QATAR AIRWAYS swot analyses Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

QATAR AIRWAYS swot analyses - Essay Example For this reason, the company’s human resource is essential in supporting the company in achieving its mission and vision. Primarily, the company’s HR department is in charge of planning strategies to hire excellent employees and supervising projects that help Qatar Airways in achieving its goals. A company’s HR department is in charge of the staffing process and developing employees’ capacity in line with the company’s objectives. For Qatar Airways, the HR policy should focus on achieving excellence according to the company’s mission statement. One way of doing this is to ensure that HR implements procedures aimed at promoting employee-job satisfaction while improving their skills, which consequently increases productivity and growth in the company. Besides, the company’s staffing policy should focus on identifying employees who would help the company achieve its objectives. Since employees who best understand the company can help the company achieve excellence, the HR department at Qatar Airways has to measure the attitudes of its employees towards their jobs. This can be done by encouraging employees to take part in annual surveys that measure job satisfaction and other areas related to their jobs. In effect, the feedback obtained from these surveys will help the HR department to identify areas that required to be improved for the company’s overall achievement of excellence. The HR at Qatar Airways is in charge of project management, which helps Qatar Airways remain organized by listing the project goals, assessing the risks of the project and measuring the expenses and profit. With regard to IT, HR should ensure that the company had an integrated information technology system that enhanced all company’s process from one command center in order to ensure the achievement of a common

TEACHING ENGLISH PRONUNCIATION TO SPANISH SPEAKERS Research Paper - 1

TEACHING ENGLISH PRONUNCIATION TO SPANISH SPEAKERS - Research Paper Example The literature review chapter discussed about the speech sounds, vowels, consonants, speech organs, and production of sounds in a critical manner. The literature review served the purpose of dealing with the research topic in an in-depth manner. It was found that the correct pronunciation is dependent on positioning of tongue and lips and also the movement of air within and outside the mouth and nose. The literature review added great deal of value for the later chapters. The research methodology chapter explained the reason behind selecting the anti-positivism research philosophy and inductive research approach along with the use of questions and graphics for enhancing the pronunciation of students in a well planned manner. This chapter explained the methodology to be used in analysing the major outcomes of the research. The proposed framework chapter explained the framework to be used in enhancing the pronunciation of students. In this regard, Kenilworth’s English Pronunciation Skills as a form of questions along with a number of graphs highlighting the lips and tongue movement, speech organs, and how vowels and consonants are produced and pronounced were used in an illustrative manner. The conclusion and recommendation chapter concluded that enhancing English pronunciation is requires continuous effort along with proper understanding over the production of speech sounds, sound movement, and vowels and consonants production and pronunciation . English has emerged as one of the main languages being spoken in different parts of the world. The global environment seeks people having command over English in terms of communication and exchange of ideas and views. English is a global language that is used for the purpose of communication in countries where it is not a native language. However, with global boundaries shrinking and people exploring different opportunities in different parts of the world,

The Israeli Palestinian Conflict Politics Essay

The Israeli Palestinian Conflict Politics Essay After more than 50 years of war, terrorism, peace negotiation and human suffering, Israel and Palestine remain as far from a peaceful settlement as ever. The entire Middle Eastern region remains a cauldron waiting to reach the boiling point, a potent mixture of religious extremism, (Jewish, Christian and Islamic), mixed with oil and munitions. This paper is an attempt to trace the history of this age old conflict and analyse the viability of internationally suggested solutions. Owing to their history, going back at least 5000 years in time, the paper only throws light on the conflict, post 19th century. And this too, only a cursory overview of a timeline, rather than a detailed description. The paper also attempts to find the bones of contention between the two peoples, clearly laying out the issues and problems along with the need to resolve them. Finally, the paper analyses the two mainstream solutions suggested for resolution of this conflict, being the Two-State theory and the Bi-National State theory. IR theories of Realism and Liberalism are used to broadly analyse these two solutions applicability in the particular conflict. The practical difficulties in the existing political diaspora is highlighted to finally decide the viability. The limitations of the paper is that the complex issues involved do not give enough leeway to say decidedly that one solution is the right solution and the other, wrong. Also, though neutral tones have been imbibed throughout the paper, a humanistic tendency of bias towards the Palestinian cause seeps in, albeit subconsciously. Introduction The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the ongoing struggle between Israelis and Palestinians that began in the early 20th century. The