For this project, we set up and exhibited a model UN meeting based on the North Korea issue, and later the Israeli Palestinian conflict. We went along the process just as real ambassadors would at real UN meetings. First, we researched our country's opinions on other parties, especially Israel and Palestine, figuring out who our allies and enemies were in this conflict. Then, we wrote a policy paper on our country's view on the conflict. Afterwards, we all wrote resolutions about what solution our country would see best fit, vying for support from other countries. The four best resolutions made it into the docket. Lastly, at the actual meeting, everybody presented their arguments in the form of speeches and caucuses. We all made amends to and chose the best resolution that represented the action we would take to solve the conflict.In this project, I represented Russia, speaking and arguing for the rights of my communist country.
Document Links
Reflection
The MUN project is clearly extremely important to our everyday lives, to be able to acknowledge and appreciate other people's opinions, even if they contrast with our own. In this project, I represented Russia. Almost everything Russia politically supports completely goes against the US's opinions, which I have been socialized to support. This struggle of conflicting ideas allowed me better understand other's opinions. With this new skill, I can empathize with people, better understanding their opinions. I can also understand adversaries' opinions and better counter them, knowing exactly what they are thinking in a debate. How is knowing exactly what someone is thinking not important?
The habit of heart and mind I most exhibited during this project was, without a doubt, evidence. Throughout the project, I used evidence to support my argument. When I expressed my country's view, I used their reaction to past conflicts to support that. When I proposed how my resolution would work, I elaborated on the failures of past resolutions. When I criticized an opponent's resolution, I used past actions by Israel or Palestine to show why their solution would not work.Words are words, but evidence makes them something more. With this handy skill, I made my words meaningful and persuasive throughout the entire project.
Throughout this project, I was continuously challenged by the prospect that almost every solution absolutely required the consent of both Israel and the Arab countries. If either party were treated unfairly, they definitely would not agree to any presented compromise, completely shattering any hopes of the resolution working. I worked through this by selecting a solution that benefited both parties, a two state agreement. In return for giving up the right of return, the Palestinians were granted an individual state and government to call their own. I am confident that Israel and Palestine would've agreed to this solution, ending the conflict.
The most interesting proposed amendment was likely proposed by TJ. He had the idea that the borders between the two states be compromised and debated among Israel and Palestine. I highly doubt these would've been much different than the proposed 1967 borders, but the real promise here is to get both parties talking and gaining mending the damage of almost a century of warfare and hatred. While most amendments simply changed time windows, this amendment was truly unique and interesting.
The habit of heart and mind I most exhibited during this project was, without a doubt, evidence. Throughout the project, I used evidence to support my argument. When I expressed my country's view, I used their reaction to past conflicts to support that. When I proposed how my resolution would work, I elaborated on the failures of past resolutions. When I criticized an opponent's resolution, I used past actions by Israel or Palestine to show why their solution would not work.Words are words, but evidence makes them something more. With this handy skill, I made my words meaningful and persuasive throughout the entire project.
Throughout this project, I was continuously challenged by the prospect that almost every solution absolutely required the consent of both Israel and the Arab countries. If either party were treated unfairly, they definitely would not agree to any presented compromise, completely shattering any hopes of the resolution working. I worked through this by selecting a solution that benefited both parties, a two state agreement. In return for giving up the right of return, the Palestinians were granted an individual state and government to call their own. I am confident that Israel and Palestine would've agreed to this solution, ending the conflict.
The most interesting proposed amendment was likely proposed by TJ. He had the idea that the borders between the two states be compromised and debated among Israel and Palestine. I highly doubt these would've been much different than the proposed 1967 borders, but the real promise here is to get both parties talking and gaining mending the damage of almost a century of warfare and hatred. While most amendments simply changed time windows, this amendment was truly unique and interesting.