New Texts Out Now: Sami Hermez, War is Coming: Between Past and Future Violence in Lebanon

New Article Submission

Thank you for your interest in Jadaliyya. We welcome all submissions. The most significant requirement is for Jadaliyya submissions to be analytically compelling and offer a perspective or argument that has not been covered at length either on Jadaliyya or elsewhere. Because of the volume of submissions, well-written pieces are prioritized. Length is flexible, 1000 to 2500 words is the average range. However, we will accept longer pieces. Once submitted, several members of the editorial committee will review your piece and one of them will inform you of the decision.
Author Details
Article Details
Select Countries
Select Keywords
Select Topics
Only RTF, Word, and Pages documents accepted.

Recommended image size: 762x800 px

Location of each image should be indicated in the text of the article via a square bracket caption that includes: (1) a description of the image; (2) the photographer/designer and source of the image. Please note we only use images you as the author have the right to use, which usually means those of your own creation or those published under Creative Commons. Alternatively, you need specific permission from the copyright holder.
Please read the Release Form and provide an electronic signature [your full name] below to confirm that you accept its terms
Required
Hyperlink words in your article if they refer to links on the internet. We encourage more, rather than less, links (try to avoid footnotes—embed them as hyperlinks if possible)

Article added successfully.

Pages Menu BETA
May 22, 2017 Lebanon
New Texts Out Now: Sami Hermez, War is Coming: Between Past and Future Violence in Lebanon

New Texts Out Now: Sami Hermez, War is Coming: Between Past and Future Violence in Lebanon

By : Sami Hermez

Sami Hermez, War is Coming: Between Past and Future Violence in Lebanon. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2017.

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

Sami Hermez (SH): I wrote this book because I felt there was a story that needed to be told of how people in states of protracted conflict live their lives with the specter of war continually hovering in the background, akin to the sounds of Beirut traffic. The potentiality of a coming war during my research in Lebanon moved in parallel with people and organizations working on preserving the memory of past war, on communal peace building initiatives, and on advocating for forms of transitional justice. Despite the great intentions of the people involved, I often felt there was an important link missing in this work and felt resources were being diverted away from confronting the political realities. I wrote this book hoping to offer an alternative for how to think of our past, present and future in Lebanon and to stir discussion so that we might arrive at more productive solutions to our recurring political impasses – the book, mind you, does not offer the solutions, it is not a manifesto, but describes and analyzes a reality I observed. 

The book is also a personal coming to terms with the effects of war on the lives of people dear to me. I caught glimpses of what war did to my relatives during my childhood visits to the country in times of ceasefire or relative cessation of violence, and this has always had a deep impact on me. My late grandmother would tell me stories of hiding in shelters, not knowing if they would see daybreak. I would witness my uncle crying at the kitchen table as he recounted the death of a friend from sniper fire just days before. And, importantly, these memories would resurface whenever the present seemed precarious or at the brink of war. The manifestations of protracted political violence in everyday life were so complex that I wanted to see what I might learn from excavating them. I hope that what emerges is a better understanding of the ways of being and doing in conflict zones, and that readers might acquire a sense of appreciation for the lives of people amidst war – their choices, ideas, behaviors and experiences.

Truth is, I originally approached the study of violence purely from the angle of wanting to study militia fighters, and I had a different book in mind when I first arrived for fieldwork over ten years ago.  I started out researching former militia fighters from Lebanon’s war (1975-1990) with the intention of wanting to understand what motivated people to pick up arms and then how they reintegrated. Yet, somewhere in the middle of my research I noticed a common refrain about the future. People everywhere around me were constantly, perhaps I can even say obsessively, talking about the coming war. Of course, the meaning and understanding of this war and its protagonists would change in the imaginations of people, depending on when and to whom I was speaking with, but invariably there was an eye to a future that seemed precarious and war-filled. I felt that in my fragmented conversations around the country, people were collectively trying to tell me a story about their lives as they lived in between a past and future war.

I decided to change course and set out to document some of the different ways people were living in times of anticipation of violence. To anticipate meant to prepare oneself for the future, and this is, in essence, the concern of politics – to manage not only life and death in the present but also for the future. If the future was war-filled, if we continued to perceive it as such, our politics would be structured to deal with this situation. Yet, if we recognized why our politics was leading us to talk of war, if we recognized the conditions that led down this path, perhaps we could begin to think of alternative political engagements that could alter the conditions and confront the fear of war rather than incubate it.

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

SH: At the heart of this book is an attempt to answer the question of how people in Lebanon live the daily experience of political conflict, past, present and future. In thinking of the everyday life of violence, I was drawn to Veena Das and Alain Badiou on the notion of the event, and to Tobias Kelly and Ivana Macek in thinking of the mundane and the normal. The book grapples with these notions and contributes to how we understand them analytically.  

