Adam Hanieh, Money, Markets, and Monarchies: The Gulf Cooperation Council and the Political Economy of the Contemporary Middle East (New Texts Out Now)

Adam Hanieh, Money, Markets, and Monarchies: The Gulf Cooperation Council and the Political Economy of the Contemporary Middle East (New Texts Out Now)

Adam Hanieh, Money, Markets, and Monarchies: The Gulf Cooperation Council and the Political Economy of the Contemporary Middle East (New Texts Out Now)

By : Adam Hanieh

Adam Hanieh, Money, Markets, and Monarchies: The Gulf Cooperation Council and the Political Economy of the Contemporary Middle East (Cambridge University Press, 2018).

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

Adam Hanieh (AH): I have long felt that the nature of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states is poorly understood in mainstream media commentary and in much of the political debate around the Middle East, often reduced simply to the Gulf’s oil and gas exports, ruling family intrigues, or the role of religion. In the aftermath of the Arab uprisings, it has become patently clear how important these states are to the Middle East’s future trajectories, but a lot of discussion around this focuses on the most overt manifestations of the Gulf’s power projection in the region—the Gulf’s role in various wars and conflicts, for example, or the support of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates to post-uprising regimes such as Sisi’s military government in Egypt. In writing this book, I hoped to demonstrate the importance of a political economy perspective to these debates, with a focus on the ways that the Gulf’s position as a critical site of capitalism in the Middle East is shifting patterns of accumulation throughout the wider region. I think the political implications that flow from this are (and will continue to be) immense. To this end, I sought to provide an empirically-grounded examination of particular sectors that are critical to the contemporary Middle East, while also exploring a key theoretical issue: how do we conceptualize the linkages between capital accumulation and processes of class and state formation across national, regional, and global scales?

I draw upon a range of academic debates that extend beyond the Middle East, including recent literature on how to understand the origins of capitalism in the context of the world system, and the relationship of different spatial and temporal scales to this process.

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

AH: There has been a resurgence of very exciting and insightful writing on the contemporary Gulf in recent years, much of which goes beyond the focus on oil and “rentier states” that have long dominated academic discussion of the region. This book is intended as a contribution to this new body of literature in two distinct ways. First, I endeavour to explore the co-constitution of the Gulf’s political economy with that of the global. As part of this, I argue that the flows of Gulf financial surpluses are an essential component to understanding the concrete form of the contemporary world economy—a structure marked by persistent levels of over-accumulation, continued pre-dominance of United States and European capital, but the emergence of new centers of accumulation and political rivalries emanating from China, East Asia, and elsewhere. This uneven and hierarchical global structure, moreover, shapes the nature of capital accumulation and class formation in the Gulf itself. Second, alongside a focus on this global-Gulf relation, I seek to integrate the Middle East as a whole into this analysis, arguing that the Gulf’s location within the global has been articulated through shifting patterns of accumulation in the wider region. I investigate this through a detailed mapping of major economic activities in the Middle East—including agriculture and agribusiness, real estate development, urban infrastructure such as power, water, transport and telecommunications, as well as banking and finance. These interweaving spatial relations between the global, Gulf, and regional political economies helps us understand the Gulf’s prominent position in the Middle East’s recent politics. They are also crucial to unpacking the implications and potential trajectories—which, at this moment, remain open-ended—of the severe crises currently cascading through the region.

In making these arguments, I draw upon a range of academic debates that extend beyond the Middle East, including recent literature on how to understand the origins of capitalism in the context of the world system, and the relationship of different spatial and temporal scales to this process. Drawing from the work of people such as Henri Lefebvre, Neil Brenner, Eric Swyngedouw, David Harvey, and other geographers, the concept of scale is particularly prominent in the book’s argument. I think one of the key contributions of these critical geographers is the insistence that there are no “natural” geographical units in capitalism; space is “produced” through the territorialization, regulation, and contestation of flows of capital and other social resources. While the national scale remains absolutely critical to these processes, we also see a proliferation of other spatial scales that are no less essential to contemporary capitalism. Greater sensitivity to the ways in which capitalism necessarily operates throughout such scales helps us overcome a certain analytical narrowing of vision typically associated with binary models of spatial differentiation, e.g., centre/periphery, urban/rural, North/South, First/Third World etc. This does not mean a flattening of space or inattention to divergence and unevenness—rather, it points to how spatial polarization is intrinsically generated by, and cascades through, a multiplicity of variegated scales. In the context of the Gulf, the accumulation of capital is deeply enmeshed in such a reworking of space. There are many interesting observations that emerge from this perspective, such as the impact of GCC telecoms on the making of Arab urban spaces; the ways in which GCC banks intermediate financial processes in other Arab countries; or the weight of Gulf agribusiness firms in the circulation of various agro-food commodities across the Middle East. So, this book is an attempt to explore these and other issues associated with the regional influence of the Gulf’s political economy—to think about Gulf capitalism outside an analytical privileging of the “national” box.

