scholarly journals The antinomies of Christian Zionism

Sociologija ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 49 (3) ◽  
pp. 193-204
Author(s):  
Roland Boer ◽  
Ibrahim Abraham
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Middle East ◽  
The United States ◽  
Us Foreign Policy ◽  
Political Agenda ◽  
Christian Zionism ◽  
Anti Semitism ◽  
Conservative Christian ◽  
State Of Israel

Defining Christian Zionism as conservative Christian support for the state of Israel, and an influential political force, especially in the United States, this article outlines four antinomies of such a position. Firstly, although Christian Zionism argues that it is purely theological, that it follows God?s will irrespective of any politics, and although mainstream Zionism is resolutely political, we argue that such a separation is impossible. Indeed, mainstream Zionism cannot avoid being influenced by Christian Zionism?s political agenda. Secondly, despite the efforts by mainstream Zionism to use Christian Zionism in order to influence US foreign policy in the Middle East, mainstream Zionism is playing with fire, since Christian Zionists wish to convert or annihilate all Jews. Thirdly, Christian Zionism is the ultimate version of anti-Semitism, for it wishes to get rid of Arabs (as hindrances to the Zionist project) and then dispense with Jews. (Both Arabs and Jews are by definition Semites.) Finally, since Christian Zionists are fundamentalist Christians, they must take the Old and New Testaments at their word. However, this position is impossible to hold, and in order to resolve the tension they must resort to the violence of the final conflict, Armageddon.

What is “the Middle East”? American think tank experts on construction of the region

2017 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
pp. 85-106
Author(s):  
Danguole Bardauskaite
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Middle East ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
Geographical Location ◽  
The United States ◽  
Us Foreign Policy ◽  
The Self ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Think Tank

Abstract The aim of this research is to answer the question how the American think tank experts on the Middle East and US foreign policy towards the Middle East perceive the region and its construction, with a particular focus on the process of Othering. In order to achieve this aim, the article presents the theoretical explanations of the Othering. In the empirical part, the results of semi-structured interviews with the experts are analyzed and presented. The interviews revealed three angles of how the Middle East is perceived. These angles are the geographical location of the Middle East, the securitization of the Middle East and the universal superiority of the United States. The main finding of the research is that the perception of the Middle East is connected with the self perception or the question of “What is the United States of America?”

scholarly journals Christian zionism as a factor of US politics

2013 ◽  
Vol 65 (4) ◽  
pp. 462-478
Author(s):  
Miroljub Jevtic
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Middle East ◽  
Religious Beliefs ◽  
Us Foreign Policy ◽  
The State ◽  
Political Pressure ◽  
Christian Zionism ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Government ◽  
State Of Israel

One of the most important phenomena in US politics is Christian Zionism. The term Christian Zionism is related to unity of a large part of Protestant beliefs and the Zionists movement. The religious motives of US Protestants have coincided with the Jewish intention to go back to Palestine. In this way, Protestant religious motives could only be achieved by using political pressure on the US government. The goal of this pressure is to turn the foreign policy of Washington into a struggle for reconstruction and maintenance of the state of Israel. That is why many people wrongly believe that the US policy in Middle East is a product of the Jewish lobby. However, the US foreign policy in Middle East is a product of religious beliefs of Christian Zionists and the Jewish lobby is just using this fact for its own purposes.

scholarly journals Contemporary concepts of US foreign policy: opportunities and reality

2019 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Middle East ◽  
International Relations ◽  
System Analysis ◽  
The United States ◽  
Us Foreign Policy ◽  
Present Stage ◽  
The World ◽  
The Impact

