New Texts Out Now: Karim Makdisi and Vijay Prashad, eds. Land of Blue Helmets: The United Nations in the Arab World

New Texts Out Now: Karim Makdisi and Vijay Prashad, eds. Land of Blue Helmets: The United Nations in the Arab World

New Texts Out Now: Karim Makdisi and Vijay Prashad, eds. Land of Blue Helmets: The United Nations in the Arab World

By : Karim Makdisi and Vijay Prashad

Karim Makdisi and Vijay Prashad, Land of Blue Helmets: The United Nations in the Arab World (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2016).

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

Karim Makdisi (KM): This book was in the pipelines for a very long time! It began with my renewed interest in the politics of the UN following Israel’s 2006 war on Lebanon and Israel’s various Gaza wars. Before that I had been working at the UN regional commission for West Asia (ESCWA), based in Beirut. I had an inside view of how the UN was trying to deal with the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, George Bush’s threats to make the UN irrelevant, and most importantly then the al-Aqsa Intifada in Palestine and the US-UK invasion of Iraq. I was very interested in how the latter, in particular, transformed for some in the region at least, the understanding of the UN into an active collaborator with US occupation even though the majority of UN staff and agencies of course opposed the role played by the so-called big powers acting on behalf of the Security Council. The UN, during its golden age of the 1960s and 1970s, had served as a key site for the Third World, something I had studied and written about during my graduate school years.

When I served as Associate Director at AUB’s Issam Fares Institute for Public Policy and International Affairs (IFI), I established the UN in the Arab World research program to critically study the changing role and politics of the UN in the region. We brought in many UN people to give talks and engage in discussions with students and faculty. We also invited (mostly critically) scholars to present their research and suggest interesting areas of study. Our program published a number of studies, including a handbook on how to conduct research on various aspects of the UN in the Arab World (put together by a visiting scholar-affiliate to our program, Martin Waehlisch) and most recently the findings of a year-long research project I conducted with my colleague at AUB Coralie Piston-Hindawi on the Joint Mission that oversaw the elimination of Syria’s chemical weapons. This book, Land of Blue Helmets, was made possible through many of those networks and contacts we established during the UN in the Arab World program, and it also brought it to a natural conclusion. When Vijay served as AUB’s Edward Said chair, he brought with him his vast knowledge of the UN across the global south and we had a really productive year. I think we both immediately understood that working together on such a project would make perfect sense both on a professional and personal level. 

Vijay Prashad (VP): Karim had begun this project long before I joined him. I was interested in the project because it took a close view of the work of the UN in the region while not taking an ideological position on the UN itself. In other words, the project was keen to interrogate the different levels of the work of the UN and the different kinds of political pressures at each level. This is the kind of granular work on the UN that is really necessary – not only for West Asia and North Africa, but for other parts of the Global South. I’d like to see a book about the UN in South-East Asia, for instance, and another on the UN in Central and Western Africa.

I had written about the UN as a journalist – covering its activity in Iraq and elsewhere – and had written part of the history of the Third World bloc inside the UN to help create and sustain the Third World Project. So I was already interested in the idea, and meeting Karim and getting involved with him on this project simply pushed along those earlier investments.

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

KM and VP: This book features a real diversity of writers, including academics who critically examine the UN in the Arab region and those practitioners who are reflecting on their experiences working in the UN and the context of that work. Since the UN has such a vast role in the Arab region – from its political role to its role of relief provision – we had to engage with the very breadth of this work. So our book opens with an essay by Andrew Gilmour (now the Assistant Secretary General for Human Rights at the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights) on the history of the initiatives of the UN Secretary General in the region, and it ends with an essay by Kinda Mohamadieh (now the Policy Advisor of the Arab NGO Network for Development) on the role of civil society organizations alongside the UN. The range is not only of subject or stance, but also of generation – the contributors to this volume range from those who have retired after a long tenure in the UN to those who are just beginning their careers. This gives the book the sense of the long history of the UN in the region and the different perspectives of those who come at these issues from their different experiences. There are four parts to the book – Diplomacy; Enforcement and Peacekeeping; Humanitarianism and Refugees; Development. Each section has about five essays. We could have produced a multi-volume work. We had to control ourselves!

