different types as well with Centurion, British battle tanks, which were shipped to Israel

5 The intention of this point is to bring to the discussion a concept out of its time and bring controversy

to the debate: Responsibility to Protect (R2P); as you know the first official mention of this was in 2005, it was planned as a response mechanism to prevent a situation similar to that of Rwanda or the former Yugoslavia, but perhaps the international community waited too much and in recent years the mechanism is still in embryonic stages, the question here is, what would happen if in the sixties, in the middle of the Cold War, we began to speak about conflict prevention from the perspective of vulnerable population? With a sixties mentality, would it have worked? Who would defend it? If it was accepted, how would it have been applied in this context? Who would have rejected it? Be creative 6 Conelly, M. (1996). La política Exterior de Taiwan. Estudios de Asia y África XXXI:2

Historical Security Council l UPAMUN 2018

from June 1965 until May 1967. Wilson had a major interest in the Israeli ideology, Zionism,

which made him support the nation throughout the growing conflict in the Middle East7. The

intention from United Kingdom was of not encouraging the war, instead, it was a way of

preventing it and ensuring the stability of the region as the main interest from Great Britain.

The British attempted to not show their support to one side only, but its indifference made the

Arabs believe that their actions were pro-Israel since the relationship between both nations

was well-known by the Arab countries involved in the issue8.

France (Republic of France): Israel and France had a relationship started around the fifties

by the trading of French weapons to Israel, it started off as a commercial bond but then the

French Republic showed a common interest in eradicating radical Arab nationalism, which

led to the involvement of France in the Suez crisis in Egypt in 1956. By the year of 1959,

with the new government change of France’s new president, Charles de Gaulle, the

relationship remained stable until 1962 which was the year where France started making ties

with the Arabs, distancing their relationship with Israel. However, de Gaulle tried to balance

the relationship with both the Arabs and the Israeli9.

United States (of America): The United States of America had built some relations with

Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, Lebanon, Tunisia, Morocco and also Israel after the

Iraqi revolution of 1958. As conflicts began growing in the Middle East, the U.S provided

Israel with missiles to Israel as an attempt to stabilize the region. In 1965, the U.S terminated

its economic assistance for Egypt and in consequence, it led their relationship to reach its

lowest point and making the Egyptians to seek the Soviet Union’s support10

. Along with the

United Kingdom and France, the United States acted accordingly to the Tripartite Declaration

of 1950 in order to prevent any aggression in the Middle Eastern area, the U.S mainly taking

7 Cronin, D. (2017) How Britain aided Israel's 1967 War. The Electronic intifada. Available at

https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/david-cronin/how-britain-aided-israels-1967-war 8 Gat, M. (2006) Britain and the Occupied Territories After the 1967 War. Middle East Review of International Affairs, Vol.

10, No. 4. Available at http://www.rubincenter.org/meria/articles/2006/december/britain-and-the-occupied-territories-after-

the-1967-war.pdf 9 Bass, G. (2010) When Israel and France Broke Up. The New York Times, Princeton, NJ. Available at

https://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/01/opinion/01bass.html 10

Committee for Accuracy in the Middle East Reporting in America (2007) United States. The Six-Day War. Available at http://www.sixdaywar.org/content/usa.asp

Historical Security Council l UPAMUN 2018

the side of the Israeli to balance the power but failing as Palestine groups attacked some

targets in Israel11

.

The Soviet Union (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics): The role of the URSS on this

conflict was big, it was a supporter of Israel when it first formed but in the fifties it shifted its

position in supporting the Arabs instead. This relationship of the Soviet Union and Arab

States grew really close to the point that Egypt and Syria received military aid from the

URSS and were taught some Soviet strategies12

. In 1965, the URSS made a statement that

said “solidarity in the struggle against foreign powers and domestic reaction”, this as a

response to what was happening in Syria13

.

Mexico (United States of Mexico): As a region, Latin-American countries, except Cuba,

were supportive of Israel in International Forums, forming a bond with the Latin-American

countries. By the beginning of the sixties, many countries changed their position regarding

the issue with Israel, whereas some other states sought their own political interests, most

Latin American countries maintained their relationship with the Jewish in the form of

diplomatic relations, scientific exchange agreements, joint development projects, and

others14

.