Moreover, I was invested in providing an analysis of the contours of political violence, as in how we come to understand its presence in our lives, how we define it, and what it can mean to people who experience it. I was influenced, here, by feminist literature that is invested in destabilizing binaries, and in particular the work of Anne Orford, who inspired me to push against the formulation of violence as being either present or absent, and to think instead of violence within a spectrum of visibility. I am also indebted to Sarah Ahmed, who led me to think of the notion of intensification, applying it not to emotions as she does, but to political violence, and to show how intensity rather than mere presence is the means by which violence takes on a value and takes shape.

I engaged the literature on memory and violence, especially focusing on the relationship between recollection and anticipation, but also deconstructing the notion of amnesia in postwar contexts. Here, I built on the work on memory in Lebanon by a number of scholars, such as Sune Haugbolle, Najib Hourani, Saadi Nikro, Aseel Sawalha, and Lucia Volk, among others, all of whom are critical of various aspects of memory work and heritage in the country, and I see my work as extending their analyses through an attention to everyday life practices. Another contribution I wanted to make was to a rising literature on the anthropology of the future, and specifically putting this in the context of violence. I found Henri Bergson particularly helpful in thinking of people’s relationship to time, and his concept of duration led me to think of the importance of the simultaneity and interconnection between past, present and future, and to start thinking of the connections between certainty and uncertainty as it pertains to the future.

Furthermore, I address questions of amnesty and accountability as questions of memory, devoting a chapter to thinking about how a society might deal with war criminals after the cessation of conflict. Robert Meister’s work, that explores how beneficiaries of oppression can benefit from reconciliation after war when justice is deferred, was crucial in drawing my attention to how some of these processes apply to Lebanon.  In this context, reconciliation between the political elite compromised justice and accountability by allowing beneficiaries of war to also benefit from the peace. Nizar Saghieh’s breakdown of the legal implications of the amnesty law and Ussama Makdissi’s history of the manufacturing of sectarian conflict in Lebanon also helped me to understand amnesty in this context, both historically and in contemporary times. I work through them to show how a public discourse of justice and accountability was made very much present despite their absence in writ law.

Finally, I take seriously the role of emotions in my field site, and its place in the construction of violence and what it means to feel, daily, a coming violence. I draw on the work of Brian Massumi to think of the emotional power of the intensification of violenc, and on Ghassan Hage, whose definition of political emotion I found to be analytically useful as I worked through my own emotions in the field, as well as those of my interlocutors.

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

SH: This is my first book length manuscript, so hopefully, and presumptuously, we can revisit this question further in a few years with my next book. Till now, my previous work experimented with different themes that were based on research I conducted for this project. In some ways, the book is a departure from these themes and in other ways it connects. It departs in that I have previously written about activism in Lebanon, looking at what it means to be committed to social change and solidarity with oppressed groups. I have also written about dignity and clientalism in stunting the power of social movements in Lebanon, trying, in that piece, to reflect on the notion of dignity – a concept I look forward to further study in the future. Moreover, my previous work has explored what it means to do ethnography in spaces of political conflict.  The book connects with these works in that in each I am exploring what it means to live in a conflict zone and how political violence can affect the way people live, think, talk and act in the spaces of their everyday lives. 

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

SH: I had in mind a few different groups of people as I was writing this book. First were scholars of Lebanon, others working on and in zones of protracted conflict, and those who work on memory and conflict. I hope this book will leave these scholars with new ways to theorize the machinations of political violence. I also hope they will come away thinking about the role of the future in society’s understanding of its past and present. My intention is to weigh in critically on an ongoing conversation on how our memory, perception and experience of violence impacts how we think of and act for our future. In addition, for scholars of Lebanon, I wanted to offer a contemporary look at the types of conversations and experiences taking place, mostly in and around Beirut, and contribute to how they might understand the impact of political violence on their own research.

A second group of people I had in mind was students. I hope this book can be assigned in courses dealing with memory, political violence, emotions in political and social life, security, future studies, comparative conflict studies, post-conflict resolution and/or ethnographic methods. Somewhat unintentionally, there is also a chapter in the book for media studies scholars and students. My hope is that I have written this book in a way that is accessible enough for professors to assign this to undergraduate students at all levels so that I may have impact on the formation of their ideas about these topics.

A third important group was people in Lebanon more generally, and those working in the nongovernmental organizations sector specifically, especially those engaged in post conflict resolution and memory work. This book offers a critique of how we have been thinking about the work of war memory and its role in conflict resolution. My hope is that those active in civil society will consider my arguments as they organize and structure new projects so that we can collectively impact the political system so many of us desire to change.

