Dear Delegates,

Welcome to Queen’s Model United Nations (QMUN), and Kingston. On behalf of the committee and the university, we would like to take the opportunity to introduce ourselves and wish you the best of luck in the upcoming conference.

My name is Allison Di Cesare and I will be one of your chairs for this session. I am in my third year at Queen’s studying politics and global development. This will be my third year with QMUN, having participated as both a delegate and a chair in the past. This year, I have also taken on the role of delegate coordinator in addition to my responsibilities as chair. I have also had the chance to attend various external Model United Nations conferences, including Harvard Model United Nations, National Model United Nations in DC, and McGill Model United Nations.

My name is Matthew Kersten and I am also in my third year at Queen’s, studying politics and philosophy. I have been involved with Model United Nations for a number of years, and attended QMUN as a delegate on the Economic and Social Council in my first year of university. I have also participated in conferences in Ottawa, Boston, and Montreal. Other experiences reflecting my political interest include my work as a page at Queen’s Park, and participation in Model Parliaments.

We both have a very keen interest in international politics and are really looking forward to working with this committee, as we hope you all are as well! Your topics this year have been chosen to highlight some of the most significant issues in international peace and security today, and reflect the recent concerns of the Security Council. With the session fast approaching, please take the time to review these topics and don’t hesitate to contact your dais with any questions or concerns. Allison Di Cesare can be contacted at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it , and Matthew Kersten at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it . Until then, we wish you the best of luck with your school year and cannot wait to meet you all!

Sincerely,

Allison Di Cesare and Matthew Kersten

About the Security Council

The United Nations Security Council is the primary decision making body of the United Nations. Its first session was held on January 17, 1946 at Church House in London. The Council has since been in continuous session, holding meetings in various cities worldwide in addition to its permanent location in the United Nations building in New York City. There are five permanent members that hold veto power: China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The remaining ten seats are filled by temporary states on a rotating basis.

Broadly, the primary responsibility of the Security Council is the maintenance of international peace and security. When concerns are raised, its first response is generally to advocate peaceful resolution. If necessary, the Security Council may serve a mediatory or investigative function, often drawing up recommendations for peaceful settlement between parties. Should the conflict escalate, the Security Council aims to bring it to an end as quickly as possible, and deploys peacekeeping forces when necessary. The Security Council is authorized to sanction states and approve military action through resolutions. The Security Council is also able to refer cases to the International Criminal Court in areas where it would not otherwise have jurisdiction. This power was used for the first time in 2005 for action related to the conflict in Darfur.

Topic 1: Women and Peace and Security

Statement of the Problem

Contemporary conflicts are predominately internal, taking place within states. Their root causes often include poverty, the struggle for scarce resources, and violations of human rights. However, they have another tragic feature in common: women and girls suffer their impact disproportionately. While they endure the same trauma as the rest of the population, they are further subjected to specific forms of violence and abuse, including sexual violence, exploitation, and trafficking. This has been exacerbated in recent years due to the nature of modern conflicts, wherein civilians are increasingly targeted, rather than simply being caught in the crossfire. This escalates cycles of violence, and can have long-term impacts on the prospects and conditions necessary for peace and reconciliation. Furthermore, it can result in long-term problems for the individuals involved, including health problems such as HIV/AIDS.

Efforts to resolve these conflicts and address their root causes will not succeed unless we empower all those who have suffered from them -- including and especially women. And only if women play a full and equal part can we build the foundations for enduring peace -- development, good governance, human rights and justice. Failure to address women’s needs in transitional governance, livelihood support, public service and judicial systems could slow recovery and undermine peace.

While many women are involved in grass-roots efforts aimed at rebuilding the economic, political, and cultural fabric of their societies, they are largely excluded from formalized peace process. As of now, the United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM) has reported that less than 3% of the nearly 17 000 projects for post conflict countries between 2006-2008 targeted gender issues. Furthermore, women accounted for only 7% of negotiators. Considerable steps have been taken, however women still form a minority of participants in peace and security negotiations and receive less attention in post-conflict agreements, disarmament and reconstruction.

