| Papers [1-15] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 7] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 —> | Search results on "U S FOREIGN POLICY ISRAEL": |
|
|
U.S. Foreign Policy in the Middle East Since 1991, 2006.
A critical look at the changing U.S. policy in the Middle East since 1991.
3,419 words (approx. 13.7 pages), 16 sources, MLA, $ 96.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
In this paper the author takes a critical look at the changing U.S. policy in the Middle East since 1991. He examines how prior to 1991, American policy was aimed primarily at using some countries led by Israel as a bulwark against communism in the Cold War years. He highlights that with the end of a bipolar world there was a radical shift in American policy towards the Middle East. The paper examines how this was brought about by the threat America saw to its most vital interest -oil in the region as a result of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait; at the same time, with the sudden demise of the hitherto counterbalancing factor, the Soviet Union, the stage was set for a decisive policy. In conclusion, the author argues that the American policy of planting democracy in societies that do not have the necessary preconditions and institutional frameworks of accepting and absorbing the system could mean risking backlashes and other actions.
From the Paper
"In the absence of the Soviet factor, American policy in the Middle East has become more intrusive; American policy could have a positive impact if its moves towards establishing its policy are perceived as being salutary. A prime test case of this policy is the way its role is seen in the Israeli-Palestine issue. (Cantori, 1994, p. 452) The immediate years after the Gulf War led to a hyperactive engagement in the region under president Bill Clinton, for whom resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict was a principal goal. In his presidency, America assumed the role of an 'honest broker' in bringing about a peaceful settlement of issues bedevilling the region. However, before substantial headway was made, a new regime took guard under Bush Jr., under whom the same vigour was not enforced. American interventionism, which became low-key under the new dispensation, has led to suspicion in Arab quarters that America, with its uncompromising tilt towards Israel, has not been the 'honest broker' that it promised to be."
| |
|
U.S. Foreign Policy Regarding Israel, 2004.
Questions whether the U.S. foreign policy regarding Israel is an extension of domestic politics.
1,218 words (approx. 4.9 pages), 3 sources, MLA, $ 41.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The United States' foreign policy to Israel is and always has been highly influenced by domestic politics, particularly by presidential elections. This paper begins by describing the effect of electoral politics upon the foreign policy of American presidents. It then outlines the power of the Jewish vote, the Jewish lobby, and the growing power of the fundamentalist Christian vote. The paper then notes that, although policy toward Israel is strongly influenced by domestic policy, it is virtually nonpartisan. The paper discusses the limits of domestic political influence on foreign policy and the strategic basis for presidential decisions concerning the region. It concludes by looking towards the future of domestic special interest groups.
From the Paper
"In Heroic Diplomacy, Kenneth Stein calls US policy in the Middle East "remarkably non-partisan." The major parties may put forth candidates with consistently opposed domestic agendas, but with regard to Israeli policy, disagreements about aid, intervention, and peace do not happen down party lines. An early example of this was in the leadership of the American Zionist Emergency Council, which was co-led by the strong Democrat Rabbi Stephen Wise and the ardent Republican Rabbi Abba Hillel Silver. A present-day nonpartisan issue is whether or not Bush should be more involved in the peace process."
| |
|
U.S. Policy toward Israel, 1992.
A history of the policies, Bush and Israeli policy, a critical overview of the Israel and U.S. relationship including the need for a change in U.S. stance toward Israel.
1,350 words (approx. 5.4 pages), 10 sources, $ 47.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
"It is difficult to imagine a picture of President Bush laughing with known strongman and terrorist supporter President Hafez al-Assad of Syria (Tumulty, 1990, p. A20). Yet it's just these types of images that have acted to change the relationship between the United States and long-time ally Israel. The purpose of this paper is to examine some of the factors in U.S. policy towards Israel, the causes and effects that policy has within the United States, and ultimate effect on Israel.
In a time when the United States needs friends in the Middle East to stabilize its position, Israel in general remains silent, even defensive (Wicker, 1990, p. A27). It has rejected any attempt to link peace talks between Iraq and the United States with Israel's right to the West Bank in Gaza. While the United States supports this position, there have been other shakeups..."
| |
|
American Foreign Policy and Israel, 2003.
A research paper on American foreign policy, specifically the ties between the U.S. and Israel.
1,597 words (approx. 6.4 pages), 8 sources, MLA, $ 52.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper researches the role American foreign policy had on the creation of the state of Israel and on the current Middle East crisis, emphasizing the conflict between Israel and Palestine and the American support for Israel.