The article analyzes the current concepts of US foreign policy, the direction of US foreign policy, and examines the economic background of US foreign policy. In particular, the fundamental indicators of US economic development have been studied, which allow the state to be a regional and world leader and pursue a hegemony strategy. The subject of research in the article is to determine the general and specific aspects of US foreign policy at the present stage. The goal is to determine the impact of US policy on the geopolitical transformation of the world. Objectives: the study of modern concepts of US foreign policy in the context of globalization and regionalization of the world. The study used the following general scientific methods: using the system analysis, the evolution of the US foreign policy in the globalization languages of the world was considered; In order to generalize the activities of various administrations and governments, compare their positions on shaping the country's foreign policy, a comparative historical method was used. relationship. The following results were obtained: on the basis of the analysis of the current US policy, the political strategies of the United States in Europe and the Middle East were discovered and analyzed in detail. Conclusions: The United States remains the key actor in international relations at the present stage, and so far retains its influence on the processes in the world. US foreign policy is aimed at stabilizing international relations in such key regions as the Middle East and the EU. A comprehensive analysis of the presidents and their administrations suggests the continuity of US foreign policy in the Middle East. With the arrival of D. Trump, the foreign policy of American Republicans is saturated with power and cruelty.

Obama's wavering: US foreign policy on the Egyptian crisis, 2011–13

2015 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 65-80 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sergio Fabbrini ◽  
Amr Yossef
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Middle East ◽  
Domestic Politics ◽  
Personal Characteristics ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Experience ◽  
Us Foreign Policy ◽  
Political Elite ◽  
The Impact

The existing literature explains the wavering course of President Barack Obama's policy on the 2001–03 Egyptian crisis as attributed to either his personal characteristics (lack of an international experience, predisposition to sermonize rather than to strategize) or to the impact of the decline of the United States as a global superpower (inability to influence foreign actors and contexts). Although both explanations are worthy of consideration, this article seeks to demonstrate that they are insufficient when accounting for the uncertainties shown by the United States during the Egyptian crisis. Domestic factors, particularly the internally divided US political elite and a foreign policy team with different views, played a crucial intervening role in defining the features of US foreign policy. It was domestic politics that made the Obama administration ineffective in dealing with the new scenario that emerged in the Middle East and in Egypt in particular.

scholarly journals POLITIK LUAR NEGERI AMERIKA SERIKAT DALAM MENJAGA STABILITAS KEAMANAN DI TIMUR TENGAH (Studi Kasus Nuklir Iran)

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Melaty Anggraini
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Middle East ◽  
The United States ◽  
Us Foreign Policy ◽  
Position Change ◽  
The Us

AbstrakPengayaan nuklir Iran menimbulkan sikap ancaman bagi Negara lainnya termasuk Amerika Serikat sebagai Negara super power, berakhirnya kerjasama antara AS dan Iran dalam pengembangan nuklir Iran dikarenakan revolusi Islam dan berganti periode kepemimpinan menimbulkan sikap defensive bagi Amerika Serikat apalagi dengan munculnya serangan terorisme 11 september, semakin meyakinkan AS untuk mengubah arah kebijakan politik luar negerinya berfokus ke wilayah Asia Timur. Menggunakan metode dan konsep hegemonic strategic dan power defense, penulis mencoba menganalisa kebijakan luar negeri Amerika Serikat di Timur Tengah khususnya pada kasus nuklir Iran, untuk menganalisa strategi kebijakan AS dalam menghadapi nuklir Iran Kata Kunci: Nuklir Iran, Amerika Serikat, Konsep Power Defense. ABSTRACT Iran Nuclear enrichment poses a threat to other countries including the United States as a Super Power Country, the end of cooperation Iran-US  Nuclear caused Islam revolution and position change of leadership period led to a defensive act from The United States, specifically emergency issue of 9/11 September. That’s made the US for changing Foreign Policy more focus in the Middle East. Using the hegemonic strategic method and concept power defense, the writer try to analyze US foreign Policy in the Middle East. Especially in Iran Nuclear, for evaluate what is strategic foreign policy US  for facing Iran Nuclear.Keywords: Iran Nuclear, US, Power Defense Concept.

