World Sociopolitical Studies
Volume:2 Issue: 1, Winter 2018

Due to its artificial and unnatural structure, Israeli society has since the beginning of its establishment, been a context for the emergence of different kinds of cleavages and tensions. This state of affairs has endangered the political stability of the Israeli regime. The present research is trying to answer this question: what is the effect of religious-secular cleavages in Israel on the future of the political stability of the regime? The article hypothesizes that the religious-secular cleavage is one of the most important social cleavages in Israel and its expansion can be considered as a serious threat to the political stability of the regime. The present research indicates that there are three kinds of cleavages in Israel which constitute the most important social cleavages in society: the Arab-Jewish cleavage; the Ashkenazi-Sephardim cleavage; and the religious-secular cleavage. Although all these three cleavages affect Israel’s political stability, we concentrate on the cleavage that exist between religious and secular forces in society as one of the most serious social cleavages in Israel. It undermines Israel's political stability in at least two ways: the cleavage undermines Israel's political legitimacy; and its shift from the social arena into the political arena transforms it into a political cleavage.

Iran’s foreign policy toward international organizations has always oscillated between divergence and convergence, depending on the status of the country in question and the statesmen's point of the view. This study aimed to examine the status of international organizations in Iran’s foreign policy. A divergent approach to international organizations was adopted during 1981-1988 and 2005-2013. This believe in a domination system in the world, and try to change the status quo and the fundamental rules of the international system. One could argue that the domination of this approach in Iran’s foreign policy undermined the national interests and security. On the other hand, since 1979, it has been revealed that whenever Iran has had a convergent interaction with international organizations (i.e., 1979-1980 and 1988-2005); it has helped Iran's national interest and security. Furthermore, cooperation with international organizations in various fields has provided opportunities for political, economic and cultural ties of Iran.

The relationship between ethnic and faith communities in the United States and domestic forces relating to a converging and diverging social contract on the one hand, and US foreign, security and military policies in national, regional and global contexts on the other hand, constitutes the key focus of this paper and the ongoing research upon which it is based. Theories related to American ethnicity provide the theoretical framework for the discussion. These include Assimilationism, Ethnic Pluralism and Ethnic Conflict Theory. These theories help explain the prevalent narratives and assumptions concerning Muslims in the US. Ethnic and faith communities and groups have at times played significant and important roles in American national security and foreign policy. The power and influence of some ethnic and faith communities living inside the United States in relation to national security and foreign policies is well documented. These groups are overtly and covertly lobbying for national and foreign policy goals, creating a nexus and axis between domestic and foreign and national security policies. In the 21 century and in the post 9-11 world, the US administration’s focus, lobbying and influence in ethnic and faith communities living inside the US in the service of its foreign, military and national security policies has been overlooked. Ethnic and faith communities in this new era and environment are at the center and core of this relationship.

Human rights diplomacy is considered as a consequence of globalization. While many norms and issues are extensively globalized, nonetheless they can be implemented based on cost and benefit analysis (i.e. maximization of benefits and minimization of costs). States have to take their responsibility of human rights by demonstrating their responsiveness towards their people, international organizations, human rights entities, civil societies and NGOs. This accountability would improve their position in international public opinion and would prove their legitimacy in the globalized world. Human rights diplomacy could be defined at strategic and tactical levels. The main question treated in this article is how Brazil has planned its strategies and tactics on human rights diplomacy? The importance of scrutinizing on Brazilian human rights diplomacy is that Brazil, as an emerging power, has been playing an effective role in the transitional international system. In fact, Brazil, as a first step, has defined its proper and suitable strategies and tactics, and as a second step, it has been highlighting its role in international organizations inter allia the United Nations, and finally it has increased its credit and prestige among south counties in the framework of BRICS and south-south dialogue. Analysis of Brazilian human rights strategy indicates that this country tries to stratify its human rights diplomacy firstly at regional level and secondly at international level; to implement this multilayered diplomacy, it seeks to involve interested stakeholders including NGO’s and civil society actors.

Human rights situation in the Middle East (ME) is a central concern in contemporary political as well as academic discourses. There is a considerable amount of literature on the subject, both academic and journalistic, in the Western world. A large part of that literature blames the ME in different ways for its ‘terrible’ conception and treatment of human rights norms. They typically, do not hesitate to contextualise it as ‘Middle Eastern’ phenomenon. It is fascinating, though, that such contextualization is proposed predominantly without a substantial and appropriate context analysis. In this article, a context analysis is conducted, adopting an Area Studies Approach to identify the major features of a Middle Eastern context where human rights norms experience the region’s realities. As a result, four particular items, Islam, oil, Islamic-Western relations, and Israel are proposed as the main factors that form the real context of human rights in the Middle East. This analysis demonstrates that the influential causes of human rights violations in the ME are from both internal and external sources. The internal sources are highlighted in the dominant works of the field. It is interesting, however, that these works largely ignore the external ones. The nature of external factors, Western or attached to Western treatment of the Middle East might reveal the real motivations behind such remarkable overlooking.

Throughout history until today, the Islamic world has been witness to various movements which have been formed in response to special demands. The current article aims to address the similarities and differences between the political thought[1] of the Islamic Revolution of Iran and two movements in Indonesia namely the Nahdatul Ulama (NU) and the Muhammadiyah movements using a descriptive-comparative method. The research findings show that some similarities exist between these movements regarding a) unity of the Muslim world and b) political liberties (role of people in politics); however, some differences are apparent in other areas such as a) governance model and its type, b) type of the relationship between religion and politics and the issue of modernity.
[1]. Political thought deals with the issues pertaining to the realms of government and governance also involving such matters as the relationship between religion and politics, type of governance, characteristics of governance and Islamic system, legislation based on the Islamic Law (Sharia), role of people and parties in religious governance, the unity of the Muslim world, role of women in religious governance and their approach to modernity.