Historical Security Council l UPAMUN 2018

Topic: Emergency Session on the current situation in the (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 received a formal petition from the United Arab Republic1 to withdraw the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) from their territory (and the ). 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 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 ’s official name at the time. James P. Jankowski, Nasser's Egypt, Arab , and the . (: 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 mission; as well as on developing the ability to prevent potential conflicts.

Antecedents In , Egypt nationalized the 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 , 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 Zone. The Security Council was unable to act due to the vetoes of and the . 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 , 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 , , Egypt, and Israel in order to officially end the hostilities and also to establish the new de facto borders of the State of Israel (the ), 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 . "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, ): During the 50s and the 60s the, the Nationalist Party (the ) 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 's government, providing them with weapons of different types as well with , 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 , 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, , 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 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 , 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, , 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, , , Jordan, Lebanon, , 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 to seek the ’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 , 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 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 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 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_N ATIONAL

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 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 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, 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 (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 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 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 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 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 : The 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