Security Council JrBSBMUN II 2019 Study

Guide
Tomás de Athayde and Carolina Barroso

1
 Table of Contents
Letter from the Chairs 3
Short History and Organization of the Security Council 4
Procedure 6
The Current Kurdish Situation 11
Recent History 11
Current Status Quo 13
Timeline 14
Country Positions 14
Recent Development in the Israel-Palestine Conflict 16
Recent History 16
Current Status Quo 17
Timeline 18
Country Positions 18
-----------------------------------------------------

2
 Letter from the Chairs

Welcome delegates to the second edition of JrBSBMUN! We’re extremely excited to

be chairing this year’s Security Council and we hope that you’re as excited as we are! In this
committee, you’ll have a chance to develop several skills that will be essential in any other
MUN conferences that you decide to participate in. As most of you should know, the
Security Council is one of the most important committees in the United Nations, as it
tackles issues that are critical for the world’s safety and stability. For this reason, we chairs
put a lot of thought into which issues we would like to address in this committee,
considering the wide range of conflicts yet to be debated. We expect you to arrive to the
conference fully prepared in order to make the debate flow easily. We guarantee you that
this conference is an amazing experience and gives you the opportunity to become a better
delegate and person. To help guide you through your research process, we created this Study
Guide. But, as expectations are high, we recommend you to do research apart from what is
given here in order to improve your research skills. We truly hope that you enjoy this
conference at its’ most and we wish you best of luck.
Good luck,
Head Chair Tomás de Athayde and Vice-Chair Carolina Barroso
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3
 Short History and Organization of the
Security Council
The Security Council was created along with most of the UN committees in 1945
after the signing of the UN Charter. The Security Council was created under the four
purposes of the charter:

● To maintain international peace and security;

● To develop friendly relations among nations;

● To cooperate in solving international problems and in promoting respect for human

rights;

● And to be a center for harmonizing the actions of nations.

The Security Council held its first session in Westminster, London in 1946 and has a
special organizational structure. The SC (Security Council) has a total of fifteen members.
Within these fifteen, there are two types of members:

● Permanent Members of the Security Council

● Non-Permanent Members of the Security Council

There are only five Permanent Members of the SC:

● The United States of America,
● The Russian Federation
● The People’s Republic of China
● The United Kingdom
● The Republic of France
These members were chosen to be permanent members of the SC because of their
military, political, and economic dominance over the world after WWII. These member
4
states have SC terms that never expire and have access to a Veto. These states are usually the
most influential and powerful states on the committee.

The other ten Non-Permanent Members of the SC have two two-year terms and are
elected by the General Assembly. These members rotate after their term limits expire and
elections occur at different years to maintain a balance of different outlooks and
perspectives.

The SC has had a critical influence on global politics and on dictating justice on the
world stage. During the Cold War, the SC was critical for debate and to maintain an
unbiased outlook on the conflict. After the Cold War, the United States has taken a very
powerful stance in the SC but the council is still contested by other local powers. The SC has
been pivotal in the development of the geopolitical stage for over seventy years.

The decisions made at the SC are binding and have certain immediate effects. It is
also the only international institution capable of condemning and recognizing in their
decisions. The SC is arguably the most important UN committee in the entirety of the
organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5
 Procedure
At JrBSBMUN, we will follow a procedure similar to the European Model United Nations
procedure. This section will detail all the parts of the debate.

1. General Rules
a.
i. The chairs are the authority while in committee, and while the
delegates can appeal to the decision can be appealed using the motions
describe below, the final choice lies with the dais’ decision. In the
Security Council, you and your fellow delegates are not “persons”, and
so personal pronouns are not allowed (For instance, instead of saying
“How will you address the crisis”, say “How will the Delegate address
the crisis”). All delegates are expected and required to treat each other
with respect in and out of committee, and while points and motions are
integral for debate, they should never interrupt another delegate’s
speech.
b. Points and Motions (from the BSBMUN IV Delegate’s Handbook)
i. Below are all the points and motions we will be having during the
debate. If any of the delegates wish to make a point or motion, they
need to raise their placards and wait to be called by the chairs.
Memorization is not necessary, and the delegates will have access to
this document at all times. If a specific point or motion is necessary for
further part of the debate, it will be addressed in that section.
ii. Points
a. Point of Personal Privilege: This point refers to a matter of
personal comfort, safety, and/or well being of the members of
the committee. The Chair may refuse to recognize the said point
if the delegate has not shown proper restraint or if the point is
dilatory in nature. Example: “Point of Personal Privilege, the
delegate cannot hear the speaker.”