Bulgaria (Republic of Bulgaria): By 1948, when over thirty thousand Bulgarian Jews

inhabited in Palestine, the government of the recently established Israeli population sent a

request to Bulgaria in order to be recognized as a new state. In November 1948, Bulgaria

recognized Israel as a state and stated that it was ready to maintain a diplomatic relationship

with it. In 1956, when East European countries began showing their support for the new

regime in Egypt, Bulgaria took a new position and also supported the Nasserite regime, two

years later making a declaration to put an end to the military actions by Israel, Great Britain

11

U.S Department of State (n.d.) The 1967 Arab-Israeli War. Office of the Historian, Bureau of Public Affairs. Available at https://history.state.gov/milestones/1961-1968/arab-israeli-war-1967 12

Committee for Accuracy in the Middle East Reporting in America (2007) The Soviet Union. The Six-Day War. Available at http://www.sixdaywar.org/content/soviets.asp 13

Stoll, J. (2011) Great Powers interventions and the Arab-Israeli wars of 1967-1973. E-International Relations Students. Available at http://www.e-ir.info/2011/01/12/great-power-interventions-and-the-arab-israeli-wars-of-1967-1973/ 14 Sharif, R. (1977) Latin America and the Arab-Israeli Conflict. Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 7, No. 1, University of

California. Pp 99 – 100. Available at https://www.jstor.org/stable/2536530?origin=JSTOR-pdf

Historical Security Council l UPAMUN 2018

and France. Bulgaria made a strong bond with Egypt, Syria and Iraq, as it coordinated with

the Soviet Union as a supplier of weapons for de UAR since the year of 196615

.

Canada16

: The country had a policy of not involving itself in conflicts that did not affect

Canada directly, it stayed neutral as it tried to maintain a good relationship with its neighbor.

It maintained a neutral position at all times, in 1948, Minister of External Affairs of Canada,

Lester Pearson, made a speech at the U.N. in agreement to the internationalization of

Jerusalem in order to protect Holy sites for Jews, Christians and Muslims. Canada was

determined to find a solution that would benefit both Israel and Jordan regarding Jerusalem.

Canada still tried not to discriminate between Israelis and Arabs, mainly at the moment of

shipping arms to the Middle East17

.

Nigeria (Federal Republic of Nigeria): During the sixties, Nigerian First Order (North

Nigeria) did not have a close relationship with Israel. The Premier of the North side of

Nigeria, Ahmadu Bello, was against economic agreements with this country in 1961 and

1962 and declared that “Israel doesn’t exist” but this stance softened when the Premier met

the Israeli Ambassador. On the other hand, the East and West side of Nigeria had strong

economic ties with Israel having manufacturing and agriculture companies operating. Chief

Okpara, a high ranking official of the Western region of Nigeria, declared that “they had a

friendship and support from Nigeria”. This rivalry ended when the middle-ranking military

officers ended with most of the First Republic’s politicians. This was the beginning of thirty

days of civil war18

.

15 Baev, J. (2010) Bulgaria and the Middle East Conflict. Available at http://lib.sudigital.org/record/503/files/SUDGTL-

BGCW-2010-294-ENG.pdf 16 In 1967 Canada along with Denmark, requested that the Security Council meet to discuss the

alarming situation concerning UNEF's departure from the Middle East. Michael K. Carroll,

“From peace(keeping) to war: The United Nations and the withdrawal of the UNEF” The Middle East

Review of International Affairs, June 2005, Volume 9, No. 2, Article 5.

17

Mackay, D. (2015) The Evolution of Canadian Diplomacy towards the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. Université

d'Ottawa. Available at https://ruor.uottawa.ca/bitstream/10393/32804/1/MACKAY%2C%20Derek%20James%20Benik%2020155.pdf 18

Danfulani, J. & Buba, M. (n.d) Nigeria-Israeli Relations: From the Realm of African Solidarity to the Real of Nigeria’s National Interest. Lapai International Journal of Politics, Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida University, Lapai,

Nigeria. Available at http://www.academia.edu/27078297/NIGERIA ISRAELI_RELATIONS_FROM_THE_REALM_OF_AFRICANSOLIDARITY_TO_THE_REALM_OF_NIGERIAS_NATIONAL