The presence of women in post-conflict operations is especially important considering the fact that they often continue to be victims of gender-based violence in situations where open hostilities have ceased. In these cases, the attention of the international community is focused elsewhere and representation is needed to ensure this problem is addressed. Furthermore, the cessation of conflict should not result in the marginalization of girls or the relegation to their stereotypical roles of society. This is yet another issue that merits attention.

In conflict areas across the world, women’s movements have worked with the United Nations to rebuild the structures of peace and security, to rehabilitate and reconcile societies, to protect refugees and the internally displaced, to educate and raise awareness of human rights and the rule of law. Within the Organization itself, the integration of gender perspectives in peace and security areas has become a central strategy. An Inter-agency Task Force on Women, Peace and Security has been established to address the role of women in peacemaking, peacekeeping, humanitarian assistance and other activities.

Past resolutions have laid out important steps in international obligations to ensuring women’s rights in conflict. However, without accountability for these resolutions, persistent impediments to their implementation will remain. High-level leadership, a coherent approach towards implementation and a concrete monitoring mechanism to address gaps are needed. Furthermore, specific interventions are needed to address sexual violence, which continues to assail women and girls virtually everywhere armed conflict occurs.

Recent UN Action

Intergovernmental bodies dealing with peace support operations have increasingly become aware of the importance of incorporating gender perspectives into their work, including the Security Council and the Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations. This Special Committee first placed an item on gender mainstreaming on its agenda at its session in 1999 and has since kept gender mainstreaming and gender balance issues under review.

The Council last considered the issue of women and peace and security on October 5, 2009. Days earlier, the Council adopted unanimously resolution 1889 (2009) on the protection of women and girls from sexual violence in armed conflict. The topic has been the focus of many discussions in the last couple of years, and a number of resolutions have been adopted to address it.

The most notable action to date is the Security Council Resolution 1325 on women and peace and security, established in 31 October 2000. Resolution 1325 urges all actors to increase the participation of women and incorporate gender perspectives in all United Nations peace and security efforts. It also calls on all parties to conflict to take special measures to protect women and girls from gender-based violence, particularly rape and other forms of sexual abuse, in situations of armed conflict. The resolution provides a number of important operational mandates, with implications for member states and the entities of the United Nations system.

For Your Consideration

Understanding the impact of armed conflict on women and girls requires attention to three specific themes. Firstly, women and girls experience conflict differently than men and boys. There is increasing awareness of the gender differences and inequalities during war and in post conflict reconstruction. However it is misleading to set up a dichotomy that locates women and men in totally different spheres. Secondly, women (like men) are both actors and victims in armed conflicts. They may assume, or be forced to play, the roles of combatants and may also support fighting forces in other ways. Third, it is important to bear in mind that women are not a homogenous group and may have divergent interests and priorities. Furthermore, the social, economic, cultural, and political considerations vary from country to country and it is important to ground recommendations in concrete realities.

There have been significant gains towards implementing United Nations resolutions, particularly in enhancing the protection of civilians in armed conflict, including women and girls, and promoting the participation of women in peace and security processes.  Gaps and challenges remains, however, in the post-conflict period, in which women’s potential contribution is constrained because of their exclusion from decision-making processes and inadequate recognition of their needs and how they could be financed.

Important topics to discuss, among other things, are the evaluation of the impacts of conflicts on women and girls and assessment of their needs in post-conflict situations; the identification of ways and means to promote and sustain women’s roles in post-conflict reconstruction and reintegration, election, justice and security sector reforms; and women’s participation in nation-building, governance and policymaking bodies for socio-economic development.

In addition, delegations may consider coordinated and coherent United Nations support for national capacity-building initiatives in addressing the security, recovery and development needs of women and girls; and the role of Member States in ensuring women’s empowerment, both political and economic, the protection of women’s and girls’ rights and measures to promote women’s participation in all post-conflict activities and gender mainstreaming in post-conflict strategies.