6
 b. Point of Information: After a delegate gives a speech, he or she
may be open to Points of Information or yield the floor back to
the Chair. If the delegate decides to yield to Points of
Information, he or she may either limit the number of Points of
Information or be open to any and all that may arise. These
points must be directed to the speaker and be phrased in the
form of a question. Following a Point of Information, delegates
may request a follow-up, which will be judged by the Chair.
c. Point of Order: This point relates to the observance of the rules
of the committee or to the way the Chair is exercising his or her
power. The Chair may refuse to recognize a Point of Order if
the delegate has not shown proper restraint governing the use
of such a right or if the point is dilatory in nature.
d. Point of Clarification: This point is used to clarify what may
have been incorrectly stated or ambiguous before. Points of
Clarification must always be objective and factual and cannot
have a subjective aspect.
e. Point of Inquiry: A delegate may raise a Point of Inquiry to
request clarification of the present procedural status of a
session.
f. Right of Reply: This right must be submitted in writing to the
Chair. In this note, delegates must say what delegation is
exercising this right and why the delegation feels directly and
personally offended by another delegate’s comments. After
receiving the written request for a Right of Reply, the Chair will
rule whether it is valid or invalid.
iii. Motions:
a. Motion to Appeal to the Chair’s Decision: This motion is made
when a delegate feels that the Chair was incorrect in his or her
ruling. It is submitted to the Chair by writing and will be
decided by the co-Chair. At that time, the co-Chair will hear
from the delegate and Chair in order to make a decision. This
ruling is not subject to appeal.
7
b. Motion for a Moderated Caucus: When motioning for a
moderated caucus, delegates must specify the total time limit
for the caucus, speaking time, and purpose. During a moderated
caucus the Chair recognizes delegates for remarks without the
use of a speaker's list and yields.
c. Motion for an Unmoderated Caucus: When making this
motion, delegates must specify the length and purpose of the
caucus. Unmoderated caucuses allow delegates to have informal
discussions and move around the committee room.
d. Motion to Table Debate: The committee may consider a motion
to table debate on the item under discussion. If the motion is
seconded, two representatives may speak in favor and two
against the motion. This motion can be used to table
resolutions, amendments, or topics. A two-thirds majority is
required for passage. A resolution, amendment, or topic, may be
reintroduced so that debate can resume the same process. A
motion to reintroduce also requires a two-thirds vote to pass.
e. Motion to Move into Time Against: If a delegate feels that
debate in favor of a resolution or amendment is repetitive, he or
she may call out for this motion, assuming no one is speaking. If
the motion is seconded with no objections, it automatically
passes.
f. Motion to Adopt without a Vote: If a delegate believes that the
entire committee supports an amendment or resolution and
that debate is lacking, the delegate may motion to adopt
without a vote. This motion passes if it is seconded and there
are no objections.
g. Motion to Move into Voting Procedure: When a delegate feels
that the topic on the floor, be it a resolution or amendment, has
already been sufficiently discussed, he or she may motion to
close debate and move into voting procedure. This motion
passes if it is seconded and there are no objections.

