REVEALING AND RESOLVING

By Reuters

(Reporter- Avyakt Jaiswal, Photographer- Shubham Gupta)

---

Including  exclusive information on the Mole in SPECPOL!

As the conference came close to commencing again, delegates continued scribbling on their notebooks and  asking questions to the chairs, ready to ignite a very fruitful and fiery conference and more than ready to  unfortunately but very intriguingly be thrust onto  a crisis…   firstly beginning with a more organized general speakers list. 

 It all began with the delegate of the saudi arabia pointing out how the jews had seized control of palestenian land prior to the holocaust which had forced them to relocate, this was followed by the unfortunate announcement that the SPECPOL comittee has failed to locate the mole who has leaked out very delicate and confidential information.   The conference however was very ambitiously set into gear to unravel the infamous identity of the mole accompanied by fierce discussions.

Throughout the duration of the conference delegates brought up intriguing claims, one of them being by the delegate of palestine who was willing to convince the committee that there are more resolutions to the conflict which refrain from bloodshed, by deploying the Un peacekeeping force and encouraging jews to be displaced within europe…..This statement sparked the everburning fire of discussion which was to be seen throughout the rest of the conference. Delegate of palestine’s statement was further rebutted by India, who stated that jews cannot possibly return to the place which has exposed them to physical and mental torment, considering germany and poland. The delegate of panama also revealed  a conflicting case with Saudi Arabia’s advocating for human rights when they are violating many at the same time(with violation of women’s rights and rigorous laws).

With many interesting inquiries being presented to the floor, the debate began  boiling with India’s attempts to convince palestine to find a middle ground, but the delegate was made to go out due to the use  of personal pronouns not being accepted in a mun conference. After the commencement of a few unmoderated caucuses which made us see delegates crammed into one space with the ambition of reaching a consensus until ...another crisis came to light.

The committee was informed that the representative of agudat israel had been abducted , forcing the conference to be set into an intense atmosphere, with the increasing pressure of finding out who is responsible for this  and most of all, who is the mole?. As tensions increased, countries ultimately failed to unravel why the kidnapping took place and by who, as requests to activate an international investigation were introduced but no action was taken.

Ultimately, it all boiled down to two sides, with palestine and lebanon clenching onto the proposition of a one state solution with the belief that it would be more peaceful and would also introduce a joint currency system being thus more beneficial for their economy. On the other hand, other countries like India proposed a Two state solution, with the separation of religious heritage and possibly a more peaceful resolution.  As these ideologies began to clash within several moderated caucuses, countries then stepped to the floor to present their working papers(Specpol being the first committee to submit theirs) , a crucial component in representing the possible solutions they believe in, also deciding the outcome of the conference. This was accompanied by several Q and A’s discussing the validity of both one state and two state solutions.

As the conference progressed further, the committee was informed that there were threats posed to the EB (by the mole)  who was half jewish.

As intensity in the atmosphere grew, the answer was finally found: The E.B pressured Panama into leaking confidential information and they were the infamous mole all along, being economically weak and easily influenced.

Take a look at the engaging and quite fierce Q and A that took place discussing the working paper of the delegate of palestine: 

Clause 7A (tourist law) Has talked about how jews would be allowed holy visitations, how can you assure this, as it will affect the security conditions of palestine? 

A- We would definitely do a background check on all visiting jews and would get to know about their background information, whether they are radical jews or jews with balanced opinions. 

Q- working paper states that separation of two states is not possible because of violence, are you saying that the same wouldn’t occur in a one state solution.

A- Delegate it would be less, compared to a two state solution, but again a separate clause states that we do not affirm to the fact that the one state solution would necessarily be the ‘right decision’ but since we are announcing rigorous tourist laws and background checks, it shouldn’t be a problem. 

How does the delegate  plan to move all jews in and out without provoking them? 

So the delegate would like to elaborate on parameters on how a one state solution would be better than a two state approach- 

The fact of the matter is what are the consequences of a two state solution- failing to recognize long term impacts of a one state solution. They will be giving free immigration, demand for resources will rise, they will territorially expand for the need of more resources, but when there is a one state solution, that area would be comparatively more economically sustainable. - Palestine