For More Information

United Nations Security Council
http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/

WomenWarPeace
http://www.womenwarpeace.org/

Office of the Special Adviser on Gender Issues and Advancement of Women
http://www.un.org/womenwatch/osagi/index.html

NGO Working Group on Women, Peace, and Security
http://www.womenpeacesecurity.org/

United Nations Development Fund for Women
http://www.unifem.org/

Relief Web
http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/dbc.nsf/doc100?OpenForm

Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom
http://www.peacewomen.org/

Topic 2: North Korea Nuclear Program

Statement of the Problem

North Korea’s nuclear weapons program poses many problems to the region and the broader international community. First, there is the direct threat to South Korea and US forces stationed there. With its new improved missile system all of Northeast Asia could be potentially targeted as well. Second, North Korea’s nuclear weapons capabilities raise the possibility of a nuclear arms race in Asia that would further destabilize the region. Third, allowing North Korea to blatantly disregard international arms control agreements without consequences would diminish its, and future agreements’, credibility. Finally, North Korea could potentially export its weapons technology to terrorist states and organizations.

Background Information

With the withdrawal of Soviet assurances of protection following the Cuban missile crisis, North Korea felt threatened by the alliance of the United States, Japan and South Korea. This, combined with North Korea’s own lack of conventional energy sources, persuaded the regime to begin to develop their own nuclear program. In the 1980's North Korea constructed four nuclear reactors capable of producing weapons grade plutonium. By US defence estimates, North Korea generated enough plutonium for two nuclear weapons and had started development on a ballistic missile weapons delivery system during the 80's.

From 1985 to 1992, North Korea participated in a series of international diplomatic agreements where it pledged to "deweaponize" its reactors and halt further production of plutonium. Experts argued that this was simply North Korea’s attempt to "buy time" by appearing cooperative with the international community while simultaneously furthering the development of its nuclear weapons program.

In 1993, North Korea refused to disclose to international arms control agencies the amount of plutonium it produced. By this time North Korea had violated or withdrawn from most of its signed agreements. It became evident North Korea’s nuclear weapons program had continued without restraint. In June 1994, the United States, South Korea and its allies succeeded in getting the U.N. Security Council to impose sanctions against them. In response, North Korea declared the sanctions constituted an "act of war" and threatened military action against South Korea.

The Clinton administration opted to pursue a diplomatic solution. North Korean President Kim Il-Sung and President Clinton negotiated an agreement, signed on Oct. 21 1994, which came to be known as the "Agreed Framework". The agreement stipulated that North Korea would power down all its heavy-water reactors and replace them with light-water reactors (which are not capable of producing weapons grade plutonium) that were to be supplied by the US by 2003. Additionally, The US would provide North Korea with annual shipments of heavy oil in order to offset the loss of energy North Korea would incur during the period of transition. In return, North Korea would comply with all nuclear non-proliferation agreements.

However, the Agreed Framework collapsed after mutual distrust and violations of the treaty by both sides. The building of a light water nuclear reactor by the USA in the provision of the treaty was not achieved by 2002. Thus, North Korea resumed the use of the old reactors. North Korea admitted its continued development of nuclear weapons, blamed the US and declared the agreement nullified.

Following the failure of the Agreed Framework, North Korea pushed for a non-aggression pact with the US. The US refused, citing previous violations of international agreements, the Agreed Framework being the most recent example. Instead, the US pressured North Korea to have "Six-Party talks;" a series of negotiations and meetings between the USA, Japan, China, Russia, South Korea and North Korea.

On Oct. 16, 2002, tensions rose higher in the Korean Peninsula, when the North Korean government admitted that they had been developing nuclear weapons in violation of the 1994 non-proliferation agreement with the United States. Anxious that military action might provoke an attack on South Korea where 37,000 troops were stationed, the US chose, once again, to pursue diplomatic efforts to persuade the North Koreans to eliminate its nuclear weapons and comply with its commitments.

North Korea’s nuclear program culminated in 2006 with a successful underground nuclear test, which was verified by the USA’s following intelligence report. In a roundtable discussion with the United States and China in Beijing on April 24, 2003, North Korean officials admitted for the first time that they possessed nuclear weapons. Furthermore, North Korean officials claim to have reprocessed spent fuel rods and have threatened to begin exporting nuclear materials unless the United States agrees to one-on-one talks with North Korea. The United Nation’s Security Council immediately put forward sanctions against the North Korea, which included embargoes on certain goods. During the fifth of the Six-Party Talks, North Korea showed its willingness to return to the 1994 Agreed Framework and to the sealing of Yongbyon Nuclear Facility. On July 14, 2007, the IAEA confirmed the shutdown of Yongbyon; however, in 2008 following disagreements of Six-Party Talks, North Korea hinted the possibility of the reactivation of Yongbyon. In October 2008, IAEA inspectors were forbidden by North Korea to conduct their routine inspections in the de-activation process.