8
 h. Motion to Suspend Debate: When the time allotted for a
specific committee session has elapsed, a delegate may make a
Motion to Suspend Debate. In order to pass, this motion must
be seconded and face no objections.
i. Motion to Recess: When the time allotted for the last committee
session has elapsed, delegates may make a Motion to Recess. In
order to pass, this motion must be seconded and face no
objections.
2. Opening Speech
a. All delegations, in alphabetical order, will stand and deliver one 45 seconds
long speech. This speech should first address the other delegations, the chairs
and any guests (typically in this manner: “Honorable Chairs, Fellow Delegates,
and Esteemed Guests”). Then the speech needs to outline your countries
positions on both topics, and (though optional) conclude with a line talking
about the delegations’ hope to solve their issue (as a side note, the phrase
“fruitful debate” is absolutely forbidden, and no delegations should ever use
it).
3. Lobbying
a. Following opening speeches, the committee moves into lobbying time. To do
this, one delegation needs to make a Motion for Moderated or Unmoderated
Caucuses (outlined in the section of the motion). Then delegates can rise from
their seats to make a resolution; up to five people (who will be known as the
Main Submitters) can merge their clauses (come with a few prepared clauses
to debate) into a working resolution. Main submitters must always vote for
their own resolutions. Anyone wanting to see the resolution being debated
and amended (not necessarily being passed), should sign as a co-submitter.
4. Debating Resolutions
a. When the lobbying time has elapsed, the chairs will select one of the
submitted resolutions at their own discretion and project it. Then one of the
main submitters will rise and read the resolution, followed by either the same
or a different delegate giving a speech in favor of the resolution. The speaker,
or another delegation, will then answer Points of Information regarding the
resolution. The house will then entertain a speaker against the resolution, who
9
 will also deliver a speech; and answer points of information. Following this, a
Motion for Unmoderated Caucus made by a delegate will move the committee
into amendments.
5. Amending Resolutions
a. When the Unmoderated Caucus begins, the delegates will make amendments
to the resolution. While striking clauses is allowed, adding or modifying
clauses is highly encouraged (as a tip, think of amendments as ways of making
the resolution passable [as in favorable for everyone], instead of making
clauses that will obviously not pass). After the time for unmoderated caucus
has elapsed, the amendments will be entertained in a similar way to
resolutions, with the amendment being read by the author, followed by a
speech in favor, a speech against, and a vote. If the amendment is passed, then
it is added to the resolution. After all, amendments are read and voted on a
Motion for a Moderated Caucus will lead the committee into the final voting
procedures.
6. Final Voting Procedures
When the moderated caucus starts, all delegates will be expected to speak, and give their
final thoughts on the completed resolutions. Following this, a Motion to move into Voting
Procedures will be entertained, and the resolution will be voted on. After this, the chairs will
either select another resolution or move into the second topic or a crisis; and follow the
appropriate procedure.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10
 The Current Kurdish Situation
Recent History
The Kurds are an ethnic group, mostly Sunni Muslims, that came from the 
Mesopotamian plains and are made up of several different cultures and habits. It came to a 
point around the beginning of the 20th century when the Kurds considered creating Kurdistan, 
which would be their state. 
After World War One (1914-1918) and the defeat of the Ottoman Empire, the Treaty of 
Sèvres was signed and the Allies promised the Kurds territory for Kurdistan (this same treaty 
divided the Ottoman Empire’s lands between the delegations who signed it). But all of the 
Kurds’ hopes were destroyed when the Treaty of Lausanne and the Treaty of Kars were signed 
and took the Kurds’ rights of creating their state away. Furthermore, these treaties divided the 
Kurds between Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Iran, where they live until today. 
Several attempts have been made of trying to create a new independent Kurdish state. A 
few of these attempts include the creation of the Mahabad Republic, backed by the Soviet 
Union, which lasted only a few months. There was also the foundation of the Kurdish 
Democratic Party (KDP) in 1946 by an Iraqi Kurd. Fights were initiated between the Iraqui 
government (ruled at the time by Abdul Karim Kassem) and the KDP, ending almost always in 
Iraqi victory. 
In 1970, the Iraqi-Kurdish Autonomy Agreement was signed, being seen as the first step 
of recognition of the Kurds’ authority. The collection of rebellions and events that took place 
between Iraq and Kurdistan between 1961 (the foundation of KDP) and 1970 (Autonomy 
Agreement) were known as the First Iraqi-Kurdish War.  
In 1975, the leader of the KDP resigned to create another political party named the 
Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) and that resulted in a huge rivalry between the parties. At 
around the same time, the Turkish leader Abdullah Ocalan founded the third Kurdish political 
party, known as the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK).  
During these fuzzy times filled with revolts and the foundation of new parties, there 
were other revolutions, such as the Islamic Revolution in Iran, that served as an influence for 
other Kurdish revolutions, all contained by the Iranian government. The situation between the 
Kurds and the countries fighting for domain over them became so problematic that in 1985, the 

11
PKK entered armed conflicts with the support of several Kurds, all of them were outraged by the 
authoritarian domain that Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey had over the Kurdish people. 
Massive slaughter of Kurds took place during the Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988) and many of 
them fled to neighboring countries. Another mass killing of Kurds took place in the rebellion 
between Iraq and the Kurds in 1991, after the Persian Gulf War. At the same time, Turkey made 
clear its hate for the Kurds by prohibiting the use of the Kurdish language in most areas of the 
country. The fight for freedom continued. 
From 1992 to 1998, rebellions continued between the countries and Kurdistan’s political 
parties (including the 1994-1998 War). But in 1999 Abdullah Ocalan, the leader of the PKK, was 
captured and sentenced to death by treason. During that time, Turkey and the Kurds fought 
violently, despite Ocalan’s pleads for political measures rather than violent. Since his sentence 
was adjourned until the European Court had a chance to analyze the case, Ocalan remains alive 
today. 
Finally, there was the creation of YPG, which is the People’s Protection Units. It’s a 
Kurdish group in Syria that is made up of women and men that strive to protect the Kurds in 
Syrian territory. It’s also known as the military wing of another Kurdish political party from 
Northern Syria named Democratic Union Party (PYD), a “spin-off” party from the PKK. 
---------------------------------------------------------------