I’d like to think that the ethnographic vignettes will keep this third group’s interest and create a sense of urgency for people to get through the theory. With a larger audience in mind, I tried to minimize the technical language of anthropology without sacrificing analyses and the theoretical contributions I wanted to make. I must say in advance to your readers outside the academy that I imagine I was not successful all the time.

Finally, my desire is that people will read this book and come away with increased empathy for those living in zones of conflict. Not that empathy is a panacea for everything, but I believe that more empathy will help us all listen more carefully to those most marginalized in situations of political violence.

J: What other projects are you working on now?

SH: I am currently working on two projects. The first revisits material I collected for this project but mostly did not make it into the book. As I said earlier, I had initially intended to write about former militia fighters from Lebanon’s war (1975-1990). With this in mind, I conducted over fifty interviews with people – both men and women - who identified as being former fighters, and conducted significant ethnographic fieldwork with a number of them. In the present book, I touch on some of this work with former fighters, but they appear only insofar as they help me to understand the wider themes of recollection and anticipation of war. I now intend to return to analyze this material with former fighters and write about them. I am particularly concerned with deconstructing certain notions related to dehumanization, reintegration, and gendered militant mobilization that are recurring themes emerging from this research. I see this project as continuing the work of War is Coming by more specifically excavating the lives of perpetrators of violence.

The second project is one that is particularly dear to me in that I am experimenting with the limits of ethnographic writing by trying to draw on literary genres to structure the final narrative. It deals with the life story of a Palestinian family beginning in 1967 through the present. The story follows the sister of a now deceased member and leader of a Palestinian militant organization. Like my previous work, I am invested in telling a story of everyday life in a Palestinian village and trying to capture the social and political transformations that take place in this village. I have found that there is very little written about rural everyday experiences of life under military occupation, and this particular family is interesting because they offer the under-told story of farmers, rather than of intellectuals or elites from the major centers of historic Palestine. The seed for this project was planted during an assignment for a research methods course at Princeton. I have been working on this on and off since 2005, in New Jersey and Palestine, where I conducted interviews with family members and other people in the village. The book draws on the genre of ethnographic fiction to tell a true story that will explore such themes as the narration of violence, the dialectic between violent and non-violent actions, and the formation of social and political identity, in addition to highlighting the everyday life of violence.

Excerpt from the Introduction:

 The Hamra neighborhood of Beirut was a very busy place during ḥarb tammūz (the “July War” in 2006). Many displaced people from the South had made their way to the city, escaping Israel’s incessant bombing of that part of the country in an ineffective attempt to destroy Hizballah, the Lebanese resistance movement against Israel. The displaced were staying with relatives or in school compounds, underground garages, unoccupied apartments, and other vacant spaces in the city. On this particular afternoon, Dima and I decided to take a break from our relief work and have lunch at Roadster Café, a local American-style diner. I came to meet Dima during this period of relief work in the July War, and with her and others I would take part in various forms of humanitarian and political action during the course of my fieldwork. […]

We walked down Hamra Street, busy with people but not so jammed with cars as one would usually expect. We passed the popular fast food restaurant, malek el-baṭāṭa (King of Potatoes), and crossed the cobblestone street to our destination. There, we ordered our food. As we sat lazily at the bar, waiting for our food to arrive, we got into what would be one of our many sad and fervent conversations about war, its future possibilities, and our past memories of it. […]

Dima and I sat at the bar waiting for our burgers, Dima sipping water and I lemonade. At one point, she turned to me in her intense and heartfelt voice and said, in English: “Our lives are like superhero comic strips. You know how in the comics when there is fighting going on, oftentimes the next slide says ‘In the meanwhile.’ Well, that’s us. We are ‘In the meanwhile’; we live ‘In the meanwhile’.” While the war went on above and around us, while the displaced tended to their lives, “in the meanwhile” we ate at Roadster, had meetings, went out for a drink, worked on humanitarian relief operations, and conducted our everyday lives the way we saw fit.

If “in the meanwhile” was a way people lived through conflict, for me it became a lens through which to think about social life amid political violence and the protracted nature of conflict that has existed in Lebanon. Dima, it seems, meant to say that in the interstices of war, people still live their lives and take their breaks; indeed, war can intensify social life, as she later told me. I, too, lived my life during this war. I spent days and nights in conversations and debates with family, I watched the war live on TV, and I enjoyed nights of drinking with new friends. In this war, I also found time to love. War, whatever war, does not necessarily erase either daily actions or emotions… [It] re-shifts and reconfigures, but its processes are not very good at total erasure. It tries, but it cannot destroy our human emotions or our connections to the techniques of everyday life that came before the war—and that are transferred down generationally.

