Muriam Haleh Davis and Thomas Serres, eds. North Africa and the Making of Europe: Governance, Institutions and Culture (New Texts Out Now)

Muriam Haleh Davis and Thomas Serres, eds. North Africa and the Making of Europe: Governance, Institutions and Culture (New Texts Out Now)

Muriam Haleh Davis and Thomas Serres, eds. North Africa and the Making of Europe: Governance, Institutions and Culture (New Texts Out Now)

By : Muriam Haleh Davis and Thomas Serres

Muriam Haleh Davis and Thomas Serres, eds. North Africa and the Making of Europe: Governance, Institutions and Culture (London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2018).

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

Muriam Haleh Davis (MHD) and Thomas Serres (TS): We were motivated to edit this volume after spending the 2015-2016 academic year at the European University Institute (EUI) in Florence, which has a strong focus on European politics and integration. As North Africanists, we felt that it was important to think about Europe from its margins, particularly as pressing questions about the past and future of the European Union were being posed by politicians across the region. We therefore organized a series of conferences on “Europe Seen From North Africa,” which brought together scholars from North Africa, Europe, and the United States. The insights and questions raised during those conferences form the basis of this volume.

This volume addresses current debates on the definition of European space as a cultural, economic, political, and geographical unit.

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

MHD and TS: This volume addresses current debates on the definition of European space as a cultural, economic, political, and geographical unit. While the European Union (EU) presents itself as an area of freedom, security and justice, the vision from the periphery is far less enchanted. Indeed, Europe seems to be facing two, interrelated crises: the rise of Islamophobia (and overt racism in general) as well as a pervasive disillusionment with the technocratic governance that gave rise to the European Union during the interwar period. We wanted to explore how both of these crises have common historical roots by exploring the ways in which a certain conception of Europe—as both a system of governance as well as a cultural identity—emerged out of an intimate relationship with North Africa.

At the same time, we wanted to go beyond the narrative of colonial legacies and investigate North Africa as a space where new conceptions of Europe are still emerging. The aftermath of the “Arab Spring” and the ongoing migration crisis have prompted new investigations of the Mediterranean space. In 2018, the Mediterranean region encourages exchange and cooperation as much as it fosters exclusion and competition. Consequently, our edited volume explores the construction of Europe as an ideological, political, and economic entity by looking at its past and present relationship with North Africa. In focusing on how European identity and institutions have been fashioned though various interactions with its southern periphery, this volume highlights the role played by Europeans in the Maghreb as well as by North African actors.

While there have been repeated attempts to analyze the continued relevance of the European Union in world affairs, we felt there were a few lacunae in the scholarship. We hope that focusing on North Africa not only provides us with a variety of political and economic contexts, but also decenters the prevailing perspective and offers a fresh optic for understanding the current challenges faced by the EU. We also sought to publish an interdisciplinary volume that would allow for historical analysis to be fruitfully put into conversation with contemporary politics, sociology, and international relations.

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

MHD and TS: Both of us work on Algeria and are interested in how European forms of governance have emerged out of an interaction with colonization or post-colonial relationships. We are, admittedly, quite Algero-centric in our own projects, so we felt that it was important to foster a conversation that deals with the Maghreb as a geographical unit. This is building on—but distinct from—approaches that follow a single colony and its relationship with its ex-colonizer. Not only does this approach tend to entrap the former colony in its relationship with the former colonial power (often France in the case of the Maghreb), it also obfuscates the multilateral connections among nation-states that are highlighted in this volume.

The interdisciplinary framework of the volume is also a reflection of our different academic trajectories. Muriam Haleh Davis has worked in Middle Eastern Studies and Critical Theory, while Thomas Serres is trained in political economy and political sociology. Thus, we sought to cover a number of themes that we thought were fundamental to the “Making of Europe,” and to highlight North African voices in the process. The volume comes out of a series of workshops that we co-organized at the European University Institute in Florence, which gave us a wonderful opportunity to bring scholars from North Africa, Europe, and the United States together for preliminary brainstorming.

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

MHD and TS: We hope that scholars working both on the Middle East and North Africa, but also Europe, will find points of interest in this book. Historians have largely taken up Frederick Cooper and Ann Stoler’s injunction to study colony and metropole in a single analytical frame (1997), but this is not always the case in political science and international relations. We hope this work encourages scholars to build on the “colonial turn” by expanding the colony/metropole frame to regional units such as Europe and North Africa more generally. We hope this volume presents new ways of thinking about the relationship between the Global North and South that do not result in a reductive story of neo-colonialism, which misses many of the complex power relationships at work around the Mediterranean.

J: What other projects are you working on now?

MHD and TS: Thomas Serres is currently finishing a monograph on contemporary Algeria, entitled Managing the Crisis, Blaming the People: The Suspended Disaster in Bouteflika's Algeria. The book investigates the transformation of a systematic crisis into a resource for the durability of the regime and a form of routinized governmentality since the end of the Black Decade. It will be published in French by the IRMC-Karthala by the end of 2018. His new project focuses on the Euro-Algerian relationship and the role of “human capital” in the restructuring of “Third Worldist” approaches to political economy that have historically underscored national sovereignty and social redistribution.

