Dissertations / Theses on the topic 'Palestinian Americans'

This thesis is an exploration of the relationship between Black Americans and Palestinians. I trace the historical relationship between Black Americans and Israel/Palestine in order to show how Black Americans move from large, overwhelming support for Israel to solidarity with Palestine and the Palestinian people. This thesis tracks the relationship between Black Americans and Jews (both domestically and abroad), Black leaders who opposed the state of Israel prior to 1967, the large shift in Black American support for Palestine that occurs after the Six Day War of 1967, the relationship between Black Americans and Arab Americans, and the current day Ferguson to Palestine movement.

Made available in DSpace on 2014-06-11T19:29:14Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 Previous issue date: 2006-06Bitstream added on 2014-06-13T19:07:18Z : No. of bitstreams: 1 silva_apm_me_mar.pdf: 1002714 bytes, checksum: 30b20f4c9ac2422cdf0ecbd31456274e (MD5)
O discurso norte-americano (governo Bush) a respeito da reforma democrática nos territórios palestinos autônomos - Faixa de Gaza e Cisjordânia - identifica a ausência da democracia como uma das causas centrais no impedimento à paz entre palestinos e israelenses. Nesta perspectiva, os Estados Unidos colocam como condição primária ao seu auxílio na constituição do Estado Palestino, a realização de reformas democráticas. Esta pesquisa problematiza os fundamentos deste discurso a partir de uma análise das origens do conflito palestino-israelense e de suas principais implicações para a comunidade palestina. A partir daí, fazemos um contraste entre os diagnósticos acerca do conflito apresentados pelos Estado Unidos e as reais condições sócio-econômicas e políticas dos territórios palestinos, evidenciando os principais impedimentos à constituição do Estado Palestino e ao equacionamento do conflito.
The north-american discourse (Bush government) related to democratic reform in the Palestinian Territories - Gaza Strip and West Bank - identifies the lack of democracy as one of the main causes that obstructs peace between Palestinians and Israelis. In this way, United States, establish as the basic condition in their support in the construction of the Palestinian State, the implementation of democratic reforms. This research analyses the foundations of this discourse by an analysis of the roots of the israeli-palestinian conflict and their main implications to Palestinian community. From that, we do a contrast between the north-american diagnostic about the conflict and the real social-economic and politics conditions of the Palestinian Territories, emphasizing the principal obstacles to the construction of the Palestinian State and to the conflict resolution.

The entire thesis text is included in the research.pdf file; the official abstract appears in the short.pdf file; a non-technical public abstract appears in the public.pdf file. Title from PDF of title page (University of Missouri--Columbia, viewed on September 16, 2009). Thesis advisor: Dr. Fritz Cropp. Includes bibliographical references.

The primary research question of this study is: Does a genuine congruence of circumstance and commonality of fundamental interests and goals exist between the American African community and that of the Palestinian Arab that would warrant and legitimate formal overtures for political unity, dialogue, and structured alliances of the two communities? The null hypothesis to be tested herein can be stated: A sufficient degree of homogeneity in the material condition and strategic interests/goals does not exist between the American-African community and the Palestinian Arab community to justify rationally a unified political relationship. The research method employed used both the traditionalist and behavioralist approaches; that is, while establishing a number Of normative propositions supported by instances of non-quantified data (the nature and scheme of the data analysis permitted little purely quantitative relationships) the study's investigation and assessment emphasized the empirical aspects of the phenomenon, developing specific truth claims based upon measurable criteria and an identifiable conceptual framework. The specific research procedure and techniques relied upon the use of case study for the purposes of interpretative extrapolation and the collection and interpretation of secondary data. Information-retrieval, while quite extensive, was not exhaustive. However, the data gathered was sufficient to establish a verifiable conclusion. Among the sources used in compiling the data were: (1) relevant professional literature (books and articles), (2) published interviews and surveys, and (3) the wide range of mass media communications. Content analysis was used to interpret symbolic material (e.g., references to "nationalist" rhetoric and objectives by major actors noted in the study). The study's results agree with the null hypothesis; that is, despite some siimilarities between the two groups, the collective political direction, values, orientation, and long-term objective interests of the two communities, are wholly divergent, rendering any effort at political unification impractical at best.