Historical Security Council l UPAMUN 2018

Ethiopia (Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia): In 1952, Ethiopia and Israel started

trading with each other. This was the beginning of economic ties that will open the door for

more formal relations. Israel sent the Minister of Foreign Affairs to meet with the emperor,

the one that accepted the importance between the two countries after the conversation with

the minister19

. In 1956, Ethiopia established diplomatic ties with the state of Israel thanks to

the fact that they both shared the sense of heritage based on the biblical history. These nations

were a target to the Arab countries, which is why Ethiopia decided to be extremely cautious

and maintain a low profile relationship with Israel.

Japan (State of Japan): In 1918, Japan showed their full support to the Zionist movement

happening in the region. Japan officially recognizes the State of Israel in May of 1952. This

managed to gain the recognition of other Asian countries such as India and China. The

recognition made a full diplomatic relationship between Japan and Israel, a relation that

opened the first Asian embassy in Israel. There was only one situation that stopped Japan

from giving all its support to the state of Israel, it had strong bonds with Arab countries,

therefore, it sought enforcing their relationship with those countries as a first priority rather

than giving it all to Israel, mainly because of Japan’s dependence to oil trade from Arab

nations.

India (Republic of India): Even though India recognized the state of Israel in 1950, they

were against the partition of Palestine. Later in 1956, before Japan’s recognition, Israel was

permitted to open a consulate in Mumbai. The country did not get involved directly, it was an

outsider and from its own ideology and perspectives, they were more supportive of the Arabs

rather than the Israeli. When the addition of Israel to the United Nations was discussed, India

was one of the countries to vote against with the argument that Israel had only gotten its

recognition through aggression and not diplomatic negotiations.

Egypt (United Arab Republic): It was recognized at the Arab Defense Council meeting

held in December 1966, that a unified Arab military was the best way to deal with the Israeli

threat, yet there was no cohesive approach to achieve this end. Some representative accused

19

Joyce, J. (2000) Ethiopia’s Foreign Relations with Israel: 1955-1998. Thesis Publication, Harvard University. Available at https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=445663

Historical Security Council l UPAMUN 2018

Egypt of "hiding behind UNEF" and shirking its military responsibilities throughout the Arab

world20

. At the time, the withdrawal or permanence of the UNEF represented a political risk

for this country, the UAR was to retain its self-assumed position of leadership among the

Arab world21

to this end, the Syrian-UAR Mutual Defense Pact was reaffirmed.

Syria (Syrian Arab Republic): Inside Syria, internal conflict within the Baath party led to

the February 23, 1966 coup that brought to power the Baath, a nationalist part. The prospect

of a full-fledged Syrian-Israeli war that would have probably led to the regime’s collapse

worried both the Soviet Union and Egypt, and led to the remilitarization of Sinai in mid-May

1967 as a way of deterring Israel. By the beginning of May of 1967, the tension intensified,

Egyptian troops moved to the border of Syria, with the aid of the Syrian forces.

Israel (State of Israel): It was established in 1948 and sought the recognition from different

nations which led it to get involved in many controversies with the Arab nations, marking the

beginning of the ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict. The purpose of the Zionist movement22

was to

establish a Jewish state, by the end of the 1948 War, it managed to establish its territory in

78% of Palestine. But after this, tension built up between Israel, Syria, Jordan and Egypt. The

Suez Crisis then took place, which involved two big powers that were France and Britain,

which invaded Egypt in 1956 along with Israel, giving a start of the relations with these two

nations and Israel23

.

Palestine (observer): The state was targeted by the Jewish as the territory they could use to

establish their community. Upon the 1948 UN Resolution that divided the region in three,

20

National Archives of Canada (NAC), RG 24, Vol. 21595, file 2-5081.2 [Vol. 10], December 19, 1966, Cairo to External; Department of National Defence Directorate of History and Heritage (DHH), 112.3H1.001 (D19), March 21, 1968, Interview with General I.J. Rikhye, late Commander of UNEF. 21

During the 1950s (and the 1960s), Pan-Arabism was the principal political ideology in the middle

east, it consists in a redefinition of the socialist ideals through the interpretation of the Arab

experience and more important a revival of national pride; it was famous among the intellectuals of

the time, but it was Gamal Abdel Nasser who transformed these ideas into state policy in order to

define Egypt’s position in the Middle East as a leader. the cohesion between the Arab countries

began to decline in the mid-1960s.