12
 Current Status Quo

*Diagram represeting Kurdish political parties in Iraq, Turkey, and Syria

The most recent news on the Kurdish situation includes Kurdistan appealing to the
European Union and other countries for help since Turkey has been attacking Kurds in Northern
Syria. These pleads for help mainly asks for the implementation of a no-fly zone since Turkey
violated international laws.
At the same time, Iraqi leaders strive to eliminate ISIS and take control of all Iraqi
territory, including the one dominated by the semi-authoritarian state of Iraqi Kurdistan. The area
that Iraq mainly desires to seize back is the currently-dominated Kurdish pipeline to Turkey. The
leaders claim that “All border crossings in and out of Iraq must be under the exclusive control of
the federal state.”
Regarding Syrian Kurds, Turkey’s invasion of the country has been anything but discreet
and the fight between Turkey and the YPG remains strong. Recently, eight people were killed
during a fight between the two groups. Ilham Ahmed, the leader of the Syrian Kurd civilization
has, as mentioned before, gone to the EU to plead for help. The leader now accuses the United

13
Kingdom of being “invisible” in the condemnation of Turkey’s invasion in Syria, claiming that
this is due to the UK’s fear of isolation from these affairs as a result of Brexit.
The United States has been deeply involved in the situation, considering its sudden
change of position. A few weeks ago, the USA was known for its support of Kurds in Northern
Syria and now claims that the Kurdish people are more terrorists than the Islamic State. Besides
that, Trump has also stated that the Turkish-Kurdish fighting has “nothing to do with us.”
---------------------------------------------------------------
Timeline
https://www.infoplease.com/history/world/kurdish-history-timeline
Note from the chairs: Since this timeline is not a picture, we chose to insert the direct link on
the Study Guide. You can also find this source on the sources page.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Major Country Positions

United States of America: The United States has supported the Kurds for a very long
time. They’ve been actively involved in the issue by creating military bases in Northern Syria,
where Syrian Kurds lived. They were, inclusively, attacked by the Turks, who have been
fighting with the Kurds for a while. A few weeks ago, President Trump presented his
neutrality by stating that the Turkish-Kurdish situation had nothing to do with the US and
by stating that the Kurds could possibly be more terrorist than IS, the group that the US has
fought to eliminate from the Middle East.

Republic of Iraq: Considering that Iraq is ruled by the former Prime Minister of the
Kurdistan Region and is a Kurd, Iraq does support Kurdistan. Even though Iraq and the
Kurds do not have a very good history, the Autonomy Agreement made Iraq and Iraqi Kurds
stop fighting and, today, they support each other. Iraq has shown, specially, support for the
YPG.

Republic of Turkey: Turkey is completely against the Kurds, in all ways. Since 1978,
the Kurds and the Turks have been in a conflict called the Turkish-Kurdish conflict. This
conflict is built up of all rebellions, revolutions, rallies, and battles that both groups have

14
been in. Since Turkey does not like the thought that the Kurds, if declared independent, will
take a part of Turkey’s territory.

Syrian Arab Republic: Due to Turkey’s rivalry with the Kurds, Turkey has invaded
and is still inside Syrian territory. For that reason, Syria is slightly inclined to supporting the
Kurds. Furthermore, Syrian Kurdish leader Ilham Ahmed has made recent appearances in
international meetings in order to punish and eliminate Turkish threats in Syria.

