A Rocky 50 Years - Palestinian - Israelie relations.
By Courtney b. Toretto American Cultures Mrs. Little 6 June, 2002 A Rocky 50 Years On a night meant to celebrate freedom, a man walked into a Seder in Nentanya, Israel, and took away the freedom of twenty-two Israelis. The suicide bomber, the fourteenth of two straight weeks of bombing, was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. Left with no choice, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon declared war against terrorism, starting with Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat. The United Nations pressured Israel to withdraw from this attack. President George W. Bush was at a loss. Avoiding the Israel question up to this point, President Bush now had to take a stand. After the tragedy of September 11, 2001, President Bush waged a war against terrorism: "America and our friends and allies join with all those who want peace and security in the world, and we stand together to win the war against terrorism" (www.whitehouse.gov). The first test of President Bush's words happened when America attacked Afghanistan to root out the Taliban. The United States went in and bombed every cave, every hillside, and every town. Yet the moment that another country adopted his policy, President Bush balked. The first worldwide test of his words, and President Bush hastened to find reasons why it did not apply to other countries. Should the United States become involved in the
Why and with what consequences for political participation in western democracies have the people become 'critical citizens' (Norris)
Why and with what consequences for political participation in western democracies have the people become 'critical citizens' (Norris)? The 20th century was a time of a great ideological struggle that encapsulated the world in a scale of wars never seen before; from the World War's of the first half century to the bitterly long stand off of the Cold War in the latter half. In these battles of the mind, democracy was surrounded from both sides of the ideological spectrum from the extreme right of Nazi National Socialism to the extreme left of the Communist Soviet Union. Democracy emerged victorious against the extreme right by the first half of the century and finally as the people of Germany rose up in defiance and tore down the Berlin wall, so began the fall of Communism. The new western order of democracy, that arose from these ashes, was established on the fundamental values of "freedom, equality and justice"1. There, although in an idealist context, should now stand a democracy which can fulfil the wishes of the citizen, in reality however, apathy of the people prevails for 'them' (the state, the system and the government), so culminating in the birth of the Critical Citizen. The emergence of a Critical Citizen, assuming that this concept is legitimate, is fundamentally due to the peoples apathy for 'them'. The origins for this apathy, and therefore the concept of a
To what extent did the Thatcher years coincide with a sea-change in the values of the British electorate?
To what extent did the Thatcher years coincide with a sea-change in the values of the British electorate? Margaret Thatcher became Prime Minister in 1979 and with her brought a new approach to British politics and a break with traditional Conservatism. "By the late 1970s the conventional wisdom was that the February 1974 election had brought to an end a quarter century of stable, balanced two party politics and ushered in a new era of partisan dealignment....Many more voters were up for grabs".1 Thatcher took advantage of the end of consensus politics in a big way, she introduced populist policies to get her into power, such as strong policies on immigration, law and order and foreign policy. An example of this is Thatcher's keenness to start a debate on bringing back the death penalty, "(Thatcher's) preference for the ultimate deterrent of the death penalty is much more in tune with popular, grassroots opinion....Thatcher's populism may not have changed people's attitudes, but it may have changed their votes".2 Thatcher came into power with general attitudes in the electorate moving away from left wing views especially after the Winter of Discontent under Callaghan in the previous Labour government. Thatcher exploited this shift in attitudes with her right wing policies, she was keen on privatisation and free market principles as principles to run the economy and wanted a
Why did Constant think that ancient democracy was dangerously impractical in the modern world?
Why did Constant think that ancient democracy was dangerously impractical in the modern world? Constant believed that ancient democracy was dangerously impractical in the modern world because ancient democracy is linked to the notion of ancient liberties, which placed in the modern state would result in arbitrary rule or an authoritarian state. He believed that an authoritarian state would occur when there was an emphasis on collective participation in the shared sovereignty of the state (an ancient notion of liberty) instead of the emphasis on individual liberty (a modern notion) as a result people could be coerced into this participation. Thus, this form of coercion would lead to the marginalisation of the individual rights and a slow erosion of political rights. "insistence on the impossibility in principle of realising the ancient conceptions of political agency within the inhospitable practical organisation of modern political societies and on the murderous consequences that are likely to result from the confused attempt to realise them in this profoundly alien setting"1 Furthermore, he believed that because we live in such a rational2 society and that because of this structure of society it would not be pragmatic to impose such ancient liberties in a modern setting. In addition, he thought that an increasing globalised world which economic expansion and commerce
'Is Realism Realistic?'
Kathleen Fitzpatrick Poli 340 S02 'Is Realism Realistic?' Eric Bifford 00-32460 Realism Redux International relations is a highly contested and indefinite area of study. Of the many issues being debated, there is one that takes precedence over all others. Some of the central questions in mind in the ensuing essay are: is there a way to characterize the international arena that rejects the realist premise of an inescapable state of anarchy? Anarchy is to be understood as a state of affairs in which a group of autonomous individuals act without an established, encompassing sovereign authority. Next, is there a way to exit the current state of anarchy without the installation of a single, world authority? Why does the state of anarchy exist? In the following, I will advance the claim that realist thought has succeeded as the dominant ideology of the past and present due to it's tendency to dictate reality--how we perceiving things within given parameters, these parameters being the dictates of realist ideology. Further, this inclination of realism is responsible for its current position as ideological hegemon. I will demonstrate my claim by advancing some of the key characteristics and consequent short-comings of realist and neo-realist thought. Practical not Critical? "Society is the Patient not the Product" Lawrence Frank Before we can understand realism in
Can Military Intervention Be Justified?