Muriam Haleh Davis has recently completed a chapter on Derrida and settler colonialism for an edited volume on Postcolonial Intellectuals in Europe that will be published with Rowman & Littlefield. She is also completing a book-length manuscript that focuses on the articulation between race and development policies in colonial and post-colonial Algeria.

J: What are the major themes or subjects studied in the volume?

MHD and TS: We are particularly proud of the fact that this volume addresses a variety of topics including agriculture, labor politics, transitional justice, and states of exception. Since many of the works on the Maghreb tend to focus either on the colonial period and it’s immediate aftermath (generally works by historians) or on the contemporary politics of the region, we felt it was important to write a longer durée story about North Africa and Europe from the end of the Second World War to the present.

The edited volume is divided into three sections. The first part, “Colonialism and Institutions,” studies the influence of colonial structures in North Africa on the genesis of European integration and postwar notions of European identity.

The first chapter, by Luc-André Brunet, demonstrates how economic planners working in North Africa during the Second World War saw colonial industrialization and development as a blueprint for the European Community. Similarly, Muriam Haleh Davis argues that the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), a particularly important symbolic aspect of European integration, reflected strategies for standardization first worked out by French administrators in North Africa, while also detailing the intra-European opposition that this strategy faced. The third chapter extends this analysis by looking at the recruitment of Moroccan workers in French and Belgian coal mines. Anton Perdoncin highlights the rising influence of the Moroccan state and its relationship with private companies in the management of transnational labor flows. Lastly, Darcie Fontaine sheds light on the strategies adopted by the Catholic Church in the face of decolonization.

The second part of the volume is entitled, “Europe Defined: Imaginaries and Practices.” Beginning with a study of the French anthropologist Jacques Berque by Timothy Scott Johnson, it continues with a chapter on the Spanish colonial cities of Ceuta and Melilla. In this latter chapter, Aitana Guia studies the formulation of a gendered Islamophobia in these territories, a theme also picked up by Farida Souiah, Monika Salzbrunn, and Simon Mastrangelo in their study of the cultural production of Tunisian undocumented migrants and their immigration to Europe. Finally, in her chapter, Simone Tholens looks at European policies in the domain of trade and energy to understand how “imperial identity practices” shape the EU's approach to North Africa. While the subject matters covered in this section range from intellectual history to immigration to international relations, all of these essays highlight how representations of what it meant to be European were refracted through experiences with, and understandings of, North Africa.

The third and final section is dedicated to “States of Crisis and Exception.” Thomas Serres' chapter studies the Algerian Civil War as a case study to demonstrate how the dialogue between European and Algerian actors contributed to the redefinition of key notions such as “democracy” and “human rights.” The tenth chapter by Irene Costantini focuses on Libya and also looks at the normative political strategies that have influenced policy in the region, notably the progressive securitization of the relationship between the EU and its Southern neighborhood after the Arab uprisings. Yet it would be mistaken to see this process as being worked out solely in Brussels or Paris; as the chapter by Elise Ketelaars demonstrates, local demands for social justice has played a key role in influencing how the EU understands transitional justice in post-revolutionary Tunisia. Finally, in her conclusion, Lilith Mahmud outlines what she labels as a “critical reconfiguration of liberal values” and calls for a feminist decolonial critique of European integration.

 

Excerpt from the Book:

In January 2017, the leaders of the major European parties on the far-right gathered to present their vision for the future of the continent in a “counter-summit”. In the lead-up to a series of highly sensitive elections that were to decide the future of the continent, Geert Wilders, Marine Le Pen, Frauke Petry and Matteo Salvini – among others – unveiled their political platforms. Two themes marked their speeches: Firstly, the speakers denounced the “bureaucratic” nature of the European Union (EU), which Salvini, the leader of the Italian Lega Nord, portrayed as nothing less than a “new Soviet Union”. Secondly, they vociferously opposed any immigration from Muslim majority countries, which they described as a risk for Europe’s domestic security, economic prosperity, and cultural identity.

These views have become a rallying cry for the far-right in Europe, whose varied political platforms nevertheless share a commitment to Euroscepticism and Islamophobia (Ford, Goodwin and Cutts 2011; Druxes and Simpson 2016). In this sense, the existing European political order appears threatened by a movement that proposes the rejection of immigration and a return to the nation-state. Yet it is perhaps misleading to see these goals as novel phenomena. After all, the nation-state has not receded in recent years, and has also played a key role in the governance of the EU. Moreover, even if the weakening of the welfare state contributed to the rise of overtly racist attitudes (Wren 2001), racial categories have been foundational to the development of European states (Goldberg 2002). In looking at xenophobic attitudes in Europe over the past few decades, one could also point to the widespread opposition to the integration of Turkey to the EU (Saz 2011), the persisting prejudice of European officials against immigration from the South of the Mediterranean (Rhein 2006), and the so-called cultural insecurity of Europeans (Bouvet 2015).