In December 2008 North Korea refused to agree to verification measures being sought by the Bush administration and the process collapsed. It was widely believed among diplomats that Pyongyang had decided to see if it could obtain better terms from the incoming Obama administration.
Then in 2009 the country again defied world opinion, moving steadily and fairly openly toward launching a long-range rocket that Western experts saw as a major step toward a military weapon. The April launch of the three-stage rocket, which the North Korean government portrayed as a success -- even bragging that the supposed satellite payload was now broadcasting patriotic tunes from space -- outraged Japan and South Korea, led to widespread rebuke by President Obama and other leaders, and prompted the United Nations Security Council to go into an emergency session.
But military and private experts said that in fact North Korea had failed in its highly vaunted effort to fire a satellite into orbit -- detailed tracking data showed the missile and payload fell into the sea. Some said the failure undercut the North Korean campaign to come across as a fearsome adversary able to hurl deadly warheads halfway around the globe.

The Security Council unanimously passed a resolution on June 12 to tighten sanctions targeting North Korea's nuclear and missile development programs, including encouraging United Nations members to inspect cargo vessels and airplanes suspected of carrying weapons and other military materiel. The Obama administration said it will order the Navy to hail and request permission to inspect such ships, but will not board them by force, stopping just short of what North Korea has said it would regard as an act of war.

North Korea, angered by the United Nations rebuke over the missile launch, also subsequently declared it would pull out of nuclear disarmament talks for good and reactivate its nuclear program. The International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations nuclear watchdog, later confirmed that North Korea had announced that it was ceasing all cooperation and expelling nuclear inspectors from the country.

On April 25, 2009, North Korea announced that it had begun reprocessing thousands of spent nuclear fuel rods, adding that it would use plutonium extracted from the rods to make nuclear weapons. Experts say that the rods can yield enough plutonium for one or two bombs. The second nuclear test, on May 25, 2009, dramatically raised the stakes in a global effort to persuade the recalcitrant Communist state to give up its weapons program.
China and Russia, key North Korean allies, were heavily involved in drafting the resolution during the nearly three weeks since the second nuclear test, but they resisted making the inspections and some other measures mandatory, so it remains unclear what impact the sanctions will have.

Pyongyang has shown itself able to withstand the pressure of sanctions in the past. But in trying to cut off all financial transactions related to the military, as well as imposing a complete arms export ban and almost total import ban, the council is hoping to push North Korea to return to talks about dismantling its nuclear and missile development programs.

For Your Consideration

1. In what ways can the United Nations ensure the thorough investigation of the North Korea’s nuclear deactivation program overseen by the IAEA?
2. Should there be more coordinated efforts by United Nations’ member states to help the USA build Light Water Nuclear Reactors in North Korea?
3. Does a non-aggression pact or declarations by South Korea and the USA necessarily ensure the DPRK’s nuclear disarmament?
4. Should the framework agreed upon in the Six-Party talks be 'upgraded' to a more legally binding pact made under the UN's supervision?
5. Should United Nations’ member states be prepared to acknowledge North Korea as a fully fledged nuclear state?
6. What role are Russia and China playing in the current conflict?
7. What can we expect from North Korea upon the transition of power from Kim Jong-il to his son, Kim Jong-un?

For More Information

Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

Non-Proliferation Treaty
http://www.un.org/events/npt2005/npttreaty.html

1992 Basic Agreement
http://www.international.ucla.edu/eas/documents/korea-agreement.htm

2006 Security Council Resolution
www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sc8778.doc.htm

Timeline of Events
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/08/20/nkorea.timeline.nuclear/
http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/news/international/countriesandterritories/northkorea/nuclear_program/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_North_Korea_nuclear_program

BBC News
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2340405.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2564241.stm

Global Security
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/dprk/nuke-uranium.htm

New York Times
http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/news/international/countriesandterritories/northkorea/nuclear_program/index.html

Nuclear Files
http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/nuclear-weapons/issues/proliferation/north-korea/

TIME
http://www.time.com/time/archive/collections/0,21428,c_north_korean_nukes,00.shtml

Topic 3: Israel/Palestine Conflict

Statement of the Problem
The Israel-Palestine Conflict is tainted with religious assertions, territorial disputes, and the influence of external world powers. This problem has remained unchanged for a relatively long-time now. Wars have been fought, agreements drafted and approved, and boundaries re-drawn.