Assignment for Term One International Relations Can Military Intervention Be Justified? Index * Introduction............................................ page 4 to 4 * Can Military Intervention Ever Be Justified?... page 5 to 9 * Conclusion..............................................page 10 to 10 * Bibliography............................................page 11 to 11 * Work Made By........................................ page 12 to 12 Introduction In this assignment, I will try to answer if the military intervention in other countries can ever be justified. For that, I will start to explain what military intervention is, with some quotes from encyclopaedias. Afterwards I will explain why some military interventions were so important (and where) as well as, what distinguish Humanitarianism from Force. For the conclusion, I will answer directly to the question of this essay giving my own opinion in this field. I have a few quotes from authors that written about this theme, as well as quotes from encyclopaedias, which names can be found in the bibliography. Can Military Intervention Ever Be Justified? What is Military Intervention? A generation ago, the terms "military intervention" and "conflict resolution" would almost never have been pronounced in the same breath. The field of conflict resolution has its roots in the peace movements in the 20th century, most
How does integration theory explain the major developments in EC integration during the period 1967 - 1987?
How does integration theory explain the major developments in EC integration during the period 1967 - 1987? European integration theory emerged during the Second World War and in its immediate aftermath, many political scientists attempted to formulate a new type of political system, which would preserve peace and grant better co-operation between nations. Theorists offered 'rival narratives of how and why regimes of supranational governance developed and how closer co-operation in relatively narrow, technical, economic spheres of life could generate wider political integration among countries' (Rosamond: 2000). After the war, there was an urgent need felt across Europe to rebuild the European economies and anchor West Germany to some sort of Western alliance. In the years leading up to the Luxembourg Compromise in 1966, European integration or co-operation was achieved with some speed and relative ease. The Schuman Plan of 1950 laid the plans for the development of the European Community, and despite the early reluctance of states, the Treaty of Paris was signed just a year later creating the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC). The attempt to create a European Defence Community (EDC) in 1952 was nearly accomplished but fell short of being ratified in 1954, although this shows the ambitious and committed nature of integration occurring at the time. Despite this setback,
"The EP and its role in the EU".
Academic Year 2003-2004 "The EP and its role in the EU" Professor Westlake Assistant: E. Bacconnier Helder Marcio do Couto Pereira "Where is the centre of power in the European Parliament?" "Where is the centre of power in the European Parliament?" Previous to the process of providing a possible answer to the question mentioned previously, it is valid to commence by offering an overview of the manner by which one has decided to organise this essay, the latter being divided in five main parts. The essay begins by an initial introduction offering an overview of the organisation of this work (part 1), the presentation of the main premises of this work, more precisely "centre" and "power" and posterior to that the provision of possible definitions of both, these serving as premises for the argumentation presented hereafter (part 2). Part 3 of this work analysis the veracity of the question itself, more precisely whether the European Parliament (EP) may be considered to be an institution holding power and whether or not previous considerations of the EP as the EU's "talking shop" may be still considered to be valid. Part 4 of this work attempts to draw a possible response to the question presented, presenting possible centres of power in the European Parliament. The final part of the essay (Part 5) presents the main conclusions arrived to. As mentioned the question
What accounts for the weakness of the UK Parliament?
Week 2: The Legislature What accounts for the weakness of the UK Parliament? Before performing the explicit task detailed in the question there must be an analysis of the implicit premise/s underpinning the question. This question has already accepted two premises, which are; . The UK parliament is weak 2. That weakness is an effect which has cause/s Conclusion: There are factors that account for the weakness in the UK parliament. The relationship between the conclusion and premises is one bi-conditional implication, in that the premises entail the conclusion and vice-versa. Identifying these premises will be useful in the context of the question because finding evidence that supports them will legitimise the question and uncover evidence that supports the conclusion whilst concurrently answering the question. The argument also helps us to identify the evidence that will negate the premises and therefore the conclusion. Examples of this type of evidence are episodes and actions that indicate large strength in the UK Parliament. If substantial evidence of this type is discovered then the answer to the question will consist of explanations of Parliament's strength and a refutation of the implicit premise 'the UK Parliament is weak. Analysis of the structure of the question must now proceed to content in order to define a domain of study. The UK Parliament in question
What is Democracy? In what ways has the concept been controversial in the study of politics?"The notions
"What is Democracy? In what ways has the concept been controversial in the study of politics?" The notions of government and of democracy are independent notions and do not depend on one another. What is likely required for the masses of people, as we see in "modern" world societies, is an established system of government. Where there is a need for an established system of government, it will likely naturally come about; whether or not, it has the consent of the people, real or imagined. Putting aside, for the moment, the arguments of Hobbes and Locke, it can be argued, on the basis of plain historical fact, that governments come about naturally and maintain themselves naturally without the general will of the people; indeed as is with many other long established democratic governments in the world, they did not come about by the general will of the people at all; nor is it necessary that it should it be maintained by the will of the people. One should not conclude, therefore, that democracy is necessary for good government. What is necessary for optimum prosperity is a state of acquiescence is the hallmark of western democracies. It may be, that the only thing needed is but the trappings of democracy. An individual or group of individuals may take and maintain power by the use of coercive force. From history we can see that this is the usual way by which power is gained,