Bruce K. Rutherford and Jeannie L. Sowers, Modern Egypt: What Everyone Needs to Know (New Texts Out Now)

Bruce K. Rutherford and Jeannie L. Sowers, Modern Egypt: What Everyone Needs to Know (New Texts Out Now)

Bruce K. Rutherford and Jeannie L. Sowers, Modern Egypt: What Everyone Needs to Know (New Texts Out Now)

By : Bruce K. Rutherford and Jeannie L. Sowers

Bruce K. Rutherford and Jeannie L. Sowers, Modern Egypt: What Everyone Needs to Know (Oxford University Press, 2018).

Jadaliyya (J): What made you write this book?

Bruce Rutherford (BR) and Jeannie Sowers (JS): The starting point for this project was our awareness that a thorough knowledge of Egypt is essential for understanding the Middle East. There are many fine scholarly works on Egypt written for an academic audience. There are also several books written in a more journalistic style for a popular audience. Our book tries to bridge these two genres. It is informed by the most current scholarship on the country and engages theoretical debates on state building, nationalism, authoritarianism, democratization, economic development, civil-military relations, and religion’s role in politics. At the same time, it is written in a style accessible to a broad audience of non-specialists. We use Oxford’s question-and-answer format to offer readers a thorough introduction to Egyptian politics, history, culture, political economy, and environment if they read the entire volume. Readers will also have the option to skip directly to the questions and answers that interest them most.

...key actors in Egypt are not likely to move towards a more inclusive polity...

J: What particular topics, issues, and literatures does the book address?

BR and JS: The first chapter analyses the 2011 uprising and the struggle to sustain revolutionary demands and mobilization under military rule, Morsi’s brief tenure, and the deepening of authoritarianism under al-Sisi. We then go back in time in the second chapter to discuss the principal features and impacts of Ottoman rule, British occupation, and Egyptian nationalism. The third chapter explores the principal transformations of the Egyptian polity and economy under Nasser, Sadat, and Mubarak. 

We devote the fourth chapter to understanding the challenges of economic development and human welfare, including the status of women, demographic growth (linked inextricably to access to healthcare, education, rights, and employment for women), forms of inequality, the distribution of poverty, urbanization, access to essential public services, and the high rates of youth unemployment and marginalization. In the fifth chapter, we extend our focus on human welfare to include problems of pollution, natural resources, and environmental degradation, including the mounting problems associated with man-made climate change. We also analyze the role of energy and fossil fuels in Egypt’s political economy more broadly. In the sixth chapter, we turn to issues of religious identity, institutions, and mobilization, discussing the role of the Coptic community, state-sanctioned Islamic institutions, the origins of the Muslim Brotherhood, the rise of Salafi movements, and the recent increase in militant groups in the Sinai Peninsula.  

The penultimate chapter situates Egypt in the broader regional and international context, discussing relations with the Gulf Arab countries, Iran, Israel, the European Union, and the United States. We examine explicitly the impact of the US-Egypt “strategic relationship” on prospects for democracy. The last chapter returns to domestic affairs to discuss heightened repression under Al-Sisi and the prospects for another mass uprising, why the military and other key actors in Egypt are not likely to move towards a more inclusive polity, and how the US and Arab Gulf countries support deepening authoritarianism. We are pessimistic that this exclusionary political order will adequately meet the challenges of poverty and unemployment.  

J: How does this book connect to and/or depart from your previous work?

BR and JS: This book, as a synthetic overview of modern Egypt for the general public, is a new kind of endeavor for us. We divided the initial drafting of the chapters to roughly reflect our areas of interest and prior work. 

BR: My previous book studied politics and political economy under Sadat and Mubarak (Egypt after Mubarak: Liberalism, Islam, and Democracy in the Arab World, Princeton, 2008). My recent work has focused on the distinctive form of authoritarianism that has emerged under al-Sisi (“Egypt’s New Authoritarianism under al-Sisi,” Middle East Journal, Spring 2018). Modern Egypt utilizes concepts and cases drawn from this research. The book also gave me an opportunity to learn about aspects of Egypt that I had not explored previously, such as the country’s foreign policy and the impact of geography on culture, politics, and the economy.