While the size of the Israel-Palestine dispute may seem relatively small, it has the potential to destabilize the entire region and put the lives of many civilians at risk. There is a persistent security threat experienced by both the Israelis and Palestinians. Israel feels threatened by rocket attacks against its southern settlements and other forms of political violence carried out on its territory. On the Palestinian side there is a grave concern about the occupation’s affect on its people’s standard of living and hope for the future. There is also the issue of the Palestinian refugees from the 1948 Palestine War. Palestine wants a "right of return" for these individuals and their descendants which Israel rejects. All of these contentious issues make security elusive and put the prospects of lasting peace and regional stability even more in doubt.

The problem has appeared intractable for so long because each side has a fierce mistrust of the other. This makes it unlikely that peace will come about unless there can be some guarantees that both the Israelis and the Palestinians will keep the commitments and promises they make under any peace plan. The conflict is complicated and there are far more problems and issues surrounding it than can possibly be mentioned in such a brief guide. It is strongly recommended that you conduct your own research to contribute to your understanding.

Background Information

In 1880, under the Ottoman Empire, out of the 400,000 people living in Palestine, 24,000 were Jewish. By 1914, the population had grown to about 700,000, 12% of which were Jewish, the rest Arab. There was no state of Israel then. Both Arabs and Jews lived together under Ottoman rule. After World War I, France and Britain signed the Sykes-Picot agreement of 1916 which gave a portion of Palestine to the British, another part to a joint allied-government and Syria and Lebanon to the French.

The end of World War I provided the growing Zionist movement an opportunity. Chaim Weizmann, a British Chemist, lobbied the British government to provide a homeland for the Jews in Palestine. The British leaders were sympathetic and then Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour wrote to Lord Rothschild what has become known as the Balfour declaration. The Balfour declaration voiced Britain’s support for the creation of a Jewish "National Home" in Palestine. Needless to say, the declaration receive opposition from the Arab nationalists who refused the establishment of a Jewish state in fear of the displacement of native Arabs.

In 1920, the British received a provisional mandate from the League of Nations over Palestine. The mandate assigned the British to aid the Jews in creating their homeland in Palestine. The Jewish Agency for Palestine was instituted to realize this mandate by representing Jewish interests in Palestine and encouraging Jewish immigration. The agency became the de-facto government of the Jewish community in Palestine.

In 1922, Trans-Jordon was given independence by the British. Conflict soon broke out afterwards between the Jewish community and the Arab community who had resisted the Balfour declaration, the British mandate, and the large-scale immigration of Jews to Palestine. Despite British attempts to reconcile both parties, Jewish immigration continued, as did Jewish-Arab enmity.

After the bombing of British central headquarters at the King David Hotel by a violent element of the Zionist movement, the British relinquished to United Nations involvement. The United Nations Special Commission of Palestine (UNSCOP) recommended dividing Palestine into a Jewish and Arab state, with Jerusalem becoming a UN administered, international zone. The Zionists accepted the Partition Plan despite being disappointing at not acquiring all of Palestine, while the Arabs rejected the plan because it gave the Jewish people more land than the Arabs (56%-43%).

In 1984, Arab states invaded Israel to actualize their rejection of the UN plan. Israel turned out be the winner of that war, gaining all of the territory promised under the UN plan, plus half of the promised Arab territory. Jordanian forces controlled the West Bank and Egyptians took the Gaza strip. Israel’s newly acquired territory became its de-facto borders as it declared independence on May 14, 1948. The US and Soviet Union recognized the state of Israel’s existence, but East Jerusalem (then under Jordanian control), which the Jews claimed as their capital, was not recognized internationally.