The entire thesis text is included in the research.pdf file; the official abstract appears in the short.pdf file; a non-technical public abstract appears in the public.pdf file. Title from PDF of title page (University of Missouri--Columbia, viewed on January 15, 2010). Thesis advisor: Dr. Charles Davis. Includes bibliographical references.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one of the longest and most violent conflicts in modern history. The language used to represent this important conflict in the media is frequently commented on by scholars and political commentators (e.g., Ackerman, 2001; Fisk, 2001; Mearsheimer & Walt, 2007). To date, however, few studies in the field of applied linguistics have attempted a thorough investigation of the language used to represent the conflict in influential media outlets using systematic methods of linguistic analysis. The current study aims to partially bridge this gap by combining methods and analytical frameworks from Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) and Corpus Linguistics (CL) to analyze the discursive representation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in American, Arab, and British media, represented by CNN, Al-Jazeera Arabic, and BBC respectively. CDA, which is primarily interested in studying how power and ideology are enacted and resisted in the use of language in social and political contexts, has been frequently criticized mainly for the arbitrary selection of a small number of texts or text fragments to be analyzed. In order to strengthen CDA analysis, Stubbs (1997) suggested that CDA analysts should utilize techniques from CL, which employs computational approaches to perform quantitative and qualitative analysis of actual patterns of use occurring in a large and principled collection of natural texts. In this study, the corpus-based keyword technique is initially used to identify the topics that tend to be emphasized, downplayed, and/or left out in the coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in three corpora complied from the news websites of Al-Jazeera, CNN, and the BBC. Topics –such as terrorism, occupation, settlements, and the recent Israeli disengagement plan—which were found to be key in the coverage of the conflict—are further studied in context using several other corpus tools, especially the concordancer and the collocation finder. The analysis reveals some of the strategies employed by each news website to control for the positive or negative representations of the different actors involved in the conflict. The corpus findings are interpreted using some informative CDA frameworks, especially Van Dijk’s (1998) ideological square framework.

This thesis offers a sustained and nuanced examination of representations of expatriation and exile in modern American expatriate narratives and post-1948 exilic Palestinian writing. In so doing, this thesis addresses and develops an under elaborated conversation in comparative, postcolonial and diaspora studies. It accounts for the distinction between the departures and returns of the involuntary exile and the expatriate or self-imposed exile. In Chapter One, I analyse memoirs by Fawaz Turki (1941–) and Malcolm Cowley (1898– 1989) in order to illustrate that the departure of exiled Palestinian writers from their homeland is imposed by a colonial situation, while the departure of Modernist American expatriate authors to Europe is elective. In Chapter Two, I juxtapose works by Ernest Hemingway (1899–1961) and Jabra Ibrahim Jabra (1919–1994) to show that American expatriate characters are engaged in centrifugal movement that increases their sense of freedom, while exiled Palestinian characters are involved in a centripetal mobility that expresses their desire to return home. In Chapter Three, I examine memoirs by Edward Said (1935–2003) and Gertrude Stein (1874–1946) to show that Said uses his ‘voyage in’ to the Palestinian context to enter into the Palestinian national narrative, while Stein performs ‘a displaced and dialectical encounter’ with the US to cultivate a distinctive personal identity and narrative. In Chapter Four, I explore a range of exilic Palestinian and modern American expatriate works to suggest that the differences between the representations of ‘roots’ and ‘routes’ by the authors at stake echo the various forms of departures and returns they represent. The overarching aim of this thesis is to foreground the different modes of placelessness represented by exiled and expatriate characters and their authors. It contends that the possibility of American expatriate protagonists of reconnecting with their roots enables them to choose the routes they desire to follow afterwards, which reflects an elective exile. By contrast, the representation by their Palestinian counterparts of their inability to access their roots and choose their routes reflects an involuntary exile. This thesis therefore urges comparative, postcolonial and diaspora studies to stress the differences between expatriation and exile, and it opens up new possibilities for further comparative examinations of literatures of exile and expatriation. This thesis also paves the way for further research on potential connections between Palestinian and American writing.

Nonviolent mass movements have played a significant role in bringing about change in the 20th century. They stood up to the very powers that oppressed them and helped those forces see a reality they were once blind to. Their strength in numbers and moral positioning helped “the other” empathize with their plight and in some cases join their cause for change. Two such movements were the African American Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s and the first Palestinian Intifada in the 1980s. These two movements mobilized masses and transformed communities. While in many respects, they were very different; there are strands of similarity that weave through both movements. These commonalities began with a connection to nonviolence that preceded the movements themselves and proved essential foundations and building blocks for what was yet to come. Influenced by the work of Mahatma Gandhi and others in India, both African Americans and Palestinians sought guidance from the East. Of major significance, is the inspirational role African American civil rights played in influencing the Palestinian Intifada. Palestinian leaders were drawn to the success and example of black leaders who helped motivate a discontent base. Through a side-by-side comparison, the similarities are apparent; whether they are in mass demonstrations, boycotts, strikes, conversions of the other, or the struggle for education. The examination of these different elements in both movements through writings, newspaper coverage, opinion pieces, and personal accounts demonstrates just how much the 1960s black civil rights era impacted the Palestinian Intifada of the 1980s.
Thesis (M.A.)--Wichita State University, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, Dept. of History.