Yet in trying to assess what is novel about this political moment, we do seem to be witnessing a fundamental shift in the conceptualization of what it means to be European; the fragile postwar consensus - that was based on imperial preferences, on the one hand, and the technocratic construction of a European Economic Community, on the other – seems less and less tenable. Rather than viewing immigration as a necessary component of postwar reconstruction, or an extension of postcolonial preferences, it is increasingly common to hear it framed in terms of a full-scale “invasion” (Krzyzanowski 2013). It is certainly not our intention to propose a nostalgic view of the decades following the Second World War; indeed, extensive and important work has been done on the way sin which policing strategies, housing structures, and economic rights were unfairly stacked against North African immigrants. If postwar immigration led minority populations to demand cultural recognition and the “right to difference” in the 1970s and 1980s, our current moment is built on the wholesale rejection of that multicultural model, which had once been a key component of anti-racist struggles across Europe (Modood and Werbner 1991).

These are some of the questions underpin this edited volume, which studies the ways in which North Africa has contributed to the shaping of Europe in the postwar period. We are cognizant of the fact that while this volume is framed in terms of European identity, many of the articles in fact study the European Union or its precursors. This orientation is due to our conviction that the understanding of Europe, and what it means to be “European” is necessarily embedded in historical circumstances. Since the end of the Second World War, the process of European integration self-consciously attempted to construct a European identity. Therefore, in looking at the evolution of European identity and governance through the prism of North Africa, we believe that the European institutions built in the wake of decolonization offer a fruitful starting point.

At the same time, analysing Europe’s current attempts to defend something called “European values” requires us to transcend the simplistic claim that the region is merely continuing centuries-old practices of colonization. Indeed, to understand the trajectory of Europe since the second half of the 20th century, one cannot lose sight of the other historical, social and political dynamics – alongside decolonization - that have informed the last sixty years. One major goal of this volume is thus to provincialize Europe (Chakrabarty 2000) through a study of the institutions and practices that have accompanied its most concrete form: the European Union. A focus on Europe’s Southern periphery thus sheds light on how a certain conception of what it meant to be European – in the domains of economic organization, diplomatic practices, population transfers, knowledge production and religious beliefs – was constituted through the region’s interactions with North Africa, one of its historical “others”. By bringing together scholars from a variety of disciplines, we also hope to show that North African spaces and actors have actively contributed to the shaping of postwar Europe.

When analysing Europe’s current challenges, namely immigration and terrorism, observers have spoken of a “boomerang effect.” This terminology is of course rooted in a longer tradition that dates back to Hannah Arendt, Aimé Cesaire, and their invocation by Jean-Paul Sartre (1961). Yet if a boomerang goes between two places, bringing “home” an action carried out “over there,” this volume tries to show how the very coherence of Europe as a place, actor, or identity has emerged through interactions with its southern periphery. Rather than a boomerang, then, we might think of Europe’s interactions with North Africa using a musical analogy, as the production of certain chords. This operates both in the sense of a combination of notes that resonates outwards, and also indicates how a field of audition creates a geographical unit or borderland. The process is also iterative since North African responses often change the rules of composition. Etienne Balibar’s insights regarding France and Algeria, that they might not form two countries, but something like one and a half, can thus also be extended to the two shores of the Mediterranean (Balibar 1997).

If we seem to be witnessing a resurgence of nationalism that makes such regional units of analysis seem antiquated, it might be helpful to remind ourselves that there is no zero-sum game between the region and the nation-state. As comforting as the idea of a “return” to the nation-state may seem, this is a more of a nostalgic appeal, or even a “postcolonial melancholia”, than an actual policy proposal (Gilroy 2004). In British case, for example, decolonization saw the consolidation of a European identity that separated a “notion of imperialness from European-ness”, thereby giving rise to a Euroscepticism that was “impossible to separate form nostalgic neo-imperialism” (Grob-Fitzgibbon 2016: 7). Regardless of the future trajectory of the EU, the history of empire and understandings of “European-ness” are necessarily imbricated; after all, the “post” in post-colonial continues to be a source of contention (Spivak 1999). The history of empire has taught us that extreme nationalism – particularly when it takes the form of imperial expansion – exposes the constitutive violence that resides in liberalism’s dark underbelly (Pitts 2006). As Lilith Mahmud’s Conclusion to this volume so poignantly argues, what we are witnessing is nothing less than the reconfiguration of European politics and the crisis of liberalism. Many of the chapter this volume draw to our attention both to the limits of liberalism as well as Europe’s tendency to selectively invoke its central tenants. Subsequently, Mahmud’s reflections on how to decolonize our scholarly approach to the study of Europe reflects on how academic conventions have contributed to writing colonialism out of the making of Europe. In the face of aggressive nationalisms across the continent (and around the world), we hope that a focus on North Africa may offer an alternative imaginary of what it means to be European in the world today.

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.