22

Zionism alludes to israeli nationalism (like pan Arabism to Arab nationalism), under no circumstance

should it be confused with a form fascism 23 Tahhan, Z. (2018) The Naksa: How Israel Occupied the Whole of Palestine in 1967. Aljazeera. Available at

https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2017/06/50-years-israeli-occupation-longest-modern-history-

170604111317533.html

Historical Security Council l UPAMUN 2018

Palestine, Israel and Jerusalem, the state of Palestine rejected the proposal which led it to

make an alliance with the Arab countries to then attack Jewish communities24

. The Swedish

diplomat, Folke Bernadotte, was appointed as a mediator for Palestine and he then recognized

the suffering from the Palestine people so he made efforts to bring peace into the situation,

thus he was assassinated by the Zionist in September of the same year25

. During the situation

in the region, many Palestinians were taken into the safety of other nations in their refugee

camps, such as Jordan, which took many Palestinians and gave them the Jordan nationality26

.

R2P

Another key point that needs to be discussed is the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) and its

importance for a United Nations (UN) organ with a big power such as the Security Council,

this term had already been mentioned before but it is important to fathom it and apply it

correctly throughout the debate. The R2P had been first brought out into question in 2001 as

a form to know how nations should react to a threat to international and humanitarian law

such as genocide, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity27

. To summarize what the

purpose of the R2P is, each nation has the responsibility to protect their people within their

borders, failure to do so will result in the international community getting involved in the

nation’s affairs in a peaceful manner, having as last resource the intervention of the Security

Council to take tougher measures on the situation.

By 2005, the R2P had already been accepted by the United Nations member states and were

willing to put an effort into it to protect their own nations from such threats to peace and help

if other nation faced such crisis. The Security Council decided to put it in practice in 2006,

mentioning it in the resolution 1674 as a way to protect the people during an armed conflict,

and that is how it ended up being applied to different resolutions by this UN organ28

.

24 Roberts, W. (2011) The Israel-Palestine Conflict: 1967 Lines with Mutually Agreed Swaps. American Diplomacy.

Available at http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/item/2011/0912/ca/roberts_isrpal.html 25 Damen, R. (2008) Al Nakba: The History of Palestine since 1877. Palestine Remix, Aljazeera Interactive. Available at

https://interactive.aljazeera.com/aje/palestineremix/al-nakba.html#/17 26 Jones, A., Bugh, G., Faris, N., Brice, W., Fraser, P. & Albright, W. (2018) Palestine. Encyclopedia Britannica. Available

at https://www.britannica.com/place/Palestine 27

International Coalition for the Responsibility to Protect (N/D) An Introduction to the Responsibility to Protect.

Retrieved from http://www.responsibilitytoprotect.org/index.php/about-rtop 28

United Nations (2014) The Responsibility to Protect: Who is responsible for protecting people from gross

violations to human rights? Outreach Programme on the Rwanda Genocide and the United Nations. Retrieved

from http://www.un.org/en/preventgenocide/rwanda/about/bgresponsibility.shtml

Historical Security Council l UPAMUN 2018

It is important to emphasize how the R2P has to be applied during the debate, having in mind

that this term was introduced in 2001 and our debate will take place in May 1967. The

situation itself was a huge violation to the human rights for people in the Middle East,

therefore there must be a way to protect civilians from receiving further damage while the

committee is on the lookout for a long-term solution that could’ve brought different outcomes

than the ones we know about.

The Security Council’s meant to always act through peaceful means at the beginning, but

when these fail to bring a beneficial solution, there must be a use of force that can provide

safety and bring stability to the international community. It is well known that the R2P has

not been as successful as it was expected to, however, the Security Council is an organ with

the ability of making it successful thanks to the role it plays in the United Nations.

