Research public health issues on the “Climate Change” or “Topics and Issues” pages of the American Public Health Association (APHA) website. Investigate a public health…

Research public health issues on the “Climate Change” or “Topics and Issues” pages of the American Public Health Association (APHA) website. Investigate a public health issue related to an environmental issue within the U.S. health care delivery system and examine its effect on a specific population.Write a 750-1,000-word policy brief that summarizes the issue, explains the effect on the population, and proposes a solution to the issue.Follow this outline when writing the policy brief:Describe the policy health issue. Include the following information: (a) what population is affected, (b) at what level does it occur (local, state, or national), and (c) evidence about the issues supported by resources.Create a problem statement.Provide suggestions for addressing the health issue caused by the current policy. Describe what steps are required to initiate policy change. Include necessary stakeholders (government officials, administrator) and budget or funding considerations, if applicable.Discuss the impact on the health care delivery system. Obama and the Middle East Guides1orSubmit my paper for examination By Ben Lazarus Barack Obama came into office having vowed to remove America from the neoconservative way of thinking of George W Bush’s administration. As a congressperson, he had restricted the Iraq war, and during presidential battling, he promised to arrange harmony among Israel and the Palestinians, just as stretch out an open hand to the Iranian system. In any case, as his first term attracts to a nearby, Professor Fawaz Gerges, chief of the London School of Economics’ Middle East Center contends Obama has been meek with regards to the district, and in this manner as a result his arrangements have been deplorable. Following George Bush’s ‘war on fear’, the consequent intrusions of Afghanistan and Iraq, Turkey’s developing strength, just as Iran’s expanding impact in Iraq, America’s hard-power control in the area, is as indicated by Gerges, reaching a conclusion. While the decrease of American authority is a fascinating conversation, it does, in any case, feel now and again unnecessary to Gerges’ focal contention, and appears to repudiate the caption of the book, as he shows America’s association with the Middle East surely sums to something other than a ‘minute’, and as the Arab Spring proceeds, America’s inclusion is probably not going to stop. George Bush’s international strategy is rejected as a ‘religious plan’, and all through, Gerges has pointless upheavals with respect to the previous President. Specifically, Gerges exhaust about Iraq, the ‘war on fear’, and the Israel-Palestine strife. He peculiarly reprimands Bush for the appointment of Hamas in Gaza, apparently neglecting to grasp it was simply the Palestinians who fairly chose such an administration. What’s more, he helpfully ignores the reality Bush was the main American President to require the acknowledgment of a Palestinian state. With respect to’s international strategy counsels, Gerges rejects their way of thinking concerning philanthropic mediation as ‘government’ in light of a legitimate concern for Israel, depicting them as the ‘savage Israel-first school’; people who ‘showed an inquisitive powerlessness to see the Middle East through anything besides Israeli-made glasses’. This is an allegation later made at Obama’s staff, a large number of whom are old appearances from the Clinton period. In fact, the evident braggadocio figure, Dennis Ross, who has a ‘long history of speaking to Israel-first specific vested parties inside and past the US organizations’, is the objective of quite a bit of Gerges’ wrath. During his Presidential crusade in 2006, Obama focused on his international strategy theory as something ‘dependent on a practical evaluation of the calming realities on the ground and our inclinations in the locale’. At an opportune time in his Presidency, he stretched out his hand to the Muslim world, announcing in Cairo, June 2009, that he was looking for ‘a fresh start between the United States and Muslims around the globe, one dependent on shared intrigue and common regard’. In the discourse, Obama talked about the Israel-Palestine strife. It merits citing him finally: For over 60 years they’ve (Palestinians) persevered through the torment of separation. Many hold up in exile camps in the West Bank, and neighboring grounds for an existence of harmony and security that they have always been unable to lead. They persevere through day by day embarrassments—huge and little that accompany occupation. So let there be no uncertainty: the circumstance for the Palestinian individuals is painful. What’s more, America won’t walk out on the real Palestinian yearning for poise, opportunity, and their very own condition. Gerges claims Obama has not followed up on this talk inspired by a paranoid fear of upsetting ‘the star Israel campaign’, which is ‘politically exorbitant at home’. This is a case of the ‘wide hole between Obama’s words and activities’. After two years in September 2010, Obama’s tranquility summit met a destiny not at all like Bush’s endeavors at Annapolis in 2007. Furthermore, he later rejected the Palestinians offer for self-assurance at the UN since he couldn’t crush ‘the sinister Israel first school’. Gerges battles this has been a ‘striking arrangement disappointment’, which will be recognized as Obama’s ‘botched chance’. Without a doubt, at last, he was unable to try and abridge the hawkish Netanyahu’s craving for settlement development in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. In spite of asserting in Cairo that he would not walk out on ‘the real Palestinian desire for nobility, opportunity and their very own condition’, the