Do Fences Make Good Neighbours? An Analysis of Israel's Security Policy Choices
Is Israeli security best assured by strategic contraction or expansion? Does Israel's decision to build a security fence and the nation's security policies of contracting, rather than expanding, mark a major strategic shift in policy to make Israel more secure in the long run? Or should more attention be focused on the 2006 invasion of Lebanon as signalling a return to the older security policies based on expansion of the country's security sphere, placing Israel more in context with the American-led war on terrorism, with an emphasis on pre-emption to eliminate short-run terrorist threats? This article analyses Israel's recent security policy choices, especially the decision to erect the wall separating Israelis from Palestinians, combined with the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza in August 2005, followed by the decision to return to Gaza and invade Lebanon in July 2006. Did these events represent the failure of Israeli security initiatives of the early 2000s and a return to old security dynamics of expansion vs. contraction?
How Israel Lost: The Four Questions
The ebbing support for Israel among Western Governments is a major landmark in the history of the last decade and is, without a doubt, an issue that has already influenced many international events. Richard Ben Cramer, who has a Pulitzer Prize for his coverage of the Middle East, now presents readers with HOW ISRAEL LOST, a definitive study of the once-triumphant country that has failed in the eyes of the world. Cramer gets to the core of what is troubling so many Westerners about Israel: the contradiction between its humanistic foundation and its harsh treatment of the Palestinians. Since Israel was founded, the West has seen it as a beacon of hope and democracy in a hostile world. Cramer describes how in the past ten years Israelis seem to have squandered that respect and good will, focusing on the key players and crucial events that have turned the tide against Israel in the eyes of the international community. With the same meticulous research and intelligence that has made Richard Ben Cramer one of America's most highly regarded journalists, HOW ISRAEL LOST is a timely, powerful and important look at one of the most pivotal points of the world - and in history.
Cambodian refugee health care beliefs and practices.
Since 1975, when refugees from Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia first began coming to the United States, many articles have been written about Southeast Asian or Indochinese refugees and health care. A careful review of the literature shows that most of these articles have one thing in common: they are written primarily about Vietnamese and do not address the unique health care beliefs and practices of Lao or Cambodian refugees.1 Although some beliefs and practices are common to most Southeast Asians, many are not. Understanding at least that differences exist, and hopefully what some specific differences are, will allow nurses and others to give better care to the various people commonly grouped together as Southeast Asians. This article will introduce readers to some Cambodian beliefs and practices related to health care. Of the principle refugee groups admitted to the U.S. since 1975, the Cambodians are presenting the greatest challenges to health care providers. Cambodians are usually poorly understood by Americans, their health status statistics are hidden among the broad category of "Asian-Pacific Islanders" or "Indochinese Refugees," and cultural and institutional barriers combine to make access to care an overwhelming problem. The end results, of course, are more problems and more expense for the Cambodians, increased stress placed on an already terribly overstressed people, and ultimately greater demands and expense placed on the health care system. One of the most common misunderstandings about Cambodians is that they (and Lao) are basically the same as the Vietnamese. "They speak the same dialect don't they?" There are some similarities, but there are also very significant differences.