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

KM: I see this book as connecting my larger interest in the Third World and the question of Palestine (in its global sense) to my current book project centered around the politics of the UN during the 2006 Israeli war on Lebanon. I see the UN as both reflecting the evolution and current status of great power politics; and as a site of conflict, one where material struggles on the ground are sometimes transformed into competing claims for legitimacy. We live in an interesting time, where the US unipolar moment seems to be fading into a more complex world order, and we can study this through the UN lens. For instance we can see that the US is no longer able to impose its power via the UN in places like Syria, Libya, and even Lebanon. I am interested in this transformation, in these periods of crisis where the outcomes are not certain and the importance of struggles becomes sharper.

VP: In The Darker Nations (2007) and The Poorer Nations (2013) I looked at the UN from a macro-scale and from a geo-political perspective. Here I was keen to help collate work that came at the UN from a much more micro-scalar angle. The essays are so good at doing precisely that – looking at the UN work in some detail and offering the analytical space for us to make the claim that there are several United Nations: the UN of the agencies, that do the work of relief and rehabilitation, and the UN of geo-politics, where the pressures of international conflict produces paralysis. In other words, the work that the UN does at these many different levels gets covered over by the political tensions at the UN Security Council. It is as if the UN can be reduced to the veto power of the permanent members. The kind of work that the UN agencies do is often set aside, even made hostage to that political paralysis. Our book shows that the paralysis that is seen is not UN paralysis, but the paralysis of the world order mirrored in the UN Security Council.

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

KM and VP: On one level, we hope that the people who work in the UN will read our book. That is why we were so pleased to launch the book last December at the UN Bookstore in New York. We’d like to do an event at the UN in Geneva as well and perhaps one at the ESCWA office in Beirut. We want to raise these questions in the UN, and show those working there that the region and its histories and contexts are incredibly complex, and so knowledge of the countries and regions they are working on is crucial. But we are also eager to hold this conversation in the field of UN Studies, where understanding the particular histories and contexts of specific regions such as the Middle East is rare; International Studies, where the UN is sometimes seen only at the macro-level and is therefore seen sometimes as stagnant; and Middle East Studies, where the UN is seen purely in power politics and thus as a largely uninteresting area of research. Our recent book event at Harvard was the start of this process. We hope this book can connect UN, international, and Middle East studies. We think this will be a useful book for those who are studying West Asia and North Africa – to get a sense of why the UN is so ubiquitous and what this ubiquity means.

J: What other projects are you working on now?

KM: I am working to finalize, along with my colleague Coralie Pison-Hindawi, two journal articles addressing the Syrian chemical weapons disarmament story. These are based on a year long research project and interviews with many of the relevant officials in The Hague, New York, Washington DC, Geneva, Vienna, Beirut, Damascus, Tehran, and Amman. I am also working on a book project focused on the politics of the UN during the 2006 Israeli war on Lebanon.

VP: I am ready to release a small book of essays on climate change and capitalism called Will the Flower Slip Through the Asphalt: Writers Respond to Capitalist Climate Change, with essays by Naomi Klein, Amitav Ghosh, Ghassan Hage, Rafia Zakaria, Susan Abulhawa, Masturah Alatas, Shalini Singh, and John Bellamy Foster. This will be published by LeftWord Books in February.

 

Excerpt from chapter fourteen, by Filippo Grandi, “Challenged but Steadfast. Nine Years with Palestinian Refugees and the UN Relief and Works Agency.” Filippo Grandi is the 11th United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR).

 Prologue: Yarmouk, Syria, 2014

On 24 February 2014, as part of my last visit to Syria as Commissioner-General of UNRWA, I was able to enter the embattled Damascus suburb of Yarmouk. Syria, at the start of the civil war, had been refuge to approximately half a million Palestinians. The largest Palestinian community in the country lived in Yarmouk, until 2011 a vibrant social and economic hub in the outskirts of the capital, where refugees had lived side-by-side Syrians for decades.