O objetivo deste trabalho foi compreender, do ponto de vista da política internacional, os fatores que viabilizaram a fundação de Israel no território da Palestina, provocando um dos mais prolongados e dramáticos conflitos da história contemporânea. A criação de Israel, decidida na ONU, em 1947, violou os direitos fundamentais do povo árabe palestino (70% do total da população nesse ano), garantidos pela Carta das Nações Unidas e pelo Pacto da Sociedade das Nações, ambos fontes do Direito Internacional, e violou o título jurídico adquirido pelos árabes através do acordo firmado com os países da Entente, durante a Primeira Guerra Mundial, que garantia a independência da Palestina, causando revolta generalizada no mundo árabe, já profundamente ressentido do imperialismo ocidental na região. Considerando a conjuntura internacional desse período, delineada pela Guerra Fria, e considerando que os principais atores do sistema internacional tinham consciência de que tal decisão causaria a hostilidade dos países árabes, acarretando altíssimos custos militares, políticos e econômicos, uma vez que a Liga Árabe declarou não reconhecer uma decisão que considerava ilegal, tivemos interesse em conhecer quais foram as expectativas de ganhos que levaram os EUA, a ex-URSS e outros países a assumirem os riscos e os custos dessa decisão. Várias conclusões foram obtidas. Os EUA não tinham nenhuma expectativa de ganho com o apoio à criação de Israel, pelo contrário, esse evento acarretou pesados custos à nação norte-americana, advertidos permanentemente pelos Secretários de Estado e Defesa. A decisão pró-Israel foi uma iniciativa do Presidente Truman para defender seu interesse pessoal nas eleições seguintes, quando pretendia contar com o apoio da comunidade judaica de seu país. A posição de Truman garantiu a forte pressão dos EUA, na forma de chantagem e suborno, sobre vários países que sustentavam posições contrárias, na votação da partilha, na ONU. Quanto à decisão soviética, não há uma compreensão conclusiva. Stalin, durante muitos anos, um antagonista intransigente ao projeto sionista, surpreendeu a todos apoiando de última hora a criação de Israel, na votação na ONU. Grande parte dos estudiosos considera que o objetivo soviético era simplesmente prejudicar a Grã Bretanha. Aparentemente, nessa mudança de posição momentânea, houve um equívoco nos cálculos políticos, percebido pouco tempo depois, levando esse país a reconsiderar novamente sua posição em favor dos árabes. Grande parte dos países de ambos os blocos assumiram simplesmente o alinhamento automático às decisãos das duas superpotências. Por último, cabe destacar que o interesse do Brasil era permanecer alinhado com os EUA e, nesse sentido, Oswaldo Aranha, como Presidente da Assembléia Geral, prestou um serviço fundamental. No dia da votação, devido à avaliação de que a proposta pró-Israel seria derrotada, Oswaldo Aranha decidiu encerrar mais cedo os trabalhos, adiando a votação, dando, assim, aos sionistas o tempo que necessitavam para “convencer” os países contrários, a fim de mudar seu voto.
The aim of this research was understand, through the aproach of international policy, the factors that make possible to establish Israel in Palestine, event that caused one of the most extended and dramatic conflicts of contemporary history. The creation of Israel, decided at UN in 1947, violated the fundamental rights of the Palestinian Arab people (70% of the whole population in that year), rights that were assured by the UN Charter and by the Pact of the League of Nations, both sources of international law, and violated the juridical title acquired by Arab people through the agreement signed with the countries of the Entente, during the First World War, that guaranteed the independence of Palestine, provoking uprising in the whole Arab world, already deeply resentful of Western imperialism in the region. We had the interest to know what was the expectation of profits that led USA, former USSR and other countries to assume the risks and costs of this decision, taking into account the international scenery of the Cold War in 1947 and that the main actors of international system was aware that such decision would cause the hostility of Arab countries bringing high military, plitical and economic costs, since that Arab League declared not recognize that illegal decision. The conclusion was that USA didn’t have any expectation of gains supporting the creation of Israel, on the contrary, this event caused heavy costs to American nation. The decision of support Israel was a initiative of President Truman to defend his personal interest in the following election, opposing the Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense, because he wanted guarantee the vote of American Jews. The decision of Truman assured the strong prssure of United States by extortion and bribery over many countries to make them to vote on behalf of the creation of Israel. We didn’t find a conclusive understanding about the Soviet decision. Stalin, that was for many years an intransigent antagonist to the Zionist project, surprised everybody supporting the creation of Israel at UN. Mostly of scholars consider that the Soviet intent was just to damage Britain. There seemingly was a mistake in the Soviet political calculation, perceived later, leading this country to change its position. Many countries of both blocs only asumed an automatic alignment with the decisions of the two superpowers. Finally, it’s important to point out that Brazilian interest was to remain aligned with the USA and, in this sense, Oswaldo Aranha, the President of General Assembly, was very useful. In the day of partition voting, due to appraisal that the pro-Israel proposal would be defeated, Oswaldo Aranha simply decided finish earlier the session, postponing the voting, in order to give time to Zionists make pressure and suborn over the opponent countries, to change their votes.

