This research seeks to understand the reasons for failures of Bill Clinton, Yasser Arafat, and Ehud Barak's Camp David Summit that was held in July, 2000. The Summit was arranged to complete the last phase of Oslo Peace Process. Numerous researches have attempted to reveal the facts of the summit but, so far, they have failed to present the complete details of what happened before, during, and after the summit. This research explores all aspects of the problem including the various variables that would have had effected the breakdown of the Middle East peace process. Finally, the researcher determines the parameters needed to maintain a substantial peace in the Middle East and what proposed strategies might be followed in order to avoid the previous mistakes in future peace negotiations.

This dissertation departs from the common understanding that the democratic challenge is to strike the right balance between security and democracy; rather it asserts that the relations between security and democracy are discursively constructed by political actors. The dissertation takes as case study a state where the security discourse has been acute and omnipresent since the very beginning of its establishment: Israel. Drawing on discourse theory premises and narrative analyses, the research enlightens how the security-democracy nexus is articulated in political discourse. The study offers a careful analysis of a set of debates held within the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, over laws and decisions taken in the name of security and that generated discussions over democratic values and principles. The main focus of the analysis is the post-second intifada laws, but the study also offers account of previous discursive articulations at play in the 1980s. Indeed, the understanding of the discursive articulations of the security democracy nexus would not be possible without digging into the roots of its discursive articulations. The overall work gives a detailed account of the way the dominant narrative, by articulating security and democracy in a "defensive democracy" story, has reproduced and reshaped the boundaries of the Israeli polity. / Doctorat en Sciences politiques et sociales / info:eu-repo/semantics/nonPublished

This research questions whether Israel and Palestine should be divided into two states. Viewed through the International Relations (IR) theories of Realism and Liberalism, the ‘Two-State’ solution is the orthodox policy for Israel and Palestine. But Israelis and Palestinians are interspersed and share many of the same resources making it difficult to create two states. So, this research critiques the aforementioned IR theories which underpin the ‘Two-State’ solution. The conclusion reached is that there ought to be new thinking on how to resolve the Israel-Palestine issue.

Doctorat en sciences sociales, politiques et économiques / info:eu-repo/semantics/nonPublished