Thesis (M.A.)--Carleton University, 2002. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 109-121). Also available in electronic format on the Internet.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--York University, 2008. Graduate Programme in Social and Political Thought. / Typescript. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 288-304). Also available on the Internet. MODE OF ACCESS via web browser by entering the following URL: http://gateway.proquest.com/openurl?url_ver=Z39.88-2004&res_dat=xri:pqdiss&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:dissertation&rft_dat=xri:pqdiss:NR51767

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Southern Illinois University Carbondale, 2004. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 140-144). Also available on the Internet.

This submission for PhD by Publication includes two studies I conducted during 8 years of dedicated field research examining the US role in mediating the Arab-Israeli conflict. These studies developed from my collection of in-depth oral testimonies and were buttressed by my recovery and examination of troves of original documents that had been previously denied any public, much less academic, scrutiny. The scope of this qualitative research and my political and historical analysis of it resulted in two published books that chronicle the unsuccessful American efforts to negotiate Arab-Israeli peace agreements during the presidencies of William Clinton, George W. Bush, and the first term of Barack Obama. In order of publication, they are The Truth About Camp David (New York: Nation Books, 2004) and The Palestine Papers: The End of the Road? (London: Hesperus Press, 2011). The original academic contribution of both works was the presentation of new empirical evidence to advance understanding of how heavily biased American mediation severely damaged this diplomatic undertaking. Despite being a solidly pro-Israel country, the United States had previously been able to achieve some notable mediation successes when it made efforts to adopt an “even-handed” approach. Yet in the period covered by both my books, I demonstrated how top American mediators—comprised of mostly pro-Israel partisans—dismissed any pretext of impartiality, and in most instances even escalated their mediation bias. This behavior has exacerbated the Arab-Israeli conflict and made the stated aim of a comprehensive peace a very distant prospect. The Truth About Camp David was intended as a first rough draft of history. The title references the famous summit convened by President Clinton in July 2000 that failed to forge peace between Israelis and Palestinians and the overarching US-led “peace process” around it which contributed to the outbreak of the Second Intifada. The book also details the effort to conclude an Israeli-Syrian peace agreement at Geneva just months before, which also failed. My research advanced the thesis that both the Geneva and Camp David summits were historic miscarriages of diplomacy by my presentation of granular insider accounts revealing the intensity of American mediation bias. I also exposed the general disorganization of its negotiating team, a dysfunction that was largely unknown to the public prior to my book’s release. My primary purpose in writing The Truth About Camp David was thus to enable its reinterpretation by making public new evidence about this watershed moment and the period surrounding it. Relying primarily on oral history, I interviewed US, Arab, Israeli and European officials who were first-hand participants to collect their personal narratives. I sought to identify discrepancies in their accounts, and attempted to reconcile them through further interviews, document interrogation, and my own analysis. A key challenge of The Truth About Camp David was thus to weave a thread through the various testimonies and present, as best as I could, a coherent historical narrative. Following that, my aim was to have it reviewed and discussed among credible scholars and the foreign policy community. The testimonies within The Truth About Camp David directly challenged the official narrative and prevailing media orthodoxy at the time of Palestinian blame and Syrian intransigence. As a result, it helped reframe both political debate and academic scholarship concerning this crucial period of American diplomatic intervention. In 2006, The Truth About Camp David was translated into Arabic, giving its contents even greater reach. My 2011 book “The Palestine Papers: The End of the Road?” continued my earlier line of inquiry and was largely based on documents given to me the year prior, referred to as “The Palestine Papers,” the largest leak of confidential negotiating records in the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Published in full by Al Jazeera Media Network, and in limited partnership with the UK’s Guardian newspaper, the content of the files generated headlines around the world from January 24-27, 2011. My additional research for The Palestine Papers was released in May 2011 as an anthology of select papers with my accompanying qualitative analysis and interpretation rather than a stylistic mediation critique. My aim in writing “The Palestine Papers: The End of the Road?” publication was to reach beyond Al Jazeera and Guardian audiences and equip interested scholars, practitioners, and skeptics with essential highlights from the papers as well as an analytical framework to put them into context. My research for The Palestine Papers sought to help reconcile the intervening gap of negotiating history from Truth About Camp David, following the trajectory of how Israelis and Palestinians alike had grown even more conditioned to expect if not rely upon biased American mediation that excessively tilts toward Israel. The Palestine Papers also catalogues for the first time the dynamics that enabled US negotiators to escalate its role from being the self-appointed judge of Palestinian negotiating behavior during the talks (in the Camp David 2000 era) to the unilateral “juror” of its final-status positions (evidenced by the presidencies of George W Bush and Barack Obama). A supplemental essay included in this submission analyzes an earlier diplomatic era to advance my thesis of how far US mediation bias has traveled since America assumed the principal negotiator role of the Arab-Israeli conflict in the early 1970’s. Indeed, based on the overarching narrative that evolve from both those publications and this essay, it is entirely predictable to see how America’s mediation posture has matured into the era of extreme pro-Israel bias that now characterizes the approach of the Trump Administration. I will interpret this collective diplomatic history using a range of multidisciplinary academic theories addressing biased mediation in international conflict resolution. Then, by drawing on the scholarship from my previous books, I will assess and critique the theoretical benefits of employing biased mediators in conflict resolution—as some prominent scholars have advocated for. By taking a fresh look at earlier Arab-Israeli negotiations led by Henry Kissinger under President’s Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, I am able to make even greater contrast to that very limited era when biased American mediation in the Arab-Israeli conflict appeared to yield limited success. The process of applying the scholarship of others against the knowledge created from my own published works enable me to demonstrate in this essay that the present day American negotiating bias toward Israel largely exceeds what the normative scholarship on mediation bias envisaged.