Two more wars followed. Israeli territory expanded once again following the Six Day War, wherein Israeli acquired the Gaza strip, the Sinai Peninsula, the West Bank and the Golan Heights. This expansion of Israeli territory led to uprisings from the neighbouring Arab states and eventually resulted int the 1973 Yom Kippur War. Syria and Egypt launched attacks against Israel during a religious holiday. They were defeated, however, and many Egyptian soldiers were taken prisoner. Fortunately, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat chose a diplomatic solution to the problem and offered to enter talks with Israel to resolve the situation. The result of those negotiations was the "Camp David" peace agreement. Israel slowly withdrew from the Sinai Peninsula and aid flowed from the US to Israel and Egypt.

UN resolutions 242 and 338, were passed following the Six Day War and the Yom Kippur War respectively. The resolutions proposed Israel give up its newly subjugated territories in return for its international recognition as a sovereign state. The resolutions also reiterated the 1947 Partition Plan claim that the West Bank and the Gaza Strip belonged to the Palestinians. The resolutions’ calls for the state of Israel’s recognition have remained unanswered by the Arab states and violence has become the norm in the areas of Israel and Palestine. Occasionally peace solutions have been considered though lasting, significant results have yet to be obtained.

In 1993, the Oslo Peace Accords opened the way for a peace treaty between Israel and Jordon. It was the result of secret negotiations that established a framework for achieving peace and proposed a two-state solution. The peace agreements ultimately failed though, as terrorist attacks emanating from the Gaza strip intensified and subsequent retaliatory acts from the Israeli military followed.

There was also the Bush administration’s 2002 "Road Map" for peace, sponsored by Russia, the European Union and the UN. It called for the disarmament of Palestinian Arab terrorist groups and for the unilateral withdrawal of Israeli settlers from occupied territories. However, little was done on either side to meet these obligations.

In February 2004, Israel’s President Ariel Sharon did announce a disengagement plan. The plan called for the total withdrawal of Israel’s forces from the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip. The plan received disapproval from advocates of Zionism who feared it gave in to the demands of terrorist groups. Ultimately, the plan did not succeed in putting an end to the conflict as it was not able to prevent the escalation of suicide bombings or Arab antagonism towards Israel.

Complicating matters further was Israel’s construction of a security fence along the Green Line that drew heavy criticism from Arab states. Critics argued it violated human rights. Israel defended the barrier arguing it was necessary to protect Jewish settlements. The International Court of Justice reprimanded Israel for the fence’s construction. Israel chose to respond by modifying the path of the fence rather than fully dismantling it.
Since the death of long-time PLO leader Yassar Arafat, tensions have begun to emerge between the two Palestinian parties, Hamas and Fatah. Tensions intensified after Hamas won a majority in the Palestinian Legislature in 2006. Currently Hamas is in control of Gaza while Fatah retains control of the West Bank.

In 2008, Israel invaded the Gaza strip in response to sustained Hamas rocket against against Southern Israel. Israel quickly overcame Palestinian resistance. After proclaiming to have achieved its objectives, Israeli forces withdrew. Claims of human rights violations by the Palestinians prompted a UN fact finding mission to Gaza. The mission produced a report in 2009 which suggested that Israel had committed serious violations of international human rights and humanitarian law during its incursion into Gaza. Israel argued that the report was biased against Israel for political reasons pointing to the fact that Hamas was not condemned for its rocket attacks against Israel.

For Your Consideration

1. Is a two-state solution the best path towards peace?
2. How can the two parties be persuaded to recognize the other’s right to exist?
3. Should Israel be compelled to return to 1967 boundaries of the West Bank and Gaza?
4. What should be done about the Israeli settlements on the West Bank?
5. How might Israeli security concerns be alleviated in order to bring about concessions and/or comprises on other fronts?
6. What should be done to address the Palestinian refugee problem?
7. How should Jerusalem be handled? Should the Security Council insist on its internationalization?

For More Information

Mid East Web Gateway
http://www.mideastweb.org/

Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel,_Palestine,_and_the_United_Nations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_israel_peace_process

BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/middle_east/2001/israel_and_the_palestinians/default.stm

Al Jazeera News
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/

Pro-Con
http://israelipalestinian.procon.org/