JS: In drafting portions of Modern EgyptI tried to highlight the unequal spatial, regional, and class distributions of political power, economic opportunities, public services, and environmental conditions in Egypt. I became interested in the political geography of inequality and marginalization while conducting fieldwork for Environmental Politics in Egypt: Activists, Experts, and the State (Routledge Series on Middle Eastern Politics, 2013), which includes several chapters on environmental politics in the ‘peripheries’ of the country. I have extended some of this work to consider forms of environmental mobilization across the Middle East (for instance, see my chapter in Environmental Politics in the Middle East, Harry Verhoeven, ed., Oxford University Press/Hurst 2018). I was also able to draw upon my long-standing research interest in the impacts of man-made climate change and prospects for adaptation.

J: Who do you hope will read this book, and what sort of impact would you like it to have?

BR and JS: We hope that the book will appeal to several audiences: students in undergraduate courses in comparative politics and Middle Eastern politics; lay readers with an interest in Egypt, the Middle East, and the Islamic world; policymakers and advisers seeking an informed and accessible resource book on Egypt; and scholars seeking a concise and theoretically informed account of the emergence and development of modern Egypt.

We are particularly eager to make the book useful for undergraduate courses in comparative politics and Middle Eastern politics. Toward this end, we include a discussion of suggested readings at the end of each chapter—in essence, an annotated bibliography. We hope that these readings will provide a good starting point for students who want to prepare research papers on the topics addressed in the chapter. In addition, we have asked Oxford to keep the price of the book affordable for undergraduates. 

J: What other projects are you working on now?  

JS: My interest in the politics of public services and ecosystem sustainability led me to work on places where civilian infrastructure and the environment have been harmed through war and occupation. For the past two years, I’ve worked with a colleague at Duke University, Erika Weinthal, on the targeting of civilian infrastructure in protracted conflicts and the changing roles of humanitarian actors in these contexts. With funding from the Gerda Henckel Stiftung in Germany, we built a database tracking the targeting of water, energy, sanitation, and agricultural systems in the Middle East and conducted preliminary fieldwork, which we will continue in the coming year. Our 2017 Security Dialogue article compared the targeting of civilian infrastructure in Libya, Yemen, and Syria in the post 2011-wars; our recent piece in International Affairs (February 2019) analyzes the targeting of civilian infrastructure and livelihoods in the West Bank and Gaza Strip from 2007 to 2017. We are currently working on a book project documenting patterns of targeting infrastructure across a variety of conflict zones, and exploring how humanitarian actors, civil society groups, armed groups, and international organizations shape the political economies of reconstruction. We also consider how legal doctrines concerned with human rights, humanitarian intervention, and the environment have evolved in light of escalating violations of international humanitarian law (IHL), which prohibits the deliberate targeting of objects essential to civilian life. 

BR: My current book project examines the question of why the large public demonstrations of the Arab spring produced such widely varying outcomes—from a more open and democratic regime (Tunisia), to a deeper and more brutal authoritarianism (Egypt), to state weakening and civil war (Libya, Syria), to regime continuity with little change (Saudi Arabia, Morocco). It proposes a theoretical framework that explains the different types of authoritarian regimes in the Arab world, when these regimes are likely to change, and the likely trajectory of change in each case. It tests and refines this framework through close study of the Egyptian case. It then applies this refined framework to Tunisia, Syria, and Saudi Arabia. It concludes by presenting likely trajectories for future political change in the Arab world in light of the findings of this study. It also offers suggestions to international actors regarding policies that may facilitate the emergence of more accountable and rule-based regimes.   


Excerpt from the Book:

From chapter eight: What are the prospects for inclusive economic development?

As we have seen throughout this book, achieving economic growth is not the same as achieving inclusive development. The Egyptian economy faces serious structural challenges, a regional environment plagued by war and uncertainty, and an increasingly competitive global marketplace. How can Egyptian firms generate jobs that are stable, reward educational attainment, and provide adequate salaries? Can Egypt diversify into non-hydrocarbon exports and attract foreign investment in more labor-intensive sectors? Will tourism and investment recover given extensive corruption and continuing internal and regional violence? How can small farmers be supported when the state favors large agribusiness? How can the banking system and credit markets serve not only large private and state-owned firms but also small- and medium- sized enterprises essential to innovation and employment? Can backward and forward linkages between large and small firms be fostered to increase employment, reduce dependence on imports, and help small firms to grow? How can Egypt’s increasingly educated women join the labor force in greater numbers?  