Islamic Republic of Iran: Due to several past issues involving Iran and Kurdistan
(specially Kurdish guerilla groups), the relationship between Iran and Kurdistan is unstable
and Iran has shown, in several situations, its opposition to Kurds.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

15
 Recent Development in the
Israel-Palestine Conflict
Recent History
The  history  of  the  modern-state  of  Israel  has  been  summarized  by  near  constant  warfare  with 
their  neighbours  and  claimants  to  their  national  territories:  the  (mostly)  unrecognized  State of 
Palestine.  The  conflict  between  the  two  national  entities  can  be  further  traced  back  to  the 
Intercommunal  Conflict  in  the  British  Territory  of  Mandatory  Palestine,  where  the  Jewish 
residents  of  the  Land  of  Israel,  known  as  the  Yishuv,  clashed  against  the  Palestinian  Arab 
diasphora in the region.  
Following  the  implementation  of  Resolution  181  (II)  on  the  29th  of  November  of  1947,  which 
proposed  the  partitioning  of  the  British  colonial  territory  into  a  Jewish  State,  a  Palestinian 
State,  and  the  Free  City  of  Jerusalem  by  the  year  1948,  the  tensions  between  the  two  groups 
intensified.  The  Yishuv  were  pursued  by  palestinian  nationalist  groups  backed  by  the  Arab 
League.  All  the  while  Jewish  Immigration  was  encouraged  worldwide,  and  the  Jewish 
community in Palestine was strengthened.  
With  the  Israeli  Declaration  of  Independence  on  the  14th  of  May,  1948,  the  Arab  League 
assembled  militarily  to  officially  support  Palestine  in  their  struggle  against  Israel,  which  led to 
the  outbreak  of  the Arab-Israeli War of 1948, and the ensuing Arab occupation of the West Bank 
and the Gaza strip, where the All-Palestine Government was declared by the League.  
Throughout  the  1950s,  multiple  Palestinian  separatist  groups  were  supported  by  their  Arab 
neighbours  against  Israel,  which  saw  its government continuously consolidated power over the 
region  and  was  recognized  by  most  UN  member  states.  Following  the  Egyptian  occupation  of 
the  Gaza  Strip  after  the  1956  Suez  Crisis,  the  Palestinian  Liberation  Organization  (PLO)  was 
established  by  a  massively  influential  Palestinian  politician  known  as  Yasser  Arafat.  Arafat’s 
PLO was rapidly recognized by most Arab League members and many foreign entities.  
After  the  Palestinian  Uprising  of  1987  (commonly  known  as  the  First  Intifada),  the  Oslo  Peace 
accords  took  place,  which  led  to  the  establishment  of  the  Palestinian  National  Authority by the 
PLO,  which  encompassed  the  West  Bank  and  Gaza. The governing party was Fatah, a left-wing 
nationalist party also established by Arafat in 1957.  

16
This  peace  process  was  seen  as  unsatisfactory  by  radical  Palestinian  nationalists  and  Islamic 
separatist,  and  was  seen  as  a  betrayal  of  Israel  by  Israeli  radical  zionists  and  nationalists.  This 
disgruntlement,  especially  within  Israeli  society,  led  to  the  assassination  of  Israeli  Prime 
Minister  Yitzhak  Rabin  in  1995,  with  the  succeeding  government  backing  down  from the peace 
talks.  
This  breakdown  of  peace  negotiations  led  to  the  Second  Intifada,  an  armed  uprising  in  the 
Palestinian  territories  against  the  perceived  Israeli  occupiers,  which  lasted  from  2000  to 2005. 
Due  to  the  long-lasting  conflict,  Israeli  Prime  Minister  Sharon  ordered  the  withdrawal  of  all 
Israeli  settlers  from  the  Gaza  strip,  putting  an  end  to  its  occupation  of  the  palestinian  region 
and a formal end to the Intifada.  
There  was  a  schism  in  the  Palestinian  movement  in  2006  when  the  Hamas  political  party,  an 
anti-zionist,  anti-two  state  solution,  palestinian  and  islamic  nationalist  party  won  44%  of  the 
vote  in  the  Palestinian  Parliamentary  elections.  Israel  threatened  political  sanctions  against 
Palestine  if  Hamas  rejected  their  anti-zionist  views,  which  they  rejected.  Fatah,  the  governing 
political  party  founded  by  Yasser  Arafat,  which  supported  secularism,  social  democracy,  and  a 
two-state  solution,  formally  clashed  with  Hamas. This led to the Battle of Gaza and the ensuing 
total  takeover  of  the  Gaza  Strip  by  Hamas,  making  it  nearly an independent state from the rest 
of the Palestinian territories.  
Sporadic  rocket  attacks  on  Israel,  and  ensuing  Israeli  counter-attacks  on  Gaza  are  still  quite 
common, and happen on a weekly basis.   
Recently,  the  US  embassy  to  Israel  was relocated to Jerusalem, sparking mass Palestinian riots. 
In  2019,  the Israeli government annexed the Golan Heights, which were widely recognized to be 
Syrian,  a  supporter  of  Palestine.  On  September  10th,  2019,  Israeli  Prime  Minister  Netanyahu 
announced  plans  to  annex  the  Jordan  Valley  in  the  West  Bank,  a  part  of  the  Palestinian 
territories.  
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict 
https://www.aljazeera.com/topics/subjects/israelipalestinian-conflict.html 
https://www.independent.co.uk/topic/israel-palestine-conflict?CMP=ILC-refresh 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Current Status Quo
---------------------------------------------------------------