Orientador: Tullo Vigevani
Banca: Nizar Mesari
Banca: Mamede Mustafa Jarouche
O Programa de Pós-Graduação em Relações Internacionais é instituído em parceria com a Unesp/Unicamp/PUC-SP, em projeto subsidiado pela CAPES, intitulado "Programa San Tiago Dantas".
Resumo: O discurso norte-americano (governo Bush) a respeito da reforma democrática nos territórios palestinos autônomos - Faixa de Gaza e Cisjordânia - identifica a ausência da democracia como uma das causas centrais no impedimento à paz entre palestinos e israelenses. Nesta perspectiva, os Estados Unidos colocam como condição primária ao seu auxílio na constituição do Estado Palestino, a realização de reformas democráticas. Esta pesquisa problematiza os fundamentos deste discurso a partir de uma análise das origens do conflito palestino-israelense e de suas principais implicações para a comunidade palestina. A partir daí, fazemos um contraste entre os "diagnósticos" acerca do conflito apresentados pelos Estado Unidos e as reais condições sócio-econômicas e políticas dos territórios palestinos, evidenciando os principais impedimentos à constituição do Estado Palestino e ao equacionamento do conflito.
Abstract: The north-american discourse (Bush government) related to democratic reform in the Palestinian Territories - Gaza Strip and West Bank - identifies the lack of democracy as one of the main causes that obstructs peace between Palestinians and Israelis. In this way, United States, establish as the basic condition in their support in the construction of the Palestinian State, the implementation of democratic reforms. This research analyses the foundations of this discourse by an analysis of the roots of the israeli-palestinian conflict and their main implications to Palestinian community. From that, we do a contrast between the north-american diagnostic about the conflict and the real social-economic and politics conditions of the Palestinian Territories, emphasizing the principal obstacles to the construction of the Palestinian State and to the conflict resolution.
Mestre

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.

Why do countries engage in democracy promotion around the world? Why is the principle component of U.S. foreign policy abroad assistance with democratization? One answer is the Democratic Peace Theory (DPT) (also known as “Liberal Peace”). Accordingly, DPT states, as its basic tenant, democracies behave differently with one another than they do non-democracies, especially in relation to military altercations. Why are some countries more successful than others in promoting democratic ideals around the world? In order to partly explain this question, I examine American and Turkish foreign policy initiatives in the Middle East from a comparative perspective. The United States of America and the Republic of Turkey both reflect the basic tenant of the Democratic Peace Theory in their foreign policies. Each maintains policies that promote the establishment of democracies and the perpetuation of democratic ideals in the Middle East region. Differences in policies are observable when consideration is placed on the principles of inclusion and exclusion in negotiating, nation building, and the promotion of national interests in foreign affairs. The United States maintains bureaucratic rigidity while Turkey exemplifies an open policy when negotiating with interested parties. An analysis of nuclear proliferation in Iran, the two invasions of Iraq since 1990, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict reveals an increase and advancement of Turkey’s influence in the spread of democracy in the Middle East and a corresponding decline in that of the U.S. This approach might have strengthened Turkish strategic leverage in the region with comparatively greater (than the United States) ability to promote democratic ideals in the Middle East region through the continued building of partnerships and a dedication to stability of the region, the balancing of internal political ideologies, and the stability of Turkish international relations above all else.