From the Paper
"Ever since the end of WWII the American government has adopted a foreign policy based on lies, economic and power interests. The former ?cradle of democracy? has turned into a hypocritical, corrupted and ignorant superpower. Now, after the fall of communism this superpower is more untouchable than ever. The hate towards America and everything American has been increasing around the world with every bad political decision the American government makes. Still, many Americans were stunned and confused by the September 11th tragedy, not knowing the exact reasons for it. As history shows, there is a reason for every event, and for September 11 the reason was the US foreign policy. The American government must change its foreign policy, otherwise worst tragedies will happen."
| |
|
U.S. Foreign Policy, 2004.
Compares U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East with U.S. foreign policy in Latin America.
956 words (approx. 3.8 pages), 4 sources, APA, $ 33.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This essay discusses the U.S. foreign policy towards Middle Eastern and Latin American countries before 9/11 and post 9/11. The foreign policy is analyzed, its inherent problems are highlighted, and a comparison of U.S. foreign policy towards the Middle East with U.S. foreign policy towards Latin America is made.
From the Paper
"With all eyes turned toward Iraq and the Middle East, South America rarely makes the headlines in the United States. Except for perhaps tighter controls and security on U.S. borders and waterways since September 11th , it seems Latin foreign policies are not top priorities for Washington. However, recent events in October in Bolivia led to ?a massive mobilization of Indians and peasants?military crackdowns that left as many as 70 people dead?and led to the demise of the conservative Gonzalo S?nchez de Lozada government on Oct."
| |
|
U.S. Foreign Policy During the Vietnam War, 2000.
A look at how pre-Vietnam War U.S .foreign policy had strong links to the foreign policy in the Vietnam War.
2,105 words (approx. 8.4 pages), 9 sources, $ 66.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses American foreign policy before Vietnam and foreign policy in Vietnam, and shows how a number of the elements that led to these policies were present in governmental perspectives for decades.
From the Paper
"Though the foreign policies decisions that were instrumental in the Vietnam War were different from the policies that supported other international actions during the 20th century, including World War II and the Korean War, a number of the elements that led to these policies were present in governmental perspectives for decades. One of the most significant influencing factors in the policy developments of the Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon administrations was the perceived threat of communism and the necessity of action to prevent its spread. This factor had been present in the development of foreign policy since before the First World War, and led to the perception of the necessity of force to stomp out its proliferation."
| |
|
U.S. Foreign Policy, 2005.
This paper discusses U.S. foreign policy from 1900 to the present.
1,680 words (approx. 6.7 pages), 3 sources, APA, $ 54.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that the military activities in the Philippines and Mexico signaled a change in the attitude of U.S. foreign policy from isolationism to imperialism. The author points out that the Second World War and the Cold War caused all of U.S. life to be filtered through the lens of foreign policy such as (1) the facilitation of grant programs such as the National Defense Student loans, (2) reliance on state and local governments for local infrastructure financing because federal monies were committed to Cold War foreign purposes and (3) the more rapid integration of the races at home due to the necessity of integration in the military to have enough troops to conduct overseas operations such as Korea, Vietnam and assorted smaller wars. The paper concludes that, today, there is no foreign policy agenda per se; Bush II is a tabula rasa, straddling two wings of the same party, like a feckless cowboy on two horses.
Table of Contents
U.S. National Foreign Policy Style, 1900 to the Present
U.S. Foreign Policy Domestic Context 1950
Changes over the Last Ten Years
From the Paper
"It would seem this attitude of foreign policy was written in stone. However, one of its early ardent supporters, Theodore Roosevelt, was among those who began to see that U.S. imperialism was not working. In the end, it was Wilson who noted that the drive for colonies contributed mainly to savage warfare. He concluded, in another sea-change manner that would influence U.S. foreign policy at least until another Roosevelt (Franklin Delano) entered the White House, that it would be best to "dismantle the colonial structure itself. His plan included self-determination for former colonies, international arms reduction, an open trading system to discourage economic imperialism, and a commitment to collective security through international organizations, what is now sometimes referred to as multilateralism." That drive, culminating in such bodies as the League of Nations and reluctant entry into further wars, would be the dominant attitude until the start of World War II."
| |
|
Is U.S. Foreign Policy Moral?, 2008.
This paper discusses whether considerations of morality have a substantial role in U.S. foreign policy strategy.
1,127 words (approx. 4.5 pages), 6 sources, APA, $ 39.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper looks at America's past foreign policy regarding the Soviet Union and Communism. The paper also discusses the war against terrorism today and reveals that the true incentive behind the war in Iraq may have been financial, although there were moral victories attained as a result. The paper concludes that while morality should certainly have a substantial role in U.S. foreign policy strategy, in recent years, the financial goals of the United States seem to outweigh the altruistic ones.