17
 Timeline

https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/no-end-sight-israeli-palestinian-conflict
---------------------------------------------------------------
Major Country Positions
United States of America: ​The United States of America under the current Trump
administration has pursued to improve and pander to the Israeli government, and largely
supports any sort of Israeli expansion or economic project, especially in regards to the
annexation of the Jordan Valley. During committee debates, the delegation of the USA
should mostly stand beside Israel on any resolutions it presents or supports.

State of Israel: ​The State of Israel under the current Netanyahu cabinet is largely
zionist and nationalist in nature. This means the delegation, in committee debates, would be

18
largely opposed to Palestinian sovereignty and would seek to establish total control over the
territories of the Levant. It would also seek to strike out against its regional rivals, especially
Syria (due to the recent annexation of the Golan Heights), and Iran (which backs Hezbollah
operatives in Lebanon, which in turn fire rockets into Israeli territory).

Syrian Arab Republic: ​The Syrian Arab Republic is widely opposed to the existence of
the State of Israel and widely denies its existence altogether. In committee debates, the
Syrian delegation would oppose most if not all Israeli resolutions and stances, and would go
after Israel for the annexation of the Golan Heights. Syria would further support any
resolutions which in any way negatively affected Israeli sovereignty.

Federative Republic of Brazil: ​Brazil is entirely neutral in regards to the

Israel-Palestine Conflict. It recognizes both the State of Israel and the State of Palestine, and
has entered into several commercial accords with both states. The current Bolsonaro
administration however is largely pro-Israel and pro-Zionist. Delegates must take the current
government’s position when debating the committee.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

19
 Sources
Credits: JrBSBMUN 1st Edition Security Council Study Guide

Cockburn, Patrick. “Iraq to end decades-old policy of semi-independent rule in Kurdistan,

says PM.” ​Independent​, (2017), Independent, 30 October 2017,

www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/kurdistan-iraq-prime-minister-abadi

-interview-independence-haider-baghdad-kirkuk-patrick-cockburn-a8028201.html.

Berger, Miriam. “Fact-checking Trump on the Kurds: Yes, they are more unsafe now. No,

they aren’t more threatening than ISIS.” T

​ he Washington Post​, (2019), The

Washington Post, 19 October 2019,

www.washingtonpost.com/world/2019/10/19/fact-checking-trump-kurds-yes-they-are-

more-unsafe-now-no-they-arent-more-threatening-than-isis/.

Brunner, Borgna. “Kurdish History Timeline.” ​Infoplease​, (2017), Infoplease, 28 February

2017. www.infoplease.com/history/world/kurdish-history-timeline.

O’Grady, Siobhan and Miriam Berger. “Who are the Kurds, and why is Turkey attacking

them?” ​The Washington Post​, (2019), Washington Post, 14 October 2019,

www.washingtonpost.com/world/2019/10/11/who-are-kurds-why-is-turkey-attacking-t

hem/.

Stone, Jon. “​Kurdish leaders appeal to EU for help as Turkey launches massive offensive

against them in Syria.” I​ ndependent​, (2019), Independent, 10 October 2019,

20
 www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/turkey-syria-kurds-invasion-latest-br

ussels-erdogan-help-a9150371.

“Turkey v Syria’s Kurds: The short, medium, and long story.” ​BBC​, (2019), BBC News, 23

October 2019, www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-49963649.

“Who are the Kurds?” ​BBC​, (2019), BBC News, 15 October 2019,

www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29702440.

Wintour, Patrick. “Syrian Kurd leader hits out at UK's 'almost invisible' response to Turkish

invasion.” T
​ he Guardian​, (2019), The Guardian, 10 November 2019,

www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/10/syrian-kurd-leader-hits-out-at-uk-almost-in

visible-response-to-turkish-invasion.

“YPG: People’s Protection Units.” ​The Kurdish Project​, The Kurdish Project,

thekurdishproject.org/history-and-culture/kurdish-nationalism/peoples-protection-un

its-ypg/.

21