This thesis studies a by-product of the continuing and complex Arab-Israeli conflict: the Palestinian refugee diaspora in Lebanon, and the efforts of Western charitable organizations with this population. The rise of the non-governmental organization (NGO) movement embroiled the Western world in the Middle East as a new form of intervention, with the aim of providing emergency relief in the short term and plans for development in the long term. This research studies how Palestinians came to live in their host countries with the help of NGOs, and to determine what the challenges and successes of these organizations were. For this study, the American Near East Refugee Aid (ANERA) organization is used as a case study by looking at its history of interaction with Palestinians between the War of 1967 and the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982, a decade and a half marked by war and exodus. Using ANERA’s annual reports, newsletters, board meeting reports, and interviews with individual Palestinians who were raised in Lebanon, the research looks at the history and ethical complications of the international NGO movement. Furthermore, this thesis analyses the logistical challenges and achievements of ANERA in their programming in Lebanon and the way that Palestinians were portrayed by ANERA back to their American public. Finally, the Palestinian perspective is taken into account to understand the impact of Western NGOs on their own community. Ultimately, this study seeks to determine how what has been ANERA’s historical experience with Palestinian refugees in Lebanon.

Internally Displaced Persons ('IDPs') outnumber refugees by two to one and often have the same fears, needs and wants as refugees recognised as such under international law. However, refugee status entails international protection, while IDPs are left to the protection of their own state, which may, but by no means necessarily, be the very entity that has forced them to flee in the first place. In recent years, there have been significant developments in the realm of IDP protection. This includes the conclusion of two regional treaties on the protection of IDPs, the development of relevant soft law instruments, and the reformed 'Cluster Approach' of humanitarian response. Although the increased focus on IDP protection is a welcome development, the UNHCR has expressed the fear that 'activities for the internally displaced may be (mis)interpreted as obviating the need for international protection and asylum.' This thesis represents the first legal analysis of the relationship between the protection of IDPs and International Refugee Law. It will discuss five key challenges in this respect. First, the challenge of drawing the attention of the international community to the plight of IDPs; second, the challenge of developing an appropriate framework for the protection of IDPs; third, the challenge of ensuring that internal protection is not interpreted as a substitute for asylum; fourth; the challenge of determining the relationship between complementary protection and internal displacement; and fifth, the challenge of ensuring that IDP protection in an inter-agency context does not trigger the application of Article 1D of the Refugee Convention, rendering the Convention inapplicable to the recipients of that protection. This thesis will conclude by setting out the future challenges in the relationship between IDP protection and International Refugee Law, by identifying questions left open for further research, and by illustrating the overall impact and importance of this thesis' findings.

This thesis undertakes a study of four films, directed by Arab directors from Palestine, Lebanon, America and the United Arab Emirates, and argues that these works speak back to the negative representation of Arabs in mainstream Hollywood films. It examines the methods these directors have deployed to contribute to a consciousness on a cultural level. These include the films Amreeka (dir. Dabis, 2009: USA, National Geographic Entertainment), Paradise Now (dir. Abu-Assad, 2005: USA, Warner Bros), West Beirut (dir. Doueiri, 1998: Belgium, France, Norway, Lebanon: 38 Production) and City of Life (dir. Mostafa, 2009: UAE: Filmworks). I argue that these films speak back to the representation of Arabs created by Hollywood. In all the films I analyse the representation of the characters, which allows viewers into their frames of reference and makes them relatable. The characters are ordinary people facing the situations of everyday life in various settings. Whether it is the limitation of their geographical location while living under occupation in Palestine as in Amreeka and Paradise Now, emigrating to America and coping with xenophobia as in Amreeka, living in a country exploding as civil war breaks out as in West Beirut, or adjusting to multiculturalism as in City of Life, filmmakers are allowing viewers into the lives of Arabs, representing them in terms of all their successes, failures, vulnerabilities and excesses. They are human beings with the same concerns as all humanity, for peace in their countries, the stability of their societies and the safety of their families. My investigation analyses the films through the theoretical lenses of Stuart Hall’s theory of representation (2012), Edward Said's Orientalism (1997), and decoloniality as advocated by Maldonado-Torres (2014) and Mignolo (2011). A postmodern reading of City of Life is made within Baudrillard's theory of hyperreality (2010), Lyotard’s concept of the grand narrative (1986) and Žižek’s concept of the dematerialisation of real life. A close reading of the films, using the research methods of semiotics and narratology, enables a deconstruction of some obscure elements, such as the embedded meaning in dialogue or the messages implicit in the mise en scène. In the process, cultural contradictions and similarities are explored and uncovered.
English Studies
D. Litt. et Phil. (English)