So people continue to live in the meanwhile of war in ways that can sustain a sense of everyday normalcy, and that may resemble, if only ever so slightly, the way life was lived prior to a given outbreak of war…

Thinking about life “in the meanwhile” came around the time that I also began to think about the anticipation of political violence. While spending one night in military jail, I had begun to think about anticipation as an affective site of research, and one where political power operates... During that night in prison, I was told that other convicts had been evacuated because military locations were in danger of being bombed by the Israelis. I spent the night in my cell, hearing the bombs in the distance, and wondering if the next would hit my cell. Fear struck me as I anticipated the bombs and heard the explosions, followed by the momentary calm of knowing this time my location was not the target. I was exhausted, and soon, despite the fear, I fell asleep on the humid ground, separated from it by a thin, hard, rancid mat. Something about the bombings made them both absent (over there) and present through their sounds and the potential to annihilate me at any moment, an absent presence that I managed to acquaint myself with enough to sleep through much of the night. That night, I felt myself as living “In the meanwhile” and in “anticipation of political violence.” Later, this became an axis to question and critique forms of absent present political violence, and to think about the little nooks and crannies present in war that would bring forth a deeper understanding of people’s lives in such unstable times, and that would deconstruct a homogeneous idea of what war is and isn’t.

This absent presence suggests there is an act of recollection of past violence and imagination of future violence, and a sense of people living in between past and future violence; remembering one, anticipating the other. Whereas the physicality and perpetration of war is often felt as absent—or in the past or future—talk of war, imagining it, sensing it, being tense and frustrated by it, feeling despair, resignation, fear, and hope by it, these are some of the ways that war remains constantly present (conceptually and not necessarily physically) as a structuring force in social life…

The July 2006 war lasted for thirty-three days. For most of the time after that and during my fieldwork, the bombings, gunfire, and armed confrontations between political groups were seemingly absent. In such times, I was struck by people’s preoccupation with the idea that a war, in its vaguely defined terms, was on the horizon. El-ḥarb jāye (the war is coming) or raḥ tūlaʿ el-ḥarb (the war is going to ignite), and their various derivatives, were phrases I would regularly hear in a family dining room, around a restaurant table, or at a local political party office. It is the sentiments behind such phrases that affect everyday life in Lebanon, making past and future war very much lived in the present, that I investigate in this book.

In Part I, I look at the anticipation of political violence and how it could be sensed in the meanwhile of physical conflict as well as in its absence. What kind of strategies do people employ in order to live in this meanwhile? How were people in Lebanon living and experiencing the aftermath and in-betweens of war, assassinations, bombings, and the various other acts and events often grouped together as political violence? How could one rethink this other than in terms of resilience, a recurring theme that seemed to produce forms of Lebanese exceptionalism (that somehow Lebanese were uniquely resilient for the way they conducted their lives during and after war)? People were living in the midst of armed conflict or in the shadow of threats that war might ignite, and I wanted to foreground their experiences. It is one objective of this book, then, to explore how people live in this midst, “in the meanwhile,” of political conflict and instability, and to do so in a way that does not totalize and sensationalize the experience of violence, or make violence and coping with it the only concern of people in a conflict zone (Lubkemann 2008).

Moreover, I ask how society is reconfigured in periods of political violence and subsequent calm, and how the possibility of future war inscribes recollections of past civil conflicts into everyday life. Such experiences lead me to study political violence through its “practices of anticipation” to better understand how the memory or expectation of impending political violence shapes social interactions and political relationships with the state. By practices, I mean mundane acts, gestures, conversations, psychological states, and interactions. A focus on practices of anticipation exposes ironies, contradictions, and political antagonisms present in the spaces of daily life.

Memory emerges as another fundamental part of this story and is the focus of Part II. The anticipation of political violence cannot be extricated from recollections of past war, and we should see the passage from past to future in Lebanon as a seamless duration where recollection and anticipation are simultaneous processes that meld into each other (Bergson, 1946). The flow of memory between past and future, how people experience this, and what they do with it is crucial to our understanding of how political violence is experienced, especially in its invisible forms. In Part II, I am especially concerned with how people in Lebanon consciously forget (tanāsī) past war, how their spontaneously lived memory works as a strategy for dealing with everyday life, and how this memory connects the past to the future.

[Excerpted from War Is Coming: Between Past and Future Violence in Lebanon, with permission of the author, (c) 2017.]
Tags
Oct 16, 2016 Lebanon
Mandy Turner By :
Mandy Turner

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.