These numerous economic challenges are compounded by political difficulties. Many of the structural changes needed to make Egypt’s economy more competitive and efficient impose substantial costs on regime allies and on the general population. A good example is the government’s efforts to reduce spending on energy subsidies. In 2013, these subsidies accounted for approximately 22 percent of all government expenditures, more than health and education spending combined. While the better-off segments of Egyptian society consume more energy, and therefore use more fuel than poorer households, paying for energy consumes a larger share of household income for the poor than for the wealthy. As a consequence, cuts in energy subsidies disproportionately affect poorer households.  In 2014 and 2015, the al-Sisi government cut subsidies sharply, which led to large price increases for fossil fuels and electricity. To compensate for the negative impacts on vulnerable households, the government increased social spending on education and healthcare and promised better targeting of cash transfer programs to those in need. However, Egypt’s social safety net for poor Egyptians is woefully inadequate. Social safety programs met only 10 percent of the consumption needs of the poorest fifth of Egypt’s families in 2013. So far, there is little evidence that the new programs for supporting the poor are more effective. Without a stronger social safety net, austerity measures are likely to deepen poverty and raise the likelihood of political instability.

As the government continues to raise prices on basic goods such as fuel and electricity, it will need to direct even more funds into social programs and further improve their effectiveness. These funds could be acquired by scaling back the enormous infrastructure projects discussed in Chapter 1, which often consume vast resources while providing very limited economic benefits. Spending on the military and internal security forces could also be reduced in order to free up funds for social service programs. By one estimate, a 7 percent cut in Egypt’s military spending could yield enough funds to halve the number of people classified as poor.  

Implementation of many economic reforms—such as establishing a more robust system of taxation, holding the state-owned sector more accountable to market mechanisms, and opening privileged market sectors to more competition— requires political will. Since Egypt opted for a market-based economy in the early 1970s, the country’s rulers have failed to strengthen many of the institutions that could support this market orientation. For example, Egypt’s enormous bureaucracy would be more of an asset if recruitment to the civil service was more meritocratic and the state paid decent wages to public servants. Similarly, Egypt has a long tradition of a vocal and influential judiciary. Rather than seeking to constrain the judiciary by manipulating the appointment and promotion of judges, the regime and the economy would benefit from strengthening judicial independence and the rule of law.

The economy would also benefit from expanding access to property and credit for small- and medium-sized enterprises. Development economists have long recommended formalizing legal title to informal (“squatter”) land and housing. This step would enable the owner of the property to use it as collateral to secure a bank loan, which, in turn, could support the establishment or expansion of a small business. Similarly, small businesses would be aided by much more extensive microcredit programs that give them access to small loans that would enable them to grow.  

Civil society organizations and a free media are also important contributors to inclusive economic growth.  They are essential for the free exchange of ideas and information that spur economic innovation and growth. However, the Egyptian government continues to tightly monitor and often harass independent unions and other civil society groups. It has also sharply constrained the media through new legislation that expands government monitoring of media outlets and criminalizes reporting that is critical of the government. Sustainable and inclusive economic growth will require a long- term commitment to supporting these and other institutions necessary for a market economy to function. 

Lastly, for the government to promote inclusive social development, women’s empowerment should be given a more central role in development planning and practice. As we saw in Chapter 4, female education, employment, and other opportunities outside the home improve health outcomes for families, lower fertility rates, and foster economic growth. Women’s highly visible participation in the 2011 uprising fostered new discussion and mobilization around women’s rights, particularly regarding sexual harassment in public spaces. When women who had suffered harassment and rape started telling their stories on popular TV talk shows and filing court cases, they broke a significant taboo against openly discussing these topics. However, as in many countries including the United States, women’s rights and their bodies remain contested politically and socially. Sectarian violence in Egypt has often been triggered by rumors of women’s conversions, while Islamist organizations have frequently opposed government legislation to strengthen women’s legal rights. To improve the status of women, an array of different actors in Egypt needs to more systematically address gender-based violence, increase access to healthcare and contraception, and tackle obstacles to women’s employment. 

           

New Texts Out Now: Mandy Turner and Cherine Hussein, guest eds. "Israel-Palestine after Oslo: Mapping Transformations in a Time of Deepening Crisis." Special Issue of Conflict, Security & Development

Conflict, Security and Development, Volume 15, No. 5 (December 2015) Special issue: "Israel-Palestine after Oslo: Mapping Transformations in a Time of Deepening Crisis," Guest Editors: Mandy Turner and Cherine Hussein.

