What is your viewpoint regarding this topic?

Dear Delegates,
the Delegate of United Kingdom here would like to ask the fellow delegates, what are your viewpoints regarding this topic altogether?

Basically, based on research, the United Kingdom would like to proclaim that the conflicts between this whole issue would be regarding the fact that each country would like to further develop what they already have, a natural human instinct. Would the fellow delegates of this house agree with this delegate's viewpoint?

This delegate hopes to know what the fellow delegates of this house think, to further understand what kind of measures the United Kingdom can work out for improvement to the current situation.

Thank you.

Dear delegate from Britain and the Security Council,

As the delegate from the United States, I think we would like to take the opportunity to most briefly introduce certain basic stands which I am sure Great Britain, as well as other esteemed delegates, share to varying degrees - for which we are most thankful. We believe two of the most pressing issues the region needs to address are:

1. Developing an agreed, common definition of "acts of terrorism" in availing more articulated prosecution
2. Progress in seeking resolution of settlement disputes regarding construction in Palestinian-administered territories.

We emphasise that any debate and discussion has to take place with the larger, overarching aim of seeking progress and resumption of Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations.

We will continue to condemn what are recognisably acts of terrorism, be it through isolated terrorist networks, or armed militia wings - as until considerable progress on a commonly agreed and binding definition ensuring prosecution efforts are bolstered, we anticipate harm to efforts at resuming peace negotiations. Not only detrimental but clearly debilitating to efforts at safeguarding safety and security in the region.

The United States recognise Israeli efforts at containing settlement reconstruction in the wake of the 10-month moratorium established in November. Though not entirely comprehensive, it is our stand that both Israel and Palestine work towards overcoming this obstacle by working out mutually agreed compromises, especially in the light of the mentioned progress thus far. This is with the resumption of peace talks as the greater priority for the safety and security of the region.

The United States recognise the need to be realistic and pragmatic in approach, but believes the rest of the council share a similar confidence that a modestly aggressive and forthright target should be worked towards, and can be achieved, in the immediate climate - not least out of both need and urgency.

Dear delegate of United States of America and Security Council,

Indeed, we recognise the fact that the need for progression in seeking resolution of settlement disputes regarding construction in Palestinian-administered territories, but, would you not agree, Delegate of United States, that if we work on a broader basis, the impact done towards the whole situation would be much more effective? The delegate of United Kingdom here feels that instead of merely focusing on construction in Palestinian-adinistered territories, we should focus on the entire Middle East, for a more efficient result, for the delegate of United Kingdom believes that the fellow delegates would agree, even though the topic we are talking about are suppose to surround the Israel-Palestine conflict, but the stability of the Middle East concerns much more than that. Furthermore, if the delegates look at things from a different view, a broader one, instead of only solving a part, if not the whole, Israel-Palestine conflict, we would be attacking on other issues at the same time. Therefore this delegate feels that submitted clauses for the resolution should perhaps be phrased to benefit the Middle East in a wider scope.

This delegate also recognises that terrorism is an issue in the Middle East, but this delegate feels that even if we can condemn the terrorists who had pronounced their identity, but it is not possible to condemn all terrorists as some might not even have taken action yet. Indeed, this delegate admits there should be a defined meaning of "act of terrorism", and that terrorists should be condemned, but this delegate feels if other issues concerning country-to-country are not solved yet, more people would be harmed than if a group of terrorists attack.Furthermore, this delegate would like to note that it is not possible to read other people's mind unless the delegate is a hypnotherapist, and neither is it possible to read everyone's mind. Therefore this delegate feels it is not possible to condemn all terrorists, and that there are other more important issues at hand, and hence feels resolutions submitted should be focused on more important issues. Would the delegate of United States not agree to that?

The United Kingdom appreciates Israel and Palestine's effort into trying to come to a peaceful ground, and understands that practicality is important in this issue, but the United Kingdom feels the principle level of things should not be forgotten either. If one resolution is pragmatic but involves in ruining principles, then this delegate feels it is not feasible nor fair to the affected parties, as we should consider about issues like human rghts in this debate too.

The delegate of United Kingdom thanks the delegate of United States for expressing his opinion aout this issues, and hope for further responses

Respected Delegates Of the Security Council,

Firstly, the delegation believes that the topic is one of the most pressing sub-topics in the bigger topic regarding the stability of the middle east. It is thus the delegation's concern that if we focus on too many topics instead of maybe a few at a time we might not be able to come to a fruitful solution. This topic is itself such a vast one and just to make it clear, Israel fully appreciates the United States' and the Great Britians' concern on how to go about the topic and that our resolution must contain issues regarding other subtopics as well, but it is just the delegation's concern that our resolution might not be able to address those issues fully. Especially so considering the members the council is accommodating. The Chair has also, in the guides sent to us said that we should focus on the two issues at hand considering we have 3 days to come up with binding solutions.

Secondly, Israel believes that the issue of terrorism and acts of terrorism with special reference to condemning terrorists must have a detailed solution. we cannot just sit and wait to condemn a "terrorist" till he actually harms us. moreover, Israel is of the opinion that the council must go beyond condemning terrorism in the area and have a more specific approach. Israel believes that terrorist groups must be targeted and we must be aggressive in doing so.

Respected Delegates, Israel values your concern and your support and is looking forward to meeting and negotiating with you as it believes that the answer to this problem must come now.

Dear Delegates and Security Council II,

The delegate of France acknowledge the concern about the act of terrorism but this delegate believes that the Iranian Nuclear Program is a more pressing issue at this moment seeing the fact that it had been reported that Iran is able to produce a nuclear bomb by this year.

This delegate hope that this issue will be discuss in this coming conference.

Yes, dear delegate this issue is of utmost importance and it will be discussed

Fille de France wrote:Dear Delegates and Security Council II,

The delegate of France acknowledge the concern about the act of terrorism but this delegate believes that the Iranian Nuclear Program is a more pressing issue at this moment seeing the fact that it had been reported that Iran is able to produce a nuclear bomb by this year.

This delegate hope that this issue will be discuss in this coming conference.

Dear delegate of France and Security council 2,

This delegate agrees that nuclear production is one big issue that should be discussed in the meeting the day after. Even so, this delegate feels we should still prioritise the conflicts between Middle East countries first, as delegates would agree, even if the threat of nuclear power is no longer existant in the Middle East, much worse could break out if something like the World Wars happen again. This delegate believes events such as World Wars would scar people even more than having a possible threat of nuclear power, and therefore feels we should stop the conflicts first, before focusing on nuclear power issues?

Hope to receive more comments soon.

-This delegate strongly appreciates the participation of other delegates!-