Most Palestinians had been extremely cautious in not taking sides in the course of the war. Unfortunately, however, war had caught up with them.  Some – a small minority – had eventually taken up arms, either with pro-government or opposition groups, and during 2013 fighting had engulfed most of the areas in which Palestinian communities had lived in relative peace.

In the course of a career spanning three decades as a UN and humanitarian official, I have witnessed much suffering; but I was hardly prepared for the desperate sight which awaited me when we reached the food distribution point. Palestinian refugees who emerged like ghosts from the ruins, as in a medieval siege, described how they subsisted on grass, spices mixed in water, and animal feed, and burned furniture on their balconies to keep warm. They were suffering severe malnutrition and dehydration. Sixty-five years after the expulsion from their homes in Palestine, they were again dying from readily treatable conditions.

Lyse Doucet of the BBC, who accompanied me into Yarmouk, aptly said in her reportage: “Yarmouk has become the byword for all the suffering in Syria.” But Yarmouk also clearly symbolizes the much larger, unresolved plight of all refugees from Palestine; and its humanitarian and political complexity reflects the challenges, dilemmas and contradictions facing UNRWA as it strives to support Palestinian refugees throughout the region.

That morning in Yarmouk I was well aware that wherever I went, and whatever I said to journalists, carried the risk of being used as propaganda by one side against another. For UNRWA, staying neutral in that war was a desperate necessity and its greatest challenge, just like in the various situations of conflict or occupation that it must confront daily in many places throughout its fields of operation, which also include Lebanon, Jordan and the occupied Palestinian territory.

I was also aware that I had to speak out, and speak out forcefully, to draw the world’s attention to the humanitarian plight of the suffering refugees. All sides in the Syrian war have legal and moral responsibilities in that tragedy, of course. However, the reflex I developed after many years of work with UNRWA told me that I had to mix force and clarity with prudence; and tread carefully on the issue of attributing fault because the next day my colleagues would still be there, struggling to bring desperately needed relief to the population under conditions in which access was dependent on those fighting in Yarmouk. To advocate courageously but to be politically guarded was a crucial balance that I was acutely aware of not only in Yarmouk, but throughout my work with UNRWA.

However, by far the most difficult thing about my Yarmouk experience was seeing the people. Their physical suffering was bad enough, but it was the fear in their eyes which was unbearable, and the realization of profound loss when they looked around and saw only blackened shells where they had built their lives, and also their disbelief that the world was unable to prevent this from happening. Syria had been a country in which Palestinians had found a secure and stable refuge, and where UNRWA had established forward-looking programmes that focused on empowering youth, on community participation, and on self-reliance. All this, I knew, was being swept away by violence, mirroring the fate of other UNRWA innovative projects in Gaza, the West Bank, and Lebanon.

Another immediate thought was that the immensity of Yarmouk’s needs would require us to appeal for massive resources for years to come, amidst all the other priorities in this destroyed country. Raising those funds, pressing as it would be, would make it more difficult to obtain resources also desperately needed in Gaza, and the West Bank, and in Lebanon. And on the other hand, I knew what an uphill battle it would be – if peace ever returned - to convince donors to invest in the rebuilding of houses and structures in the Palestinian refugee camps in Syria. I knew that such funding would inevitably decline after the first surge; but unless we raised adequate reconstruction funds for a number of years, we would witness in Syria the same hardship and tensions caused by the delays in reconstruction experienced in other Palestinian refugee communities affected by conflict and military operations, such as in the Nahr el-Bared camp in Lebanon.

As I left Yarmouk on that cold February day, it clearly occurred to me that Yarmouk in fact symbolizes the persistence of the Palestinian refugee question. In a region beset by overlapping crises, and with resources and political attention stretched to the limits, the presence of a large refugee population, highly exposed to the consequences of war, poverty and political tensions, is not just creating hardship for the refugees; it is also an element of instability, and of political fragility, which will not go away until it finds a just and durable solution.

[Excerpted from Land of Blue Helmets: the United Nations in the Arab World, edited by Karim Makdisi and Vijay Prashad, with permission. (c) 2017.]

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.