Jadaliyya (J): What made you compile this volume?

Mandy Turner (MT): Both the peace process and the two-state solution are dead. Despite more than twenty years of negotiations, Israel’s occupation, colonization and repression continue–and the political and geographical fragmentation of the Palestinian people is proceeding apace.

This is not news, nor is it surprising to any keen observer of the situation. But what is surprising–and thus requires explanation – is the resilience of the Oslo framework and paradigm: both objectively and subjectively. It operates objectively as a straitjacket by trapping Palestinians in economic and security arrangements that are designed to ensure stabilization and will not to lead to sovereignty or a just and sustainable solution. And it operates subjectively as a straitjacket by shutting out discussion of alternative ways of understanding the situation and ways out of the impasse. The persistence of this framework that is focused on conflict management and stabilization, is good for Israel but bad for Palestinians.

The Oslo peace paradigm–of a track-one, elite-level, negotiated two-state solution–is therefore in crisis. And yet it is entirely possible that the current situation could continue for a while longer–particularly given the endorsement and support it enjoys from the major Western donors and the “international community,” as well as the fact that there has been no attempt to develop an alternative. The immediate short-term future is therefore bleak.

Guided by these observations, this special issue sought to undertake two tasks. The first task was to analyze the perceptions underpinning the Oslo framework and paradigm as well as some of the transformations instituted by its implementation: why is it so resilient, what has it created? The second task, which follows on from the first, was then to ask: how can we reframe our understanding of what is happening, what are some potential alternatives, and who is arguing and mobilizing for them?

These questions and themes grew out of a number of conversations with early-career scholars – some based at the Kenyon Institute in East Jerusalem, and some based in the occupied Palestinian territory and elsewhere. These conversations led to two interlinked panels at the International Studies Association annual convention in Toronto, Canada, in March 2014. To have two panels accepted on “conflict transformation and resistance in Palestine” at such a conventional international relations conference with (at the time unknown) early-career scholars is no mean feat. The large and engaged audience we received at these panels – with some very established names coming along (one of whom contributed to this special issue) – convinced us that this new stream of scholars and scholarship should have an outlet.  

J: What particular topics, issues, and literatures do the articles address?

MT: The first half of the special issue analyzes how certain problematic assumptions shaped the Oslo framework, and how the Oslo framework in turn shaped the political, economic and territorial landscape.

Virginia Tilley’s article focuses on the paradigm of conflict resolution upon which the Oslo Accords were based, and calls for a re-evaluation of what she argues are the two interlinked central principles underpinning its worldview: internationally accepted notions of Israeli sovereignty; and the internationally accepted idea that the “conflict” is essentially one between two peoples–the “Palestinian people” and the “Jewish people”. Through her critical interrogation of these two “common sense” principles, Tilley proposes that the “conflict” be reinterpreted as an example of settler colonialism, and, as a result of this, recommends an alternative conflict resolution model based on a paradigm shift away from an ethno-nationalist division of the polity towards a civic model of the nation.

Tariq Dana unpacks another central plank of the Oslo paradigm–that of promoting economic relations between Israel and the OPT. He analyses this through the prism of “economic peace” (particularly the recent revival of theories of “capitalist peace”), whose underlying assumptions are predicated on the perceived superiority of economic approaches over political approaches to resolving conflict. Dana argues that there is a symbiosis between Israeli strategies of “economic peace” and recent Palestinian “statebuilding strategies” (referred to as Fayyadism), and that both operate as a form of pacification and control because economic cooperation leaves the colonial relationship unchallenged.

The political landscape in the OPT has been transformed by the Oslo paradigm, particularly by the creation of the Palestinian Authority (PA). Alaa Tartir therefore analyses the basis, agenda and trajectory of the PA, particularly its post-2007 state building strategy. By focusing on the issue of local legitimacy and accountability, and based on fieldwork in two sites in the occupied West Bank (Balata and Jenin refugee camps), Tartir concludes that the main impact of the creation of the PA on ordinary people’s lives has been the strengthening of authoritarian control and the hijacking of any meaningful visions of Palestinian liberation.