conflict is wide-ranging, and the term is also used in reference to the earlier phases of the same conflict, between the Zionist yishuv and the Arab population living in Palestine under Ottoman and then British rule. It forms part of the wider Arab-Israeli conflict. The remaining key issues are: mutual recognition, borders, security, water rights, control of Jerusalem, Israeli settlements, Palestinian freedom of movement and finding a resolution to the refugee question. The violence resulting from the conflict has prompted international actions, as well as other security and human rights concerns, both within and between both sides, and internationally. In addition, the violence has curbed expansion of tourism in the region, which is full of historic and religious sites that are of interest to many people around the world. Many attempts have been made to broker a two-state solution, involving the creation of an independent Palestinian state alongside an independent Jewish state or next to the State of Israel (after Israels establishment in 1948). In 2007 a majority of both Israelis and Palestinians, according to a number of polls, preferred the two-state solution over any other solution as a means of resolving the conflict. Moreover, a considerable majority of the Jewish public sees the Palestinians demand for an independent state as just, and thinks Israel can agree to the establishment of such a state. A majority of Palestinians and Israelis view the West Bank and Gaza Strip as an acceptable location of the hypothetical Palestinian state in a two-state solution. However, there are significant areas of disagreement over the shape of any final agreement and also regarding the level of credibility each side sees in the other in upholding basic commitments. Within Israeli and Palestinian society, the conflict generates a wide variety of views and opinions. This highlights the deep divisions which exist not only between Israelis and Palestinians, but also within each society. A hallmark of the conflict has been the level of violence witnessed for virtually its entire duration. Fighting has been conducted by regular armies, paramilitary groups, terror cells and individuals. Casualties have not been restricted to the military, with a large number of fatalities in civilian population on both sides. There are prominent international actors involved in the conflict. This paper details the history of the conflict, giving a purview through a timeline, rather than a detailed description. It also outlines the basic issues involved in the conflict and why their resolution is not cake walk. The two solutions proposed as a solution to the conflict is also analysed in depth, with reference to theoretical concepts of realism and liberalism in IR. The viability of these solutions are dealt with, in the current political scene, though with less insight into the actual political happenings. History of the conflict The origins of the Palestine problem as an international issue lie in events occurring towards the end of the First World War. These events led to a League of Nations decision to place Palestine under the administration of Great Britain as the Mandatory Power under the Mandates System adopted by the League. In principle, the Mandate was meant to be in the nature of a transitory phase until Palestine attained the status of a fully independent nation, a status provisionally recognized in the Leagues Covenant, but in fact the Mandates historical evolution did not result in the emergence of Palestine as an independent nation. The decision on the Mandate did not take into account the wishes of the people of Palestine, despite the Covenants requirements that the wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory. This assumed special significance because, almost five years before receiving the mandate from the League of Nations, the British Government had given commitments to the Zionist Organization regarding the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine, for which Zionist leaders had pressed a claim of historical connection since their ancestors had lived in Palestine two thousand years earlier before dispersing in the Diaspora.  [1]  During the period of the Mandate, the Zionist Organization worked to secure the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine. The indigenous people of Palestine, whose forefathers had inhabited the land for virtually the two preceding millennia  [2]  , felt this design to be a violation of their natural and inalienable rights. They also viewed it as an infringement of assurances of independence given by the Allied Powers to Arab leaders in return for their support during the war. The result was mounting resistance to the Mandate by Palestinian Arabs, followed by resort to violence by the Jewish community as the Second World War drew to a close. By 1947, largely through this massive immigration, the Jewish population reached a substantial 33% and owned about 6% of the land. Finally, in 1947 the United Nations decided to intervene. As per the Resolution 181  [3]  , the UN recommended giving away 55% of Palestine to a Jewish state despite the fact that this group represented only about 33% of the total population, and owned under 7% of the land. Jerusalem was to have been an international city shared by all peoples of the region. The Zionist movement embraced the plan whereas the Palestine (and other neighbouring Arab nations) saw the plan as extremely unfair and rejected it. This followed the first war which was to sow the seeds of future conflicts. The Arab League supported the Arab struggle by forming the volunteer based Arab Liberation Army, supporting the Palestinian Arab Army of the Holy War. On the Jewish side, the civil war was managed by the major underground militias the Haganah, Irgun and Lehi, strengthened by numerous Jewish veterans of World War II and foreign volunteers. By spring 1948, it was already clear that the Arab forces were nearing a total collapse, while Yishuv forces gained more and more territory, creating a large scale refugee problem of Palestinian Arabs.  [4]  Popular support to the Palestinian Arabs throughout the Arab world led to sporadic violence against Jewish communities of Middle East and North Africa, creating an opposite refugee wave. Following the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel on 14 May 1948, the Arab League decided to intervene on behalf of Palestinian Arabs, marching their forces into former British Palestine, beginning the main phase of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. The overall fighting, leading to around 15,000 casualties, resulted in cease fire and armistice agreements of 1949, with Israel holding much of the former Mandate territory, Jordan occupying and later annexing the West Bank and Egypt taking over the Gaza Strip, where the All-Palestine Government was declared by the Arab League on 22 September 1948. While the Jewish people were successful in creating their homeland, there was no Palestine and no internationalization of Jerusalem, either. In 1948 for example, Palestinians were driven out of the new Israel into refugee camps in Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon and other regions. At least 750,000 people are said to have been driven out (or ethnically cleansed, as some have described it).  [5]  It should be noted that many Jews were also expelled from surrounding Arab countries. Zionist organizations and even some Arab nations also encouraged many Jews to immigrate to Israel. As with Palestinians, expelled Jews often had their land and/or bank accounts and other property seized. In 1956, Britain, France and Israel invaded the Sinai Peninsula after Egypt nationalized the Suez Canal fearing the loss of a major economic trading route entry point for the West to the rest of the Middle East. While Egypt was defeated, international pressure forced the withdrawal of the invading forces.  [6]   In 1967, Israel simultaneously attacked Egypt, Syria and Jordan in a pre-emptive strike against the Arab troops along its borders. Israel captured key pieces of land, such as the strategic Golan Heights to the north on the border with Syria, to the West Bank from Jordan and the Gaza strip from Egypt. In fact, Israel more than doubled its size in the six days that this war took place. Since then, negotiations have been around returning land to pre-1967 states, as required by international law and UN resolutions. Even today, the Palestine Liberation Organisation calls for a two state solution based on the pre Six Day War borders. In 1973, Egypt and Syria attacked Israel on the Jewish holy day of Yom Kippur to attempt to regain the land lost in the Six Day War, but failed. This confrontation is also known as the Yom Kippur War. In 1978, the Camp David accords were signed between Israel, Egypt and the US, and Israel returned the Sinai Peninsula back to Egypt in return for peace between them. To the US and Israel, this was a great achievement; Egypt was obviously not to be underestimated in its capabilities, so the best thing would be to ensure it is an ally, not an adversary. In 1978, due to rising Hezbollah attacks from South Lebanon, where many Palestinian refugees still were, Israel attacked and invaded Lebanon. In 1982, Israel went as far up Lebanon as Beirut, as bloody exchanges followed between Israeli attempts to bomb Yasser Arafats PLO locations, and Hezbollah retaliations. The infamous Shabra and Shatila massacre was carried out during this war. In 1985, Israel declared a strip of South Lebanon to be a Security Zone (not recognized by the UN). Many civilians were killed on both sides. Israeli forces were accused of massacres on many occasions. After 22 years, Israel withdrew in May 2000. One of the leading Israeli military personnel was the future Israel Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon. In the late 1980s came the Palestinian uprising-the Intifada. While there was much of a non-violence movement initially, the mainstream media concentrated on the violence. Young Palestinians confronted Israeli troops with nothing more than sling shots and stones. Thousands were killed by the Israeli military. Many suicide activists killed Israeli soldiers and caused other damage. Many innocent civilians were killed on both sides. 1993 saw the Oslo Peace Accord, whereby Israel recognized the PLO and gave them limited autonomy in return for peace and an end to Palestinian claims on Israeli territory. With the signing of the Oslo Declaration of Principles, the PLO denounced violence and recognised the UN Security Council Resolution 242, thereby recognising the right of Israel to exist. In 1994, Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip and Jericho, ending twenty seven years of occupation. They were replaced by a Palestinian police force. In April 1996, Israeli forces bombed Lebanon for 17 days, with Hezbollah retaliating by firing upon populated areas of Northern Israel. Israel also shelled a UN shelter killing about 100 out of 800 civilians sheltering there. The above merely gives a broad outline of the conflict, and a more comprehensive analysis of the underlying cause and various other issues couldnt be provided here due to the call of brevity. The Palestine Problem and the need for a Solution As the periodic bloodshed continues in the Middle East, the search for an equitable solution must come to grips with the root cause of the conflict. The conventional wisdom is that, even if both sides are at fault, the Palestinians are irrational terrorists who have no point of view worth listening to. Our position, however, is that the Palestinians have