American foreign policy and peace in the Middle East

2010 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 271-296
Author(s):  
Abdel-Fattah Mady
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Middle East ◽  
United Nations ◽  
American Foreign Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Us Foreign Policy ◽  
Double Standards ◽  
Palestinian Territories ◽  
Unfair Terms

The purpose of this study is to answer the following question: ‘Does US foreign policy undermine peace efforts in the Occupied Palestinian Territories?’ Careful observations of US foreign policy during the Oslo Process reveal that the United States has indeed undermined peace efforts in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The American position substantially departed from United Nations Resolutions 242 and 338, which the Palestinians were promised would serve as the basis for negotiations. Although the American–Israeli alliance underwent periodic adjustments, American foreign policy has, over the last decade, helped to create a framework in the Middle East wherein only Israeli needs have legitimacy. During the Oslo Process, the United States and Israel have tried to impose Israel's plans on the Palestinians, ignoring United Nations resolutions and the international community. The evidence reveals that US foreign policy was based on double standards and unfair terms. Further, the seeming link between the aid provided by the United States to Israel and the latter's aggressive policies toward the Palestinians makes it appear as though Washington is ‘rewarding’ such policies, that is, as if Washington is enabling Israel to deny Palestinians’ legitimate rights, violate United Nations resolutions and principles of international law, keep its military occupation forces, and expand Jewish settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

Turkey’s foreign policy priorities in the Middle East and Afghanistan

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 (10-3) ◽  
pp. 228-237
Author(s):  
Marina Shpakovskaya ◽  
Oleg Barnashov ◽  
Arian Mohammad Hassan Shershah ◽  
Asadullah Noori ◽  
Mosa Ziauddin Ahmad
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Middle East ◽  
The United States ◽  
Turkish Foreign Policy ◽  
Security Issues ◽  
New Approaches ◽  
East Region ◽  
History Of ◽  
Middle East Region

The article discusses the features and main approaches of Turkish foreign policy in the Middle East. Particular attention is paid to the history of the development of Turkish-American relations. The causes of the contradictions between Turkey and the United States on the security issues of the Middle East region are analyzed. At the same time, the commonality of the approaches of both countries in countering radical terrorism in the territories adjacent to Turkey is noted. The article also discusses the priority areas of Turkish foreign policy, new approaches and technologies in the first decade of the XXI century.

scholarly journals A Transatlantic Secular Divide? The Representation of Religion in EU and US Foreign Policy

2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 451-469 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne Jenichen
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Us Foreign Policy ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
Policy Documents ◽  
Foreign Policies ◽  
Eu And Us ◽  
And Behavior ◽  
The Eu

AbstractIt is a common—often stereotypical—presumption that Europe is secular and America religious. Differences in international religious freedom and religious engagement policies on both sides of the Atlantic seem to confirm this “cliché.” This article argues that to understand why it has been easier for American supporters to institutionalize these policies than for advocates in the EU, it is important to consider the discursive structures of EU and US foreign policies, which enable and constrain political language and behavior. Based on the analysis of foreign policy documents, produced by the EU and the United States in their relationship with six religiously diverse African and Asian states, the article compares how both international actors represent religion in their foreign affairs. The analysis reveals similarities in the relatively low importance that they attribute to religion and major differences in how they represent the contribution of religion to creating and solving problems in other states. In sum, the foreign policies of both international actors are based on a secular discursive structure, but that of the United States is much more accommodative toward religion, including Islam, than that of the EU.

scholarly journals O papel das estratégias norte-americanas para as rupturas paradigmáticas na orientação da Política Externa jordaniana na segunda metade do século XX/The role of U.S. strategies for the paradigmatic changes in Jordanian foreign policy

2016 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 186-216
Author(s):  
Leonardo Luiz Silveira Da Silva
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Twentieth Century ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
World War Ii ◽  
Middle East ◽  
World Order ◽  
The United States ◽  
Economic Activities ◽  
Peace Agreement ◽  
War Of Independence