Additional research links

1. Legal status and establishment of UNEF

https://peacekeeping.un.org/mission/past/unef1backgr2.html#two

2. From peace(keeping) to war: The United Nations and the withdrawal of the UNEF (UAR’s

motives) http://www.mafhoum.com/press8/244P544.htm

3. The withdrawal of UNEF: UAR requests and UN response

https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP79T00826A002100010051-6.pdf

References

1. Allen, D. (1984) European Foreign Policy-Making and the Arab-Israeli Conflict.

Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden, NL., p. 81. Available at

https://books.google.com.mx/books?id=VQ5fnljllZ8C&lpg=PA82&dq=denmark%20

arab%20israeli%20conflict%201967&pg=PA81#v=onepage&q=denmark&f=false

2. Baev, J. (2010) Bulgaria and the Middle East Conflict. Available at

http://lib.sudigital.org/record/503/files/SUDGTL-BGCW-2010-294-ENG.pdf

3. Bass, G. (2010) When Israel and France Broke Up. The New York Times, Princeton,

NJ. Available at https://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/01/opinion/01bass.html

Historical Security Council l UPAMUN 2018

4. Committee for Accuracy in the Middle East Reporting in America (2007) United

States. The Six-Day War. Available at http://www.sixdaywar.org/content/usa.asp

5. Committee for Accuracy in the Middle East Reporting in America (2007) The Soviet

Union. The Six-Day War. Available at http://www.sixdaywar.org/content/soviets.asp

6. Cooley, J. (1971) China and the Palestinians. Institute for Palestine Studies. Available

at http://www.palestine-studies.org/jps/fulltext/38166

7. Cronin, D. (2017) How Britain aided Israel's 1967 War. The Electronic intifada.

Available at https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/david-cronin/how-britain-aided-

israels-1967-war

8. Danfulani, J. & Buba, M. (n.d) Nigeria-Israeli Relations: From the Realm of African

Solidarity to the Real of Nigeria’s National Interest. Lapai International Journal of

Politics, Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida University, Lapai, Nigeria. Available at

http://www.academia.edu/27078297/NIGERIA-

ISRAELI_RELATIONS_FROM_THE_REALM_OF_AFRICANSOLIDARITY_TO

_THE_REALM_OF_NIGERIAS_NATIONAL

9. De Boer, J. (2005) Before Oil: Japan and the Question of Israel/Palestine, 1917-1956.

The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus, Vol. 3, Issue 3. Available at https://apjjf.org/-

John-de-Boer/2159/article.html

10. Gat, M. (2006) Britain and the Occupied Territories After the 1967 War. Middle East

Review of International Affairs, Vol. 10, No. 4. Available at

http://www.rubincenter.org/meria/articles/2006/december/britain-and-the-occupied-

territories-after-the-1967-war.pdf

11. India Israel Relations from 1948 to 1992 (n.d) Retrieved from

http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/110707/6/10_chapter1.pdf

12. Joyce, J. (2000) Ethiopia’s Foreign Relations with Israel: 1955-1998. Thesis

Publication, Harvard University. Available at

https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=445663

13. Mackay, D. (2015) The Evolution of Canadian Diplomacy towards the Israeli-

Palestinian Conflict. Université d'Ottawa. Available at

https://ruor.uottawa.ca/bitstream/10393/32804/1/MACKAY%2C%20Derek%20James

%20Benik%2020155.pdf

14. Milligan, M. (2008) Nigerian Echoes of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. ISIM Review,

Leiden University, Leiden, NL. Available at

https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/handle/1887/17228/ISIM_21_Nigerian_Ec

hoes_of_the_Israeli-Palestinian_Conflict.pdf?sequence=1

15. Sharif, R. (1977) Latin America and the Arab-Israeli Conflict. Journal of Palestine

Studies, Vol. 7, No. 1, University of California. Pp 99 – 100. Available at

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2536530?origin=JSTOR-pdf

16. Stoll, J. (2011) Great Powers interventions and the Arab-Israeli wars of 1967-1973. E-

International Relations Students. Available at http://www.e-ir.info/2011/01/12/great-

power-interventions-and-the-arab-israeli-wars-of-1967-1973/

17. U.S Department of State (n.d.) The 1967 Arab-Israeli War. Office of the Historian,

Bureau of Public Affairs. Available at https://history.state.gov/milestones/1961-

1968/arab-israeli-war-1967

Historical Security Council l UPAMUN 2018