a real grievance: their homeland for over a thousand years was taken, without their consent and mostly by force, during the creation of the state of Israel. And all subsequent crimes on both sides inevitably follow from this original injustice. Whether it is the Deir Yassin massacre in which the Irgun and Lehi soldiers carried out the slaughter of innocent villagers including women and children, or whether it is the suicide bombings perpetrated on Israeli civilians and soldiers by Palestine based terrorist groups, both sides have used a previous occurrences as justifications for a fresh act of violence. After decades of bloodshed, there seems to be no right or wrong anymore. And misery hasnt ceased to exist for the innocent. The major issues that dominate the dialogues on the problem are: Refugees About 726,000 Palestinians were expelled or fled their homes in 1948 in the war that followed the creation of Israel, and additional Palestinians fled in 1967. There are now about 4 million Palestinian refugees. Many of them live in crowded refugee camps in poor conditions in the West Bank and Gaza, in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq. Palestinians demand that these refugees should have the right to return to their homes in Israel under UN General Assembly Resolution 194. Israelis note that an almost equal number of Jews fled Arab lands to Israel in 1948. Israelis oppose return of the refugees because that would create an Arab Palestinian majority and would put an end to Israel as a Jewish state. Most Palestinian groups, including the Fateh, agree, and openly proclaim that resolution of the refugee issue by granting right of return would mean the end of Israel. Israeli Settlements One of the major barriers to the creation of two contiguous, sovereign states for Palestinians and Israelis is the existence and continuing growth of illegal Israeli colonies (widely called settlements) on land long recognized by the United Nations as part of Palestine. Despite a repeated international condemnation, the population of these settlements, which currently number 121, has grown by an average of 5% annually since 2001. That compares to an average growth of just 1.8% for the population of Israel proper. Israel has repeatedly refused to dismantle these settlements in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Golan Heights, and has repeatedly fudged and violated various moratoriums on new growth. Palestinian State Originally formed to regain all of Palestine for the Palestinian Arabs, the Palestine Liberation Organization signalled that it would accept a two state solution in 1988. The Oslo accords were supposed to have led to a peaceful resolution of the conflict, but continued Israeli settlement and Palestinian violence and incitement degenerated into open conflict in September 2000. Mainstream Palestinians demand a state in the West Bank and Gaza. Right wing Israelis are opposed to creating a state, because, they claim, it would be a base for terror groups. In final status negotiations, the Israeli government agreed to a demilitarized Palestinian state with limited control over its borders and resources a state minus. Palestinian terror Almost all Palestinian groups were founded with the declared aim of destroying Israel by violence, and had a history of terrorist activities. Only the PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization) has renounced this aim officially. In 1993, the PLO signed the Oslo Declaration of Principles, renouncing violence and agreeing to honour UN SC Resolution 242, which implicitly recognizes the right of Israel to exist. In return, Israel allowed the PLO to enter the West Bank and Gaza strip, and Palestinians gained autonomous control of most of the population of these areas. Extremist Palestinian groups that objected to the agreements began a campaign of ambushes and suicide bombings against Israel. The Palestine National Authority claimed they could not control the dissident groups. Final status negotiations faltered in September 2000. Israeli Repression Israel responded to Palestinian violence at the beginning of the Oslo process by limiting the flow of Palestinian workers to Israel to prevent infiltration of terrorists, and by strict checks at border checkpoints. The border closing drastically reduced the Palestinian standard of living. Palestinians who did come to work were often subjected to humiliating searches and very long waits at checkpoints. Following terror attacks at the checkpoints, nervous IDF (Israel Defense Forces) soldiers sometimes were too quick to open fire on suspicious vehicles, killing innocent civilians. Checkpoints around Jerusalem made it difficult for Palestinians to get to work in Jerusalem and to travel between Palestinian towns. The IDF has killed over 3,500 Palestinians  [7]  , demolished houses and uprooted olive groves. After a recent IDF study showed that the demolitions do not deter suicide bombings, demolitions of the houses of suicide bombers were discontinued, but houses are still demolished for other reasons. In addition to measures taken to ensure security, Israeli extremist settlers have harassed Palestinians, destroyed property, uprooted olive trees and killed several Palestinians in doubtful circumstances. The perpetrators are rarely identified and almost never prosecuted. Israeli Security The area of Israel within its pre-1967 armistice borders is slightly less than 8,000 square miles. The distance from Tel Aviv to the green line border of Israel (West Bank) is about 11 miles. Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and other Israeli cities are within artillery range of any Palestinian state. Israel therefore insists on guarantees that a Palestinian state would be demilitarized. The West Bank has enormous strategic importance to any country wishing to invade Israel. Israel therefore insists on guarantees that the Palestinian state would not allow a foreign army to enter its borders, and has insisted on bases within the West Bank. Water The land has always had a scarcity of water. The Israel National Water Carrier has made possible a high population density and standard of living.  [8]  The carrier pumps water from the Sea of Galilee and carries it to areas in the center and south of Israel as well as for Palestinian areas. In one day it delivers the volume of water used in all of 1948, but it is not enough.  [9]  The aquifers that supply Israels central area lie in the West Bank. The Jordan river flows through territory that would be part of Palestine. Both sides need water for survival and development and want to ensure an adequate water supply from the limited resources available. Israel has reserved for its own use a large percentage of the water in West Bank aquifers The Two State Solution The current solution for Israel and Palestine suggests that Palestinians ought to have their own state, separate from Israel. In this way a Two-State solution might be reached. The method by which such a solution could be implemented involves a technical division of land with walls, earth mounds, road blocks and fences. This chapter discusses the so-called practical limitations of a Two-State solution. Notably it questions whether a Palestinian State is a viable option. Israel and Palestine combined are no bigger than South Africas Western Cape Province and yet, for such a small amount of land, the Two-State solution seeks the establishment of a Palestinian state, separate from the current Israeli state. Palestine itself is not one land mass. It is currently divided into two territories named the West Bank and Gaza respectively. Gaza has a western coastline on the Mediterranean Sea and shares borders with Israel and Egypt. Gaza is a relatively small territory, merely 45 kilometres in length. The West Bank is landlocked, sharing borders with Israel and Jordan. Although the West Bank is marginally larger than Gaza, it is not easy to freely access the territory as it is surrounded by a 723km concrete wall, 6-9 metres high in most places. The wall has been built by Israel to separate Israel from the Palestinian West Bank. But the wall does not follow the internationally recognised border between Israel and the West Bank. Rather, it cuts into the West B ank annexing 13% of the territory for Israel. The wall is characteristic of Israels selfishness in claiming Palestinian land. Despite the low percentage of land annexed by the wall, this portion of land is, nonetheless, highly fertile and densely populated mostly by Palestinian farmers. The livelihood of these farmers depends on the productivity of their land. Palestinians whose land has been annexed by Israel live in a so-called seam zone between the internationally recognised Israeli-West Bank border and the wall. These Palestinians who live in the seam zone are known as Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs). By definition they are person who have been forced to flee their homes as a result of armed conflict, violence, violations of human rights or human-made disasters, and who have not crossed an internationally recognised State border.  [10]  Palestinians whose land falls in the seam zone are only permitted access to their farmlands during designated hours with a required permit. If a viable Palestinian state is to be cre ated, the status of these IDPs has to be resolved, either by Israel offering financial compensation for appropriating Palestinian land, or by moving the wall and thereby allowing Palestinian landowners to return. Both of these solutions are technical in nature and are indicative of the so-called rational approach taken by Israeli policymakers. The vexing nature of how to divide Israel and Palestine comes without even discussing Jerusalem, a city which is contested by Israelis and Palestinians. Jerusalem is home to an estimated 250,000 Palestinians and 200,000 Jews. While Israel claims Jerusalem to be its official capital, the international community treats East Jerusalem as Palestinian territory held by Israel under military occupation. Also, the international community does not recognise Jerusalem as Israels capital, and the city hosts no foreign embassies. Palestinians seek to secure a portion of the city as the political capital of a Palestinian State. Israel is, however, unwilling to relinquish any part of Jerusalem for a Palestinian capital. So, the obstacles faced by policymakers favouring a Two-State solution are obstacles of control: which areas are to be controlled by Palestinians and which areas are to be controlled by Israelis. In other words, the question for those concerned with the Two-State solution is how to delineate land which can be controlled by the state. State control over territory is a central feature of the Two-State solution and. This kind of control is termed sovereignty. Policymakers seek to divide Israel and Palestine into two separate states so that each may exercise supreme authority over its territory, without interference from the other. The means by which mutual non-interference is achieved between states is through a principle of so-called recognition. The term itself requires further explanation, in its relevance to the teaching and practice of IR. For IR theorists, recognition is commonly used to describe how states acknowledge one another. The most fundamental aspect of inter-state recognition is respect for each states sovereignty. The Two-State solution hinges on Israelis and Palestinians recognising each other as sovereign entities and thereby not interfering with one anothers domestic affairs. To problematize the notion of interstate recognition it is useful to consider Hegels views. Discussing the relationship between two individuals, a Lord and a Bondsman, he says, Each sees the other, and therefore also does what it does only in so far as the other does the same. Action by one side only would be useless because what is to happen can only be brought about by bothà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ They recognize themselves as mutually recognizing one another.  [11]   There is a perception that Jewish sovereignty is under threat due to the low ratio of Jews to Arabs in the Middle-East. So, in order to protect the identity of this small Jewish population, Jews are insulated within their own sovereign state Israel. Non-Jews living within Israel are viewed as a threat. The protection of Jewish sovereignty would explain why there are limited employment opportunities for Arab workers in Israel and why Arabs receive different education to Jews. Despite the fact that they share territory, it is evident that Israelis and Palestinians believe themselves to be separate nations and thus deserving of separate sovereign states. So the Two-State solution is seen as the so-called rational end for Israelis and Palestinians. Today, the two-state solution is widely accepted among Israelis and Palestinians and around the world. Even elements of the Israeli right are now resigned to the establishment of a Palestinian state, although their conception of the nature of that state is not acceptable to Palestinians. On the Palestinian side, even elements of the Hamas leadership have hinted that they would go along with a two-state solution if negotiated by Fatah leaders and endorsed by the public, as long as they did not renounce their ideological principles. However, a strong view is that neither side would be able to agree to a division that yielded the Temple Mount to the other side. As an attempt to break the stalemate, U.S. President Bill Clinton proposed dividing sovereignty of the site vertically the ground and area below coming under Israeli sovereignty, while that above the ground (i.e. the Haram al-Sharif containing the Dome of the Rock and al-Aqsa Mosque) would be under Palestinian sovereignty. A similar idea was suggested for tunnels and elevated roads connecting communities. In the end neither side accepted the concept. The main point on which the two-state solution formula differs from those for an independent Palestinian state is that it calls for direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. To achieve a two-state solution, the negotiations must address and resolve a number of core issues, including the borders of the Palestinian state, the citizenship of the new Palestinian state, the status of Palestinian refugees outside the final borders, and the status of Arab citizens of present-day Israel, besides the future of East Jerusalem. The Two-State Solution: An analysis using IR theories Israelis and Palestinians are clearly interspersed, yet the Two-State solution seeks to divide them into sovereign states. We have seen that the idea of sovereignty underpins the Two-State solution based on the distinct nationalities of Israelis and Palestinians. Sovereignty also forms the core of two IR perspectives that are used in the discipline: Realism and Liberalism. This is not to say that that Realism and Liberalism are the only IR theories that can be used to explain the Two-State solution. Rather, Realism and Liberalism are two of the foundational theories. Therefore it is useful to discuss the Two-State solution from the perspective of Realism and Liberalism. First, let us analyse the Two-State solution through the prism of Realism, the school of thought which has been given the greatest primacy in IR. Realism Realists believe that there is no moral standard which dictates how states should behave toward one another. The lack of an overriding ethical code to structure interstate behaviour is known as so-called anarchy.  [12]  For Realists, power dictates how states interact with one another. Because power relations are central to a Realist understanding of the international arena, states are sceptical of trust. So, instead of trusting one another states choose their alliances based on one anothers strategic value in so-called self-interested behaviour. Selfishness means that interstate warfare is inevitable. In the Realist understanding, the international arena is brutal and the only way to deter actors from going to war is if the costs of doing so outweigh the benefits. So, Realists reduce human interests to strategies or games, advocating that actors constantly seek to maximize their utility through negotiations, trade-offs and alliances. Realist Theory reduces the Israeli-Palestinian bilateral relationship to a power squabble, as each side attempts to gain the ascendency. In these circumstances relations become a ping-pong match of provocation and conflict is inevitable. For example, a Palestinian suicide bombing in a Tel Aviv market might be reciprocated by an Israeli incursion into the bombers West Bank village. Even cumulative small actions by one side can lead to one large action from the other for example, when numerous Qassam rockets, fired into Israel by Palestinian militants, result in an Israeli military offensive. Presumably then, in the Realist understanding, peace is achieved when the costs of going to war outweigh the benefits of doing so. However, a cost-benefit analysis of going to war can

What is Social Psychology? Essay -- Social Influences, Behaviors, Feel

