Are You sure you want to delete Member from list ?
1. Israel’s Opening Framing
Israel’s representative begins with an apology and shifts to terrorism, invoking Osama
bin Laden in Pakistan and 9/11. The strategy softens the tone and redirects blame from
Gaza. However, this is a red herring—comparing terrorism to occupation oversimplifies
and avoids the legal issues about Israel’s actions in Gaza. While it may appeal to
supportive countries, it ignores international law and risks seeming evasive.
2. Pakistan’s Legal Response
Pakistan calls Israel an occupier and aggressor, citing UN resolutions, the UN Charter,
and the UNSC statement on Qatar. This makes Pakistan’s argument credible compared
to Israel’s diversion. It also uses strong emotional words, labeling Israel a “rogue” and
“terrorist” state, which increases impact but might alienate neutral countries.
3. But we need to be careful—Pakistan’s statements can also be affected by its political
interests in the region.—ties with Saudi Arabia or UAE which have relations with Israel, it
might word its criticism carefully so it does not upset them.—and domestic politics, as
Pakistan’s citizens and parties strongly support Palestine. Political interests mean “how
Pakistan maintains foreign relations,” and domestic politics mean “how it appears to its
people.” Both affect how forcefully Pakistan criticizes Israel, even when morally
supporting Palestine.
4. Algeria’s Regional Perspective
Algeria frames the issue regionally, highlighting Gaza alongside Israel’s attacks in Syria,
Lebanon, Yemen, and Qatar. This positions Israel as a threat to the Middle East and
portrays Qatar as a peace mediator harmed by Israel. However, strong words like
“madness” and “abyss” risk making the argument seem emotional. Including verified
data on casualties and violations would strengthen the case.
5. Assumptions in All Three Speeches
Israel equates terrorism and occupation, suggesting critics are hypocritical (self-
serving bias). Pakistan assumes the Council knows its counterterrorism role and
agrees Israel is an illegal occupier (authority bias, confirmation bias). Algeria
assumes Israel seeks no peace and the Council aids Israel through inaction (negativity
bias). These biases—Israel as victim, Pakistan as law defender, Algeria as moral
voice—limit debate fairness, as each side depends on audience agreement.
6. Evidence and Weaknesses
Israel cites Osama bin Laden and 9/11 without legal proof (weak evidence). Pakistan
uses UN documents (stronger evidence), but adds emotional claims; Israel frames its
actions as necessary for security. Independent verification is needed to confirm claims;
accepting Israel’s reasoning without evidence ignores civilian harm and displacement.
Algeria presents humanitarian facts and sovereignty concerns but lacks detailed
numbers and enforcement proposals. None fully integrates legal, moral, and factual
evidence, making all arguments partially unbalanced.
Conclusion
The debate shows what Israel, Pakistan, and Algeria think in the Security Council. What’s
original is that it gives different views on occupation, terrorism, and double standards. The text
makes sense and is easy to follow, but it doesn’t offer new solutions or fully balanced reasoning.
It shows how politics, emotional language, and assumptions affect the debate. The examples
are clear, but it could be stronger if it checked facts more carefully and explained how rules
could actually be enforced. It has enough detail for readers who know a bit about the topic. We
just need to be careful to separate what’s mostly talked about from what really follows the law.
Arooj Fatima ,
CT B3.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlONNZbmIkQ&t=822s