The origin of the administrative division between the West Bank and Gaza Strip is the focus of Tareq Baconi’s article. He charts how Hamas’s initial opposition to the Oslo Accords and the PA was transformed over time, leading to its participation (and success) in the 2006 legislative elections. Baconi argues that it was the perceived demise of the peace process following the collapse of the Camp David discussions that facilitated this change. But this set Hamas on a collision course with Israel and the international community, which ultimately led to the conflict between Hamas and Fateh, and the administrative division, which continues to exist.

The special issue thereafter focuses, in the second section, on alternatives and resistance to Oslo’s transformations.

Cherine Hussein’s article charts the re-emergence of the single-state idea in opposition to the processes of separation unleashed ideologically and practically that were codified in the Oslo Accords. Analysing it as both a movement of resistance and as a political alternative to Oslo, while recognizing that it is currently largely a movement of intellectuals (particularly of diaspora Palestinians and Israelis), Hussein takes seriously its claim to be a more just and liberating alternative to the two-state solution.

My article highlights the work of a small but dedicated group of anti-Zionist Jewish-Israeli activists involved in two groups: Zochrot and Boycott from Within. Both groups emerged in the post-Second Intifada period, which was marked by deep disillusionment with the Oslo paradigm. This article unpacks the alternative – albeit marginalized – analysis, solution and route to peace proposed by these groups through the application of three concepts: hegemony, counter-hegemony and praxis. The solution, argue the activists, lies in Israel-Palestine going through a process of de-Zionization and decolonization, and the process of achieving this lies in actions in solidarity with Palestinians.

This type of solidarity action is the focus of the final article by Suzanne Morrison, who analyses the “We Divest” campaign, which is the largest divestment campaign in the US and forms part of the wider Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement. Through attention to their activities and language, Morrison shows how “We Divest”, with its networked, decentralized, grassroots and horizontal structure, represents a new way of challenging Israel’s occupation and the suppression of Palestinian rights.

The two parts of the special issue are symbiotic: the critique and alternative perspectives analyzed in part two are responses to the issues and problems identified in part one.

J: How does this volume connect to and/or depart from your previous work?

MT: My work focuses on the political economy of donor intervention (which falls under the rubric of “peacebuilding”) in the OPT, particularly a critique of the Oslo peace paradigm and framework. This is a product of my broader conceptual and historical interest in the sociology of intervention as a method of capitalist expansion and imperial control (as explored in “The Politics of International Intervention: the Tyranny of Peace”, co-edited with Florian Kuhn, Routledge, 2016), and how post-conflict peacebuilding and development agendas are part of this (as explored in “Whose Peace: Critical Perspectives on the Political Economy of Peacebuilding”, co-edited with Michael Pugh and Neil Cooper (PalgraveMacmillan, 2008).  

My first book on Palestine (co-edited with Omar Shweiki), Decolonizing Palestinian Political Economy: De-development and Beyond (PalgraveMacmillan, 2014), was a collection of essays by experts in their field, of the political-economic experience of different sections of the Palestinian community. The book, however, aimed to reunite these individual experiences into one historical political-economy narrative of a people experiencing a common theme of dispossession, disenfranchisement and disarticulation. It was guided by the desire to critically assess the utility of the concept of de-development to different sectors and issues–and had a foreword by Sara Roy, the scholar who coined the term, and who was involved in the workshop from which the book emerged.

This co-edited special issue (with Cherine Hussein, who, at the time of the issue construction, was the deputy director of the Kenyon Institute) was therefore the next logical step in my research on Palestine, although my article on Jewish-Israeli anti-Zionists did constitute a slight departure from my usual focus.

J: Who do you hope will read this volume, and what sort of impact would you like it to have?

MT: I would imagine the main audience will be those whose research and political interests lie in Palestine Studies. It is difficult, given the structure of academic publishing – which has become ever more corporate and money grabbing – for research outputs such as this to be accessed by the general public. Only those with access to academic libraries are sure to be able to read it – and this is a travesty, in my opinion. To counteract this commodification of knowledge, we should all provide free access to our outputs through online open source websites such as academia.edu, etc. If academic research is going to have an impact beyond merely providing more material for teaching and background reading for yet more research (which is inaccessible to the general public) then this is essential. Websites such as Jadaliyya are therefore incredibly important.

Having said all that, I am under no illusions about the potential for ANY research on Israel-Palestine to contribute to changing the dynamics of the situation. However, as a collection of excellent analyses conducted by mostly early-career scholars in the field of Palestine studies, I am hopeful that their interesting and new perspectives will be read and digested. 

J: What other projects are you working on now?