Palestinians were in any case advantageously dropped. In his conversation on the Israel-Palestine struggle, be that as it may, Gerges acknowledges petulant explanations from Abdel Bari Atwan and Khaled Meshaal at face esteem. However the two men have been known to offer opposing expressions to assuage various crowds (1). Teacher Gerges is to some degree one-sided in his treatment of such sources. This is likewise the situation with respect to his conversation on Iran’s atomic program. He portrays crafted by questionable writer Seymour Hersh, who ‘has been investigating Iran and the bomb for The New Yorker for as far back as decade’, and has ‘reasoned that there is no new implicating proof in the report (IAEA’s)’. This derivation is based ‘on a few meetings with top atomic designers and arms control pros and previous US knowledge authorities who have gone through years inquiring about the Iranian atomic program’. Undoubtedly, ‘Hersh affirms that the ongoing charges against Iran are politically propelled and that the new executive General of the IAEA, Yukiya Amano… is acting at the command of US wishes’. While it is known Hersh isn’t the most solid of sources (2), and quite a bit of his announcing his to some degree questionable, Gerges doesn’t appear to condemn his source (in what is in any case a vigorously polemical and obstinate bit of work). However, in the end, Gerges appears to drop the incertitude he makes encompassing Iran’s atomic desire, asserting ‘the Iranians have as of late tried harder to hoard all the more low-improved uranium and started enhancement at an office profound underground’. It would in this manner show up his utilization of Mr Hersh’s work is essentially an activity in obscurantism. From the start of his Presidency, Obama fixed America’s association with Turkey following Bush’s ‘poor stewardship of the US-Turkey relationship’. Gerges claims Obama’s ‘most prominent political accomplishment… . Lay in feeding an astoundingly close vital association with Turkey’. In any case, such a case negates his past declarations about the Israel entryway. He doesn’t clarify how Obama had the option to manufacture such a nearby ties with Turkey, regardless of its decrease in reciprocal ties with Israel. For sure, if the Jewish state truly did sway America’s tail as Professor Gerges recommends, how was Obama ready to fashion this relationship? As per Professor Gerges, ‘Al Qaeda never again exists as a successful association’, and he battles dread of Al-Qaeda is the West’s creative mind. Referencing an article by New York Times Correspondents David Sanger and Mark Mazzetti, Gerges contends that ‘there are generally just 300 (presently less than 100) enduring individuals from Al Qaeda, based for the most part in Pakistan and Afghanistan’. In a similar article, in any case, the writers quote a few conspicuous American authorities who guarantee ‘Al Qaeda has manufactured close ties with various subsidiary aggressor gatherings’, and in this manner such insights ought not be paid attention to—something Professor Gerges neglects to make reference to. He likewise makes the frightening intimation that ‘Al Qaeda and other comparable groups may prevail with regards to doing an assault not long from now dependent on the acceleration of contention in Afghanistan and Pakistan’. However, he neglects to recognize Al Qaeda was working in the two nations quite a while before the American mediation. Nor does he reference the motivation behind why they keep on instigating a common war in Nigeria, and proceed with their requests for East Timor to be come back to Indonesia. While Iraq may not be the reference point of majority rules system the neoconservatives had anticipated, Obama has in any case figured out how to pull back American soldiers. They are likewise proceeding to leave Afghanistan (to be sure a further 23,000 remaining this year), until complete withdrawal in 2014. In this manner, Gerges’ reactions with respect to these two nations appear to be to some degree unreasonable. As does his reactions in regards to Obama’s treatment of Egypt. For sure, he may have been delayed in managing Egypt’s unrest, having been overwhelmed. In any case, when it became evident Mubarak’s time was up, Obama properly cut his previous partner free. Intensely mindful of America’s declining authority, Obama expressed in the opening of the 2010 National Security Strategy that he is ‘centered around recharging American initiative with the goal that we can all the more successfully advance our inclinations in the 21st century’. While Professor Gerges claims Obama’s methodology in the Middle East ‘mirrors a vacuum in worldwide administration’, he neglects to perceive that Islamic insurgency over the district isn’t to anybody’s greatest advantage, in particular America’s, and in this way Obama’s pragmatist international strategy which he was chosen on has apparently not adjusted. Thus, as the tempests keep on social affair in the Middle East, the jury stays, for the time being, still out on President Obama. References 1) Gerges cites him expressing that many view Obama’s location in the United Nations and his restriction to the Palestinian offer for statehood as a revelation of an ‘open war against all Arabs’. Mr Atwan has recently adulated unpredictable Palestinian focusing of Israeli regular people as something which seems to be ‘legitimized’. Besides, in June 2007, he expressed ‘If the Iranian rockets strike Israel, by Allah, I will go to Trafalgar Square and hit the dance floor with charm’. He has been vigorously reprimanded by a few individual Arab and Muslim analysts. For instance, Munir Al-Mawari, the Yemenite writer and journalist for>GET ANSWERLet’s block ads! (Why?)

Do you need any assistance with this question?
Send us your paper details now
We’ll find the best professional writer for you!

 



error: Content is protected !!