Today’s social media campaigns have much energy. A case in point is the unprecedented public uprising and campaigning for the cause of the Palestinians. We saw mighty protests worldwide, which moved us to the core and made us question which side we’re on, prompting us to ask what we as individuals have done to help.

As I view stories on my Instagram account, I think of the times back in school where I used to participate in the Model United Nations (MUNs) conferences and other international dialogue forums.

Simply put, the thing about the MUNs is that you don’t just debate an issue at hand, but you represent the UN member states and draft what is called a ‘resolution’. You can be assigned any country and you may not agree with its policies but you make sure you truly represent them. You engineer yourself to talk about their interests, to project their standpoint on a given matter and, if need be, to defend their stance.

I have participated in MUNs many times. Thrice I have acted as the delegate of Israel in committees related to disarmament and international security. It was quite a learning curve. What today the social media accounts are bringing to discussion, for someone in the MUN circuit, these topics were ‘sensational talk’ even back then.

To represent Israel, I was taught that if anyone questioned me about my nuclear weaponry, I should deny it. There’s no ‘proof to prove,’ if you will. America has got your back. You sit, you move, and you bloc with the US. China might support the Muslim countries, so that’s okay. They support the Palestinian cause to get support for their stance on Taiwan. The other three of the P5 are simply aligning with group friends. UK, France and Russia may not be closely moving with you but they are with you. So, you don’t have to worry about anything. You’ve got the veto card in your pocket; Uncle Sam is going to swipe it, whenever his ‘puppy-pal’ needs it for some shopping.

So, I was the buyer. Not the good. I knew I had to be assertive and bold. The world was against me but I didn’t have to care. I was inevitably the centre of attention. My role in world diplomacy (more accurately, global politics) was so essential that my notoriously displeasing measures had a value of their own. In order to put me right, the member states would get together in the General Assembly and talk about imposing economic sanctions.

It became more interesting that I would have the Arab States sitting in my bloc, the United States of America playing the bridge. So we might not be directly working towards a goal but this setting depicted how the nature of bloc formation only helped me build strength on the international forefront. Especially, considering how Turkey and Egypt recognised my state. It did not matter what the other countries felt, as long as the trading giants acknowledged me.

Other ongoing conflicts were a good cover for me. Unity in disparity was to my favour. Whenever my integrity was questioned, in rebuttal the topic was always stirred away. Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq would often take the limelight.

Now, let’s talk about my counterpart. Where do I get the criticism for occupying Palestine? This was no invasion. The land was allocated under a British authored declaration and many Palestinians sold their properties to incoming settlers. When I look at this argument as a Pakistani, it’s like saying that I had land near Wagha border and sold it to an Indian. Does that make it India?

Having ownership (or possession) of some land and the property being in a particular country’s legislation are two different aspects altogether. Why is this not understood?

According to the United Nations, in a state of war, a country attacks another country but cannot occupy its land. That is why when India invaded East Pakistan in 1971, it had to withdraw its troops and a new country (Bangladesh) was born. The same goes for the USA’s wars with Afghanistan and Iraq.

So why does Israel keep militarily extending and occupying more territory?

My point regarding how Israel behaves in the Model UN is to make people understand how someone who has to represent and defend Israel’s stance has to conform. We can see today that in every matter Israel is being called out, but the reason why it doesn’t make a difference is because there is no accountability.

The United Nations was a platform where through consensus and equal footing all the interests of member states were to be looked after. But has it suited its purpose? Are there equal rights for all countries? The veto refers to the constitutional right to reject a decision. The power is wielded by five permanent members of the UN Security Council. This enables them to prevent the adoption of any substantive draft resolution, regardless of the level of international support. Why is it that Israel is recognised as a member state in the UN but Palestine is not?