Bibliographic record
Abstract
Israeli-U.S. relations are an important factor in U.S. policy in the Middle East, and Congress has placed considerable emphasis on the maintenance of a close and supportive relationship.The main vehicle for expressing support for Israel has been foreign aid; Israel currently receives about $3 billion per year in economic and military grants, refugee settlement assistance, and other aid.Congress has monitored aid closely along with other issues in bilateral relations, and its concerns have affected Administration's policies.U.S.-Israeli relations have evolved from an initial American policy of sympathy and support for the creation of a Jewish homeland in 1948 to an unusual partnership that links a small but militarily powerful Israel, dependent on the United States for its economic and military strength, with the U.S. superpower trying to balance competing interests in the region.Some in the United States question the levels of aid and general commitment to Israel, and argue that a U.S. bias toward Israel operates at the expense of improved U.S. relations with various Arab states.Others maintain that democratic Israel is a strategic ally; they further argue that U.S. relations with Israel strengthens the U.S. presence in the IB82008 11-29-04 CRS-1 MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTSOn November 29, 2004, secular Shinui Party head and Justice Minister Tommy Lapid threatened to pull his 15-member party out of the Likud-led coalition because Prime Minister Sharon offered $98 million to two religious parties for distribution to their affiliated organizations.Observers speculated that the grants were intended to secure the religious parties' support in the budget vote.The Israeli Defense Ministry approved a new route for the wall separating the Israeli settlements from the Palestinian areas on the West Bank that reportedly will reduce the amount of land taken by Israel from 91,000 hectares (225,000 acres) to 40,000 hectares (99,000 acres).The IDF rerouted the barrier to comply with a June 2004 Supreme Court ruling that sections of the fence created hardships for the Palestinians.Four members of the National Religious Party announced that they were withdrawing from the Likud-led coalition government on November 9, 2004.The NRP pulled out because Prime Minister Sharon refused to hold a referendum on the Gaza withdrawal plan.The defection left Likud with 55 votes in the 120 seat Knesset.Two of the six NRP members left the coalition earlier.11-29-04 CRS-2 United States attempted to balance its stated commitment to Israel with other regional commitments and interests.Israel and the United States share the view that the United States has a predominant role and responsibility in Middle East peace-making, but Israel has disagreed with the U.S. view of its role as an even-handed peace broker among the parties to Arab-Israeli disputes.Most Israelis and Israeli supporters have wanted the United States to favor only Israeli positions.U.S. arms transfers to Arab countries have been striking examples of friction in Israeli-U.S. relations because they underscore the difference in attitudes toward Arab countries and because Israel perceived arms transfers to Arabs as threatening its security. Israel and Recent U.S. AdministrationsCarter Administration (1977Administration ( -1981) ) The Carter years were characterized by very active U.S. involvement in the Middle East peace process, and, as a consequence, led to some friction in U.S.-Israeli bilateral relations.The Carter-initiated Camp David peace process was viewed by some in Israel as creating U.S. pressures on Israel to withdraw from occupied territories and to take risks for the sake of peace with Egypt.President Carter's support for a Palestinian "homeland" and for Palestinian political rights created additional tensions.Some argue that the final text of the Camp David accords represented Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin's success in limiting Israeli requirements to deal with the Palestinians.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.555 | 0.485 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".