Statehood at Stake

Deliberations on the recognition of the State of Palestine’s statehood and its bid for permanent membership in the United Nations commenced with the delegates of the State of Palestine, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and the Islamic Republic of Iran advocating for its inclusion. However, this proposal was immediately dismissed by the delegate of the United States of America, who argued that the State of Palestine does not meet the fundamental criteria required for statehood.

To counter this, the delegate of the State of Palestine contended that an ally of its adversary, the State of Israel, should not be able to dictate the conditions for its statehood.

Echoing this sentiment, the delegate of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia asserted that the continuous supply of financial and military aid from the United States of America to the Government of the State of Israel is the primary impediment to a ceasefire, further stating that the conflict would have de-escalated had Israeli resources been exhausted.

In response, the delegate of the United States of America refuted the claim that their nation is “funding the war” and urged the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to uphold its role as a neutral peacemaker. Furthermore, they questioned the extent of Saudi Arabia’s influence as a leading authority in the Arab world.

Challenging these assertions, the delegate of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia emphasized the nation’s continuous efforts to provide urgent humanitarian relief to innocent civilians during the most critical phases of the war. The delegate also emphasized Saudi Arabia’s active leadership in forming a global coalition that has and continues to advocate for a two-state solution.

The committee proceeded to deliberate on the viability of a two-state solution as the most practical resolution. This perspective was reinforced by the delegate of the Islamic Republic of Iran, who asserted that any proposed solution must be grounded in justice rather than mere convenience.