MAIR / Department of Development Studies

Conclusions of this case study on Ramallah imply that an effective water management strategy will have a dual intent: incorporate "trickle-up" municipal level water management strategies and integrate conflict reduction measures. This study finds that Ramallah's cooperation with the Palestinian Authority and environmental Non-governmental organizations has a strong influence on water management and water conflict alleviation. Palestinian municipal and regional water management processes, can potentially contribute to effective water management and water conflict reduction between Israelis and Palestinians. The study focuses on Ramallah, a centrally located, mid-sized town in the West Bank. This research uses interviews of Palestinian water managers and researchers, gathered in the West Bank throughout the summer of 1999, as well as secondary sources. / Master of Urban and Regional Planning

This study examines Palestinian theatre practices in the West Bank and East Jerusalem within their spatial contexts, analysing how theatre responds to its geopolitical environment as an act of cultural resistance. It argues that space in Palestine is not monolithic, and is subjected to three main structural forces – the Israeli military occupation, international neoliberal humanitarian regime and the Palestinian Authority – which influence Palestinian space at different levels depending on the specific location. As there are multiple spaces in Palestine, I use a number of complementary theories to explain each site, utilizing Sari Hanafi’s composite theoretical framework of ‘spacio-cide’ as an ‘umbrella’ theory, the different components of which are applied to the relevant space whilst bearing in mind its overall conceptualisation. I suggest that the ‘urbicidal’ policies of the Israeli military executed during the second intifada is no longer a relevant theoretical framework, particularly for the main urban sites; however, contentious areas exist in a ‘post-urbicidal’ state. I argue that Palestinian theatre practices respond to the particular spatial condition in which it is being performed. I analyse three particular spaces in Palestine: the mainstream non-refugee urban space which is under the international humanitarian regime; the refugee camp located within the ‘state of exception’; and the site of extreme contention, which is located at the peripheries of Palestine, and which is being subjected to ‘post-urbicidal’ actions by the Israelis. I examine a number of plays and theatre practices in relation to these spaces, to argue that Palestinian cultural resistance through theatre is a tactic through which Palestinians can challenge the conditions under which they live, whilst promoting the continuation of non-violent resistance and Palestinian culture.