Essay Title: Social Psychology Social psychology is a broad concept which has underlying elements of studying on how we behave, foresee and feel. Myers (2011) agrees that social psychologist investigates these connections by studying on how we persuade others and how we relate to other humans. Miller (2004) stated that majority of social psychologist would acknowledge that the perspective of social psychology is one that emphasises the social changes in the environment from the influence of individual. Kassin, Fein and Markus (2013) argues that humans are really fascinated about social interaction and personal relationships, which the social context can have an immense influence on our lives. Furthermore, social psychology applies to all aspects of our lives, which I consider to be fascinating category of psychology; because we have to communicate to each other, express our feeling towards another and engage intimately with the opposite sex. In world of social human beings, we are interacting with everybody in social situations, for examples we are corresponding with our friends via social networking websites such as facebook, twitter and email accounts; we are talking to our close family members on the mobile phone; we are networking with professionals, recruitment consultants and employers in networking events. In addition our beliefs can cause significant changes in our social situations. For instance our religious beliefs or political beliefs can inspire and have huge impact over many people; parents with strong religious beliefs can instil the same traditions and ethical principles to their children, however there is a possibility that their children can grow up with similar ways of thoughts as their parents. .. ...ogical Factors in Competitive Sport. Oxford: Psychology Press Eiser, J., R. ( 1986) Social Psychology: Attitudes, Cognition and Social Behaviour. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Maio, G.,R. , Haddock, G. (2009) The Psychology of Attitudes and Attitude Change. London: SAGE Publications LTD Martin, G., N.( 2008) Psychology: A beginner’s Guide. Oxford: Oneworld Publications Kalat, J., W.( 2010) Introduction to Psychology. London: Cengage Learning Tuffin, K.( 2004) Understanding Critical Social Psychology. London: Sage Publications Ltd Flick, U.(ed.) ( 1998) The Psychology of the Social. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Lovaglia, M.( 2006) Knowing People: The Personal Use of Social Psychology. 2nd edition. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Burr, V.(2002) The Person in Social Psychology. East Sussex: Psychology Press

Dbq Indian Removal Essay

DBQ When the Native Americans lived east of the Mississippi river, they didn’t want to follow the law and be part of U.S. government and wanted to govern their own people. Andrew Jackson being a president of United States didn’t want the group to ignore the government therefore, proposed to move them west of the Mississippi river. In order to justify and keep threats away from the U.S. settlers, the U.S. government promised them bigger land, money, pay for their needs and support for one year as said in the excerpt from Indian Removal Act 1830 (source 1). This act should be justified because it resolved the conflicts between the U.S. and the Indies were given comparable land and support. In Source 2 Andrew Jackson makes a speech about if the Indians movie it will benefit the U.S. and make Alabama and Mississippi stronger. The U.S. wanted to separate the Indians for many reasons. Andrew Jackson wanted the Indians to stay away from whites, â€Å"by opening the whole territory between the Tennessee on the north Louisiana on the south to the settlement of the whites will incalculably strengthen the southwest frontier and render the adjustment States strong enough to repel future invasion without remote aid†( article 2). Also the government thought if they separated the Indian it will enable them to stay away from whites and convince them from their own savage habits and make them more interesting and important. When the government told the Indians to move, they said they would give them bigger land, money and support to move. â€Å"The Cherokee Nations cedes to the United States all the land claimed by said Nation east of the Mississippi River†¦ 7,000,000 acres of land is guaranteed to the Cherokees west of the Mississippi† (source 5). The United States as well, â€Å"agreed that the land herein guaranteed to the Cherokees shall never, without their consent, be included within†¦any State or Territory† (source 5). As the Indians were getting ready to leave, the Americans took away â€Å"all laws†¦ and regulations†¦enacted by the Cherokee Indians†¦ are hereby declared to be null and void and no effect, as if the same had never existed.†(source 3). Organizer Details/ evidence * Paragraph 2 * The U.S. wanted to separate the Indians for many reasons. * Andrew Jackson wanted the Indians to stay away from whites * â€Å"By opening the whole territory between the Tennessee on the north Louisiana on the south to the settlement of the whites will incalculably strengthen the southwest frontier and render the adjustment States strong enough to repel future invasion without remote aid† (article 2). * the government thought if they separated the Indian it will enable them to stay away from whites and convince them from their own savage habits and make them more interesting and important. * Paragraph 3 * When the government told the Indians to move, they said they would give them bigger land, money and support to move. * â€Å"The Cherokee Nations cedes to the United States all the land claimed by said Nation east of the Mississippi River†¦ 7,000,000 acres of land is guaranteed to the Cherokees west of the Mississippi† (source 5). * The United States as well, â€Å"agreed that the land herein guaranteed to the Cherokees shall never, without their consent, be included within†¦any State or Territory† (source 5). * As the Indians were getting ready to leave, the Americans took away â€Å"all laws†¦ and regulations†¦enacted by the Cherokee Indians†¦ are hereby declared to be null and void and no effect, as if the same had never existed.†(Source 3).