Resumo: A descolonização do Oriente Médio que originou novos Estados na região da Bacia do rio Jordão, coincide temporalmente com um novo arranjo da ordem mundial que se reorganizava no período pós-Segunda Guerra Mundial. A trajetória da política externa da Jordânia na segunda metade do século XX é extremamente didática para entendermos os efeitos das relações de poder entre as nações em âmbito regional e global para a mudança de comportamento dos Estados que praticavam políticas anti-hegemônicas. Nesta trajetória destaca-se a intensa disputa pelos escassos recursos hídricos regionais, à medida que o recurso é fundamental para o desenvolvimento das atividades econômicas e para a própria soberania do Estado. Na já distante década de 1950, poucos anos após o conflito da Guerra de Independência que opôs Israel e os Estados árabes vizinhos, a Jordânia passou a adotar uma postura intransigente em relação à aproximação com Israel, apesar dos esforços dos Estados Unidos para promover a estabilidade regional. Com o acordo de paz entre Egito e Israel, mediado pelos Estados Unidos e costurado na virada das décadas de 1970 e 1980, o tabu da oposição sistemática a Israel foi rompido. Desta forma, este artigo tem como objetivo apresentar as mudanças na política externa da Jordânia na segunda metade do século XX, associando estas mudanças às novas estratégias norte-americanas para região, permitindo a compreensão das novas formas de imperialismo que dominam o cenário do Oriente Médio desde a década de 1970.Palavras-Chave: Jordânia, Estados Unidos, Israel, políticas anti-hegemônicas. Abstract: The decolonization of the Middle East that originated in the new states of the Jordan Basin region coincides temporally with a new arrangement of the world order, which is rearranged in the post - World War II period. The trajectory of the Jordanian foreign policy in the second half of the twentieth century is extremely didactic to understand the effects of power relations between nations on a regional and global level to the changing behavior of States which practiced anti - hegemonic politics. On this path there is the intense competition for scarce regional water resources, as the feature is essential for the development of economic activities and the very sovereignty of the state. In the distant 1950s, a few years after the conflict of the War of Independence which opposed Israel and neighboring Arab states, Jordan adopted an uncompromising stance towards rapprochement with Israel, despite U.S. efforts to promote peace in the region. With the peace agreement between Egypt and Israel, brokered by the United States and sewn at the turn of the 1970s and 1980s, the pattern of systematic opposition to Israel was broken. This paper aims to present the changes in Jordan's foreign policy in the second half of the twentieth century, linking these changes to the new US strategy for the region, allowing the understanding of new forms of imperialism which dominate the Middle East scenario since the decade 1970.Keywords: Jordan, United States, Israel, anti - hegemonic politics.

scholarly journals THE GENESIS OF THE US FOREIGN POLICY: THE ORIGIN OF THE HISTORIOGRAPHY OF THE TOPIC, 1610–1820S

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (73) (2) ◽  
pp. 81-93
Author(s):  
D. V. Dorofeev
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
International Relations ◽  
North American ◽  
Alternative Hypothesis ◽  
The United States ◽  
Us Foreign Policy ◽  
Founding Fathers ◽  
The North ◽  
The Us

The research is devoted to the study of the origin of the historiography of the topic of the genesis of the US foreign policy. The key thesis of the work challenges the established position in the scientific literature about the fundamental role of the work of T. Lyman, Jr. «The diplomacy of the United States: being an account of the foreign relations of the country, from the first treaty with France, in 1778, to the Treaty of Ghent in 1814, with Great Britain», published in 1826. The article puts forward an alternative hypothesis: the emergence of the historiography of the genesis of the foreign policy of the United States occurred before the beginning of the second quarter of the XIX century – during the colonial period and the first fifty years of the North American state. A study of the works of thirty-five authors who worked during the 1610s and 1820s showed that amater historians expressed a common opinion about North America’s belonging to the Eurocentric system of international relations; they were sure that both the colonists and the founding fathers perceived international processes on the basis of raison d’être. The conceptualization of the intellectual heritage of non-professional historians allowed us to distinguish three interpretations of the origin of the United States foreign policy: «Autochthonous» – focused on purely North American reasons; «Atlantic» – postulated the borrowing of European practice of international relations by means of the system of relations that developed in the Atlantic in the XVII–XVIII centuries; «Imperial» – stated the adaptation of the British experience. The obtained data refute the provisions of scientific thought of the XX–XXI centuries and create new guidelines for further study of the topic.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document