Outline:
Introduction
The Past and U.S. Foreign Policy
Foreign Policy and Communism
Morality, Foreign Policy, and Terrorism
Moral Victories May be the Outcome of Financial Gain
Conclusion
From the Paper
"United States foreign policy has always been about political relationships for financial gain combined with moral idealism (Fox 2000). Therefore, morality has played a substantial role in U.S. foreign policy strategy, and should continue to do so. Whether this "morality" is genuine is questionable, and lately the U.S. has appeared to many to be the equivalent of a greedy bully, seeking financial benefits with no care for assisting the impoverished, oppressed, and/or those who may benefit from a morality driven U.S. foreign policy. These U.S. foreign endeavors are done under the guise of morality, which often result in more harm than good for the citizens of nations that such U.S. foreign policy is choosing to target, which is immoral in its very nature."
| |
|
Shift in U.S. Foreign Policy, 2003.
Discusses reasons behind America's shift in foreign policy towards Iraq and North Korea.
1,514 words (approx. 6.1 pages), 5 sources, MLA, $ 49.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
U.S. foreign policy is continuously evolving with each new president. However, for the most part, U.S. foreign policy has been based on the idea of containment. This idea of containment was quickly altered after the horrific attacks of 9/11. It appears the U.S. position on foreign policy was forced to change due to the revived ?hot spots? in the Middle East and Korea. This paper discusses U.S. foreign policy towards Iraq and North Korea; however, the main focus of this paper examines why U.S. foreign policy has shifted to preemption from containment. The paper includes quotes by President Bush and Colin Powell.
From the Paper
"Even with all these tensions, the U.S. continues to hold out that diplomacy will resolve the crisis on the Korean peninsula. The U.S wants open dialogue to be multilateral, involving South Korea, North Korea, Japan, and the Chinese. However, North Korea wants the talks to be unilateral between Pyongyang and Washington. The Chinese believe they are being rebuffed, and also believe that the peninsula ought to be nuclear weapons free. Chinese officials stated, ?This will give us an opportunity to say to the North Koreans and world we?re not going to be threatened? (Bush, 4)."
| |
|
U.S. Economic Aid To Israel, 1999.
Overview of historical and global factors of U.S. foreign aid and aid to Israel in the context of realism in international relations. Discusses rationale, politics and conflicting U.S. domestic and foreign interests.
2,700 words (approx. 10.8 pages), 38 sources, $ 95.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
As the Republican-controlled Congress continues to attempt to sharply reduce the levels of foreign economic, humanitarian, and military aid, the politicians and the American public are increasingly being forced to confront the issue of what the foreign aid policy of the United States should be. Quite mistakenly, many people view the drive to curtail foreign aid and change the criteria of eligibility for such aid as a radical departure from traditional American policies
From the Paper
"US ECONOMIC AID TO ISRAEL: WHO BENEFITS? WHY?
Introduction
As the Republican-controlled Congress continues to attempt to sharply reduce the levels of foreign economic, humanitarian, and military aid, the politicians and the American public are increasingly being forced to confront the issue of what the foreign aid policy of the United States should be. Quite mistakenly, many people view the drive to curtail foreign aid and change the criteria of eligibility for such aid as a radical departure from traditional American policies. In actual fact, American foreign aid almost always has been a tool of American self-interest, or at least perceived self-interest. The major exception to this approach to American aid was decade from the mid-1970s through the mid-1980s when, through implementation of the ..."
| |
|
U.S. Foreign Policy Decisions, 2004.
An examination of whether U.S. foreign policy decisions are more beneficial to the United States itself or to the world it is aiming to 'protect'.
2,451 words (approx. 9.8 pages), 5 sources, MLA, $ 74.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper looks at the question, "Is the U.S. seeking to protect its own national security or simply to secure its own national interests throughout the world by having a unilateral approach to foreign policy decisions?" The paper uses two main sources as the basis for the analysis of this question: "Logic of American Foreign Policy" by Patrick Callahan, published in 2004; and the fifth edition of "American Foreign Policy" by Glenn Hastedt, published in 2003/4. These two main sources are introduced, in depth, and the frameworks that arise from these books are then used to frame an analysis of the question posed in this paper; supplementary examples are taken from recent political involvements of the U.S. in Bosnia, Iraq, Kosovo, and China. The final section of the paper, therefore, looks at the question from the viewpoint of the book reviews, with supplementary information where necessary.
From the Paper
"Essentially, Callahan?s book looks, in depth, at six facets (or ?logics?) of the role the United States plays on the world stage: hegemonism, liberalism, realism, isolationism, liberal internationalism, and anti-imperialism. The book looks at each of these logics, and essentially traces the development of these logics through the study of the relevant policy documents and historical responses to these policies; a critical summary is then given for each logic. Three case studies are then presented at the end of the main body of the text: the debate following US intervention in Kosovo; the debate surrounding the 1990 Chinese trade debate, and the events following the events of September 11th 2001. These issues will be discussed, when relevant, in the present paper."
| |
|
U.S. Policy in the Middle East, 2006.