Opening case: Pinterest Essay

1. Knowledge: Do you consider Pinterest a form of disruptive or sustaining technology? Disruptive technology is a new way of doing something that initially does not meet the needs of existing customers. This type of technology tends to open new markets and destroy old ones. While, a sustaining technology produces an improved product that customers are eager to buy. This technology provides better, faster and cheaper products on established markets. I think that Pinterest is a sustaining technology. Indeed, it’s a social network like Facebook or twitter but the system it’s not the same so this website improved the market of the social media. 2. Comprehension: Categorize Pinterest as an example of Web 1.0 (e-business) or Web 2.0 (Business 2.0) The Web 1.0 is a term to refer to the World Wide Web during the first few years of existence between 1991 and 2003. The e-business is ecommerce with all activities related to internal and external nosiness operations. During the Web 1.0 the first type of e-business appears. The Web 2.0 is the next generation of Internet; it’s a set of economic, social and technology trends. This platform is characterized by new qualities like collaboration, sharing and free. This new generation encourages customers to share and create communities. I think that clearly Pinterest is an example of Web 2.0. This website is all about creating a community and connect people together through the things that they find interesting. As a user you can create your own â€Å"interest boards†. Like that you can show and share with your friends what is important for you. Plus, like in twitter people can follow other. In addition to that Pinterest was created in 2010 after the end of the Web 1.0 in 200 3. 3. Application: Describe the e-business model and revenue model for Pinterest. There are several types of e-business model, and I think that the model of the company is the C2C. The C2Cmodel offers services to assist consumers interacting with each other over the Internet. Pinterest is a social network based on visual communication. All the users can really interact with others, the can talk bout a brand or a product. The revenue model is based on advertising fees that generate revenue to the company. Pinterest uses images directly linked to the retailers website and uses banner ads too. Pinterest allows retailers to put adds on the website in exchange of money. 4. Analysis: What is open source software and how could Pinterest take advantage of it? Open source software is software with a source code available free. That’s means that any third party doesn’t have to pay fees to review or modify it. The Web 2.0 counts on that. Users don’t have to pay fees to enter on the website. They can visually communicate without paying anything. Pinterest take advantage of it because people want to share and communicate about their passion, interest of favorite brands. But people will to do that is they had to pay for it. So Pinterest give to them a platform to express them. They are able to drive traffic because it’s free and open source. 5. Synthesis: Create a plan for how a start-up company could take advantage of Web 3.0 and generate the idea for the next great website that is similar to Pinterest. The web 3.0 is the future generation of the web, the Internet more â€Å"intelligent†. The future computer will can understand and analyze relationship. Plus, they will be able to analyze a request like â€Å"I want to go to the theater and go after eat Japanese! What do you suggest? A start-up can take advantage of this new web through several aspects: Integration of legacy: use current devices as smartphones, laptops, and so on, as credit cards, tickets and reservation tools. Intelligent applications: the use of  agents, machine learning and semantic web concepts to complete intelligent tasks for users. Open ID: the provision of an online identity that can be easily carried to a variety of devices (cell phones†¦) allowing for easy authentication across different websites. Open technologies: the design of website and other software so they can be easily integrated and work together. A worldwide database: the ability for databases to be distributed and accessed from ev erywhere. An idea that would be close to Pinterest laying on the web 3.0 advantages would be, that connects all the news in the world in one website. Launch a website that gathers every information on a dedicated subject. The user will type a specific request on the research toolbar of the website, and thanks to the â€Å"semantic analysis† the website will give access to the user to an amazing databases. In additions to that, the information will be rank by importance and pertinence for the user. 6. Evaluation: Evaluate the challenges facing Pinterest and identify ways the company can prepare to face these issues. The Pinterest’ s site is about pining lot of photos and images. Users can go against the law if they pin a picture with a copyright or not their. Pinterest can be the victim of a lot trails against the, accusing them that they violate the copyright. To face this issue Pinterest protects it self by completing the indemnity clause that all users have to sign. By putting images on their â€Å"interest boards â€Å" people can blame Pinterest if they are violating copyright infringement.