MT: I am currently working on an edited volume provisionally entitled From the River to the Sea: Disintegration, Reintegration and Domination in Israel and Palestine. This book is the culmination of a two-year research project funded by the British Academy, which analyzed the impacts of the past twenty years of the Oslo peace framework and paradigm as processes of disintegration, reintegration and domination – and how they have created a new socio-economic and political landscape, which requires new agendas and frameworks. I am also working on a new research project with Tariq Dana at Birzeit University on capital and class in the occupied West Bank.

Excerpt from the Editor’s Note 

[Note: This issue was published in Dec. 2015]

Initially perceived to have inaugurated a new era of hope in the search for peace and justice in Palestine-Israel, the Oslo peace paradigm of a track one, elite-level, negotiated two-state solution is in crisis today, if not completely at an end.

While the major Western donors and the ‘international community’ continue to publicly endorse the Oslo peace paradigm, Israeli and Palestinian political elites have both stepped away from it. The Israeli government has adopted what appears to be an outright rejection of the internationally-accepted end-goal of negotiations, i.e. the emergence of a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital. In March 2015, in the final days of his re-election campaign, Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, visited the Jewish settlement of Har Homa in Palestinian East Jerusalem, which is regarded as illegal under international law. Reminding its inhabitants that it was him and his Likud government that had established the settlement in 1997 as part of the Israeli state’s vision of a unified indivisible Jerusalem, he promised to expand the construction of settlements in East Jerusalem if re-elected. And in an interview with Israeli news site, NRG, Netanyahu vowed that the prospects of a Palestinian state were non-existent as long as he remained in office. Holding on to the occupied Palestinian territory (oPt), he argued, was necessary to ensure Israel’s security in the context of regional instability and Islamic extremism. It is widely acknowledged that Netanyahu’s emphasis on Israel’s security—against both external and internal enemies—gave him a surprise win in an election he was widely expected to lose.

Despite attempts to backtrack under recognition that the US and European states are critical of this turn in official Israeli state policy, Netanyahu’s promise to bury the two-state solution in favour of a policy of further annexation has become the Israeli government’s official intent, and has been enthusiastically endorsed by leading ministers and key advisers.

[…]

The Palestinian Authority (PA) based in the West Bank also appears to have rejected a key principle of the Oslo peace paradigm—that of bilateral negotiations under the supervision of the US. Despite a herculean effort by US Secretary of State, John Kerry, to bring the two parties to the negotiating table, in response to the lack of movement towards final status issues and continued settlement expansion (amongst other issues), the Palestinian political elite have withdrawn from negotiations and resumed attempts to ‘internationalise the struggle’ by seeking membership of international organisations such as the United Nations (UN), and signing international treaties such as the Rome Statute, the founding treaty of the International Criminal Court. This change of direction is part of a rethink in the PA and PLO’s strategy rooted in wider discussions and debates. The publication of a document by the Palestine Strategy Study Group (PSSG) in August 2008, the production of which involved many members of the Palestinian political elite (and whose recommendations were studiously discussed at the highest levels of the PA and PLO), showed widespread discontent with the bilateral negotiations framework and suggested ways in which Palestinians could ‘regain the initiative’.

[…]

And yet despite these changes in official Palestinian and Israeli political strategies that signal a deepening of the crisis, donors and the ‘international community’ are reluctant to accept the failure of the Oslo peace paradigm. This political myopia has meant the persistence of a framework that is increasingly divorced from the possibility of a just and sustainable peace. It is also acting as an ideological straitjacket by shutting out alternative interpretations. This special issue seeks a way out of this political and intellectual dead end. In pursuit of this, our various contributions undertake what we regard to be two key tasks: first, to critically analyse the perceptions underpinning the Oslo paradigm and the transformations instituted by its implementation; and second, to assess some alternative ways of understanding the situation rooted in new strategies of resistance that have emerged in the context of these transformations in the post-Oslo landscape.

[…]

Taken as a whole, the articles in this special issue aim to ignite conversations on the conflict that are not based within abstracted debates that centre upon the peace process itself—but that begin from within the realities and geographies of both the continually transforming land of Palestine-Israel and the voices, struggles, worldviews and imaginings of the future of the people who presently inhabit it. For it is by highlighting these transformations, and from within these points of beginning, that we believe more hopeful pathways for alternative ways forward can be collectively imagined, articulated, debated and built.