The present thesis seeks to understand and explain the rhetoric and behaviour of the rejectionist 'current' within the Palestinian national movement. It proceeds from the view that extant scholarship, primarily from within the fields of terrorism and security studies, has profoundly misunderstood rejectionist speech and behaviour by ignoring the explanatory capacity of Emic - the research subject's perception - as well as the influence of the sociocultural milieu within which rejectionism exists. The thesis proceeds to set up a 'socioculturally sensitive' analytical framework drawn from social identity theory, a heuristic, non-reductionist model for understanding group interaction and conflict. Emphasizing cultural norms and cues identified by anthropologists as salient in the eastern Mediterranean, the thesis suggests that the social value of honour, patron-client dynamics and a firmly entrenched group orientation must be significant elements of a model for understanding rejectionist behaviour. The main analytical narrative suggests that for reasons derived from ideology, patron-client relations and group dynamics, what has distinguished the rejectionists from the mainstream have been a qualitatively different set of preconditions for, and objectives of diplomatic negotiations. To the main rejectionist factions the goal of liberating Palestine has always been inextricably intertwined with the goal of restoring national honour; one without the other has been impossible and to claim otherwise would mean a depletion of factional and personal honour. To the rejectionists, there has never been any question of deviating from the fundamental goals - national recognition, repatriation, self-determination and independent statehood, not even for tactical reasons. This 'higher standard' likely derives from their structurally and politically subordinate position within the national movement, and the need to creatively enhance their own social status and appeal.