This paper compares two books which discuss current U.S. policy in the Middle East.
1,200 words (approx. 4.8 pages), 2 sources, APA, $ 41.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that Ali Ansari in "Confronting Iran: The Failure of American Foreign Policy and the Next Great Conflict in the Middle East" paints the current crisis with Iran as a lesson in mutually antagonistic behavior that is demonstrated by the inability of United States presidents, from Carter to Bush, to formulate an effective policy for dealing with this country. The author points out that Dennis Ross in "The Missing Peace: The Inside Story of the Fight for Peace in the Middle East" commends the U.S re-involvement in the Israel-Palestinian problem, introduced in President Bush's historic 2002 speech, which outlined a strategy for peace calling for a two state solution. The paper relates that both Ansari and Ross are strong believers in the power of communication because, as long as all sides to these political clashes are still talking, there is hope for peaceful solutions and cooperation rather than chaos.
From the Paper
"Ansari does not take a particularly optimistic tone about the chances of these changes happening. He is very adamant that they must happen or the resulting conflict will "make Iraq look like the cakewalk it was prophesied to be." . Ansari presents his argument in a very matter-of-fact manner, taking the struggle between Iran and the United States step by step from their first official contact in 1856 all the way into the present day. A very realistic, pragmatic tone is taken that, while not entirely hopeful, does suggest that differences can be bridged."
| |
|
U.S. Foreign Policy in the Middle East, 2006.
An overview of the objectives of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East and whether it can be considered morally justifiable.
2,462 words (approx. 9.8 pages), 7 sources, MLA, $ 75.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines the quagmire of Middle East politics and how the U.S. has conducted its foreign policy in that region of the world. The paper discusses whether U.S. objectives and its foreign policy in the Middle East are morally justifiable and concludes that they are because the goal of the U.S. is primarily one of helping people of the third world countries, while at the same time protecting her own interests.
From the Paper
"As far as the scourge of terrorism is concerned, it is a sad but true fact that no leader has managed to succeed in getting to the very root of the problem and thereby finding an appropriate solution to it. There may be a satisfactory explanation for this fact; it may be that the very nature of terrorism being what it is: quite unpredictable and also very asymmetrical, it is virtually impossible to find an adequate solution to the problem, and the underlying issues are so many and so widespread that it is an unattainable goal to hope to find an ideal solution to combat 'terrorism'. In fact, it can be safely stated that the West has actually and virtually outstayed its welcome in most parts of the world, especially in the Middle East, rich in oil as it is, and the leaders in those parts of the world, fuelled by their innate greed, grew from being mere allies of the West to real and true despots, and this because of the one thing that all the world needs: Oil. In fact, Osama bin Laden, as well as Saddam Hussein were allies of the USA in both the US war against Afghanistan as well as in the US war against Iraq respectively. (Going Tactical)"
| |
|
U.S. Foreign Policy, 2003.
Three separate essays on U.S. foreign policy.
2,300 words (approx. 9.2 pages), 6 sources, APA, $ 79.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper presents three separate essays on U.S. foreign policy, dealing with nuclear arms reduction; unilateralism versus multilateralism and the role of multilateralism to serve American interests; and presidential power in making foreign policy.
| |
|
Books about U.S. Foreign Policy, 2005.
This paper compares two non-fiction books about past U.S. foreign policy: Loren Baritz's "Back Fire" and Stephen E. Ambrose's "Rise to Globalism".
1,170 words (approx. 4.7 pages), 0 sources, $ 40.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that Stephen E. Ambrose and Loren Baritz, both respected history professors and decorated authors, present their insights into the history of foreign policy to help readers get a taste of what really happens before and during war and what the government does afterwards to repair itself. The author points out that the underlying theme in Baritz's "Back Fire" about the Vietnam war is the problem of not only not understanding the Vietnamese culture but also not understanding the change in the American culture of that period. The paper relates that Ambrose, in his book "Rise to Globalism", introduces a broader look on the history of foreign policy from World War II through the first term of the Clinton administration; he uses more statistics and facts and a lot less opinions then Baritz.
From the Paper
"This reflects back on American culture. People try to look good, it's a given. No one wants to look bad in front of someone else, so they say the right things and do what is right. When someone does something bad, they deny it, or turn their back on it. War is a necessity, not all things can be reconciled by negotiations. So even though people know this and it's proven throughout history, they try to look good by saying war is evil and nothing good comes from it. This ties in with Baritz' saying about war and culture."
|
|
|
