THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK It involves using theories to explain the existing problem in various situations. Realism theory and the dependency theory will be used to explain the existing conflict between Israel and Palestine. It will also be able to justify the use of force by the Israeli government when dealing with Palestinian Hamas. Realism theory in the Israeli and Palestine conflict Realism theory explains how states are selfish, struggle to gain power and succeed in acquiring its national interests in the international system. Realists identify world politics as a trans-historical and trans-geographical struggle for power, and that in this context Thucydides’ dictum that, “the strong do what they have the power to do and the weak accept what they have to accept” (where strength and weakness are calculated by military capabilities) is the stark and universal truth (Schmidt, 2007; Thucydides, 1972, p. 402). Ben Gurion states the essential problem in Israel/Palestine: “we and they want the same thing: We both want Palestine. And that is the fundamental conflict.” (Shlaim, 2001, p. 18) For both Israelis and Palestinians it is nationalist conflict, there is a clear reason in the action of both parties, a territorially secure state. Yet, both Israel and Hamas seem to accept that negotiation is the eventual end through which to meet their nationalist ends (Hroub, 2006; Shlaim, 2001). However, until negotiation occurs both parties see a military capacity accumulation as an
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
When conflicting ideologies reach a magnitude so high that agreements aren't even an option, war is generally the conclusion. War is accompanied by a number of negative aspects. Specifically, human fatalities, the destruction of economies, harm to the environment, and quoting the film Platoon, "the first casualty of war is innocence." However, besides all the negative aspects, the side that comes out triumphant, generally gains something of great significance. It could be immense power, stature, or land.
A Changed Life: Pessimism to Optimism Just like no one can escape death no one can escape the aftermath of a traumatic event. Even though trauma isn’t escapable it is overcomeable. The traumatic events that occur throughout A Separate Peace would lead most to say that it is a pessimistic book, but there are much deeper findings that is optimistic in the book. The optimistic view of the book is looked upon and isn’t the most obvious choice of the two but has many provable points.
The on-going war for peace in the Middle East has affected the world globally. Many people around the world have attempted to bring peace to this area of the world, to create a safe and peaceful land for the citizens. One person involved is the former United States Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. In Clinton’s foreign policy memoir, “Hard Choices” she expresses her views on the complex Arab-Israeli conflict and her plans for resolution. Hillary Clinton has been involved in the United States government for countless years.
Realism, in its most general form, closely ties power and survival, explaining that there cannot be survival without power, and that the state consists of rational thinkers that have this is at their best interest and who act as one. The main contributors to the theory of realism include Thucydides, Machiavelli and Hobbes. Thucydides’ contribution to the theory of realism lies mostly in one of the earliest scholarly works in history, History of the Peloponnesian War, which
All throughout time people have been “the other.” Pratt refers to the other as being “Someone who is perceived by the dominant culture as not belonging, as they have been culturally constructed as fundamentally different in some way” (320). In Edward Said’s essay, the Palestinians are the other. In Said’s essay he provides several photographs taken by Jean Mohr, which depict the everyday lives of Palestinians.
Living wage reflects what income required for a household to meet their basic needs, once government transfers have been added to the family's income and deductions have been subtracted. Its also a call to private and public sector employers to pay wages to both direct and contract employees sufficient to provide the basics to families with children. Living wage include gets families out of severe financial stress by lifting them out of poverty and providing a basic level of economic security. Living wage also enables working families to have sufficient income to cover reasonable costs, promotes social inclusion, supports healthy child development principles, ensures that families are not under severe financial stress, is a conservative, reasonable
The Gulf War- A Realist Perspective Introduction Persian Gulf War, also called Gulf War (1990–91), was an international conflict that was triggered by Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait on August 2, 1990. Iraq’s leader, Saddam Hussein, ordered the invasion and occupation of Kuwait with the apparent aim of • acquiring that nation’s large oil reserves, • canceling a large debt Iraq owed Kuwait, • and expanding Iraqi power in the region. If Saddam were successful in capturing Kuwait, he would be considered the Supreme Leader of the Oil rich area. But it was not only a question of oil; territory was another relevant issue in Saddam’s agenda. He wanted to gain access of an old disputed territory, Kuwait.
Looking back over the development of the Security Studies field, there can be no doubt that the realist tradition has exercised enormous influence. Even the harshest of critics can acknowledge that with their focus on power, fear, and anarchy, realist theories have provided centrally important explanations for conflict and war (Williams, 2013). One interpretation of realism that is unbroken amongst most commentators of the theory is that realists are individuals that believe the State is the principle actor in international politics and that they are very concerned with the balance of power (Marsalis, 2013). They argue that all the State’s actions and choices are a reflection of the collective will of the people, which is also an argument
The theory unleashes such dynamic forces that from the time of its inception up till now it has governed the international system of the world however things one day itself fall apart. The Realists mark the State as the locus of different international circles and these sovereign states have vested interests which are always selfish. Realism is a heartless theory, man is not supposed to be selfish in the way exaggerated by the Realist thinker however [he] is a seeker of knowledge and what so ever he stumbles upon, he keeps
The international relations schools of thought known as Realism and Idealism identify specific and similar characteristics of actors in the conceptual development of their theories. While many of these characteristics can be generalized as being synonymous with the two theories, both theories make a separate distinction in what specifically constitutes an actor. In Realism, the term “actor” refers directly and solely to the state: a combination of government, leaders, decision-makers, etc, that act as a unitary entity to promote the interests of the state. Idealists, however, expand on what constitutes an actor to include both the state and people. Not only do the principles of Idealism assert that the state and people should be considered actors, in fact, both they must be viewed as actors.
The current work is meant to explain the differences and similarities between the most dominant theories in international relations, Realism and Liberalism, both theories have some similarities and differences but much more important and interesting is to discuss and explain what differs and makes similar both theories. Conflicts and wars, Similarities and differences between Realism and Liberalism: Both Liberalism and Realism believes that there is no world government that can prevent countries to go to war on one another. For both theories military power is important and both Realism and Liberalism can understand that countries can use military power to get what they need or want. Also, both theories are conscious that without military
Conflict resolution as a field of study as indicated has formed hypothetical bits of knowledge into the nature and source of conflict and how conflicts can be resolved through peaceful systems to effectuate a dependable settlement. Morton Deutsch, was the first to form and understanding into the helpful results of collaboration as a scholastic enquiry. In his view, various variables like the way of the debate and the objectives every group in a conflict goes for are crucial in deciding the sort of introduction a group would convey to the negotiation table in its endeavor to unravel the conflict (Morton Deucth, 1985, p.24). To him, two essential orientations do exist. These are competitive and cooperative.
Therefore, it provides differences between the status quo power and progressive states, while maintaining and emphasizing the importance of government at the same time. In contrary, Structural Realism is more concerned on ensuring their survival, by seeking and maintaining that power. Structural Realism would treat states as they are black boxes: they are assumed to be alike (Mearsheimer). Furthermore, Classical Realism and Structural Realism differ in their views of interconnection in international politics, fundamentally what causes the observed outcomes in relations among states. Classical Realists believe that the international world is one of interacting states, and causes run in one direction.
Theoretical Framework: Conflict Perspective: Conflict perspective focuses their attention on society as a whole. Conflict theorists see society as in a continuous sate of conflict between groups and classes. He struggle for power and income is a continuous process but one in which many categories of people appear as opponents-classes, races, nationalities and even the sexes. Society is held together through the power of dominant groups or classes. The shared values, which functionalist see as glue for holding society together, do no realty form rue consensus; instead this is an artificial consensus in which the dominant groups or classes impose their values and rules upon rest of the people.