This case study analyses how four Irish "opinion leader" newspapers - The Irish Times, the Irish Independent, the Sunday Independent and the Sunday Tribune - constructed the issue of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict during the four-year period from July 2000 to July 2004. A primary objective of this case study is to overcome some of the more prominent theoretical inadequacies that have characterised existing research in this area to date. Principally, because existing research has been mostly limited to analysing the American media context and to a lesser extent, the British and other core European contexts, very few analyses have been undertaken on the framing of foreign conflicts by media outlets that operate within entirely different national environments, such as the Irish media environment. Chapter I argues that already existing research has mostly been confined to "testing" propaganda, indexing, hegemonic and political control hypotheses regarding media roles in covering foreign conflicts. These hypotheses are based on assumptions that foreign conflict coverage is mostly influenced by extrinsic structural factors and that, therefore, the media's role is largely restricted to that of acting as conduits for government propaganda and elite perspectives. Consequently, research guided by these hypotheses neglects to investigate fully the influences exerted by the surrounding politico-cultural and media contexts on the various roles adopted by the media when reporting on different types of foreign conflicts. William A. Gamson and his colleagues' model of social constructivist media analysis was chosen as the most appropriate model for fulfilling the objectives of this research. This model analyses media coverage trends as outcomes of contested news construction processes that are potentially influenced by a range of different extrinsic environmental factors and intrinsic media, or news factors. This case study consisted of four different, yet interrelated, stages of research. The first stage consisted of a literature-based contextual analysis of the historical and political environments characterising the arena of the Israeli- Palestinian conflict, as well as the arenas of Irish-Israeli and Irish-Palestinian relations. The second research stage involved a longitudinal and descriptive analysis of a representative sampling of coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by The Irish Times, the Irish Independent, the Sunday Independent and the Sunday Tribune during the period from July 2000 to July 2004. The third stage consisted of qualitative frame analysis of news discourses. The fourth and final stage of research involved the undertaking of a series of exploratory, qualitative interviews with key media, political/diplomatic and NGO actors. Chapter 3 briefly outlines how the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been historically manifested as a highly unequal, contested and multi-dimensional conflict. Chapter 4 analyses the potential contextual influences exerted by Irish political culture and foreign policy-makin(I-1t1ra ditions on the roles adopted by Irish media. It concludes that Ireland's "small state" and post-colonial status, its consequent lack of "hard power", or "vital" foreign policy interests in the Middle East, as well as its official dependency on UN and EU foreign policy perspectives, are likely to have exerted significant contextual influences on the ways in which the sampled newspapers covered the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Chapter 5 explores the ways in which the changed political environment surrounding Israeli-Palestinian relations during the period of July 2000 to July 2004 had significant constructivist implications for how international media, including the Irish media, covered the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This case study's descriptive analysis of randomly sampled coverage by The Irish Times, the Irish Independent, the Sunday Independent and the Sunday Tribune during the period of July 2000 to July 2004 generated a number of significant findings. Firstly, it was concluded that the regular patterns of attention that the sampled newspapers devoted to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict were reflective of the dynamics and politics of that conflict itself, as well as its ongoing international resonance. However, this coverage was frequently of a semi- or non-prominent nature, while the sampled newspapers accorded only miniscule amounts of frontpage, analytical and editorial attention to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It was concluded that Ireland's "small state" status and its lack of appreciable national or foreign policy interests in Israel and the Palestinian territories influenced these latter trends. However, in addition to the formative influences exerted by the national politico-cultural context, media contextual factors and intrinsic news factors also had discernible constructivist implications for news outcomes. For instance, the finding that the majority of news items were sourced from foreign-based jourrialists and news agencies was related to the operation of news factors, such as editorial judgements and criteria, as well as reporting norms and values. Most significantly, the intense competition characterising the Irish media market overall, as well as the lack of historical grounding of Irish media within a "tradition" of foreign news analysis, exerted substantial influence on these news-sourcing patterns by constraining the sampled newspapers' commitment to foreign news coverage. In relation to the findings generated by this case study's topical analysis, it was also concluded that the operation of news factors, in relation to the wider politico-cultural context, influenced the ways in which the sampled newspapers topicalised the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Thus, while news values tilted editorial decisions towards covering "conflict"/"political violence" topics, these values also served to reduce newspaper coverage of "peace" and other topics. Additionally, politico-cultural factors, such as the relative isolationist and dependent nature of Irish foreign policy worldviews, supplied an important context within which the sampled newspapers neglected to appreciably cover the international diplomaticsecurity context surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Moreover, the low levels of coverage devoted to domestic Israeli and Palestinian topics reflected Ireland's lack of any "vital" interests in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and its relatively weak politico-cultural and personal ties with Israel and the Palestinians. Finally, in relation to source access and representation trends, it was found that the sampled newspapers tended to be more or less contested sites (albeit unequal sites). variously featuring the assertions of competing Israeli and Palestinian politicaU"official" sources, rather than exclusively transmitting so-called consensual, hegemonic and elitist constructions of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This emerged as a key finding of this research, as it challenges one of the primary theoretical assumptions of the propaganda, indexing, hegemonic and political control hypotheses - namely, that politically-powerful and economically resourceful conflict protagonists consistently have greater levels of media access than politically weaker protagonists, simply by virtue of the power disparities that pertain between them. Instead, this thesis argues that, within highly contested foreign conflict arenas, the protagonist sources' degree of access to international media attention is best viewed as a constructed and achieved outcome, which changes in line with developments in the wider political and media environments and changes in the operation of news factors.

This thesis analyzes Israeli counter-terrorism strategy and its effectiveness. Because of ongoing suicide attacks from Palestinian and other terrorist organizations, Israel will continue to have an aggressive counter-terrorism strategy. It will study how the impact of past wars, campaigns, and deadly terrorist attacks influenced the thinking of past and current leaders. By gauging the actions, and sometimes nonactions, of the international community, the Israeli government declined to become paralyzed by U.N. and world-wide condemnation of its aggressive counter-terrorism strategies. The Israelis vehemently believe the security of the nation relies on what the Israeli Defense Force (IDF), the Israeli Security Agency (ISA), and Shin Bet do to counter terrorism, not outside governments. The IDF, ISA, and Shin Bet employ three different measures in an attempt to thwart terrorist attacks both in Israel and the Occupied Territories. Defensive, operative, and punitive measures are used in different phases of terrorist attacks in an attempt to protect the lives of Israeli citizens. Of all the three measures used by the IDF and other security agencies, defensive actions have by far been the most effective to date is included.