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

AH: My earlier book on the Gulf, Capitalism and Class in the Gulf Arab States, largely focused on processes of class and state formation inside the GCC itself. That book had one chapter that tentatively explored some aspects of the Gulf in the wider region, but it was in no way a comprehensive treatment of the topic. My second book, Lineages of Revolt, touched upon some of these issues in a bit more detail, but it was primarily concerned with describing neoliberalism in the Middle East and the nature of the uprisings then underway. So there are definitely continuities with my earlier work, but this latest book explores the relationship between Gulf capitalism and the wider region through a range of new sectors (and in much more depth) than I have written about previously. As mentioned, I also try to develop a theoretical framing through which to approach these questions, drawing upon the notion of “scale” as it has been developed in certain strands of critical geography and Marxian political economy.

In addition, I devote two chapters in this book to considering various aspects of “crisis” and the politics of the contemporary moment in the region. So I talk about the impact of lower global oil prices that began in mid-2014, and examine the various “Vision” documents promulgated by all Gulf leaders in recent years. I argue that we need to see these strategic responses beyond simply an issue of technocratic policymaking, and ask what are the social and class forces that are benefiting (or not) from these new policies. A final chapter discusses the numerous wars and unprecedented mass displacements currently occurring, as well as the internal conflicts between the Gulf states themselves—most notably the Saudi-led blockade of Qatar. In covering these ongoing issues, I hope to situate what might come after these conflicts—the so-called “reconstruction” phase that everyone seems to be talking about—within the overall argument of the book.

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

AH: Well, like all of us who work in academia, I hope the book gets used in university courses and becomes part of the academic debate around the Middle East! At the same time, I have tried to write this book in such a way that people who are non-specialists on the region can benefit from engaging with it. I think there is a lot that can be learned from the Middle East, and it is quite striking how many of the wider thematic debates essentially ignore the region—one example that I examine in the book is the question of financialization. There is a lot that has been written about forms of finance and the impact of financial markets on countries outside core Western states, but these very rarely engage with the Middle East experience. Similarly, academic debates around “emerging” or “rising” powers, and the so-called BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa), virtually ignore the Gulf states; despite the considerable role of the Gulf in the global political economy. There are a lot of insights that can be gained by bringing the Middle East back into these wider theoretical debates.

J: What other projects are you working on now?

AH: Building upon some of the research in the book, I am currently starting a project that looks into the GCC’s rapidly evolving relationship with East Asia and China. Again, this goes far beyond the question of simply oil, gas, and petrochemical exports (although these remain essential). The GCC is playing a critical role in the new interdependencies that are being established between Asia and the Middle East, and I am interested in what this might say about the emerging forms of power throughout the wider global economy.

 

Excerpt from the Book:

Late in the evening of 31 August 2016, a 500-strong delegation of Saudi business leaders and government officials touched down in Tokyo, Japan. Arriving on 13 planes, the visit was led by Saudi Arabia’s then-Deputy Crown Prince, Mohammed bin Salman al-Saud, who was scheduled to meet Japanese billionaire Masayoshi Son a few days later. Initially, the trip garnered little attention beyond scant coverage in the Saudi press. Its results, however, were to leave financial commentators worldwide stunned. The two men agreed to establish a $100 billion private equity venture, the SoftBank Vision Fund (SVF), pledging to invest in emerging technologies in order to realise ‘a world where humans, devices and the internet are more closely integrated’ (Primack 2016). The scale of the fund surpassed anything that the private equity (PE) business had ever seen. It would be the largest fund in history – vastly exceeding the past record of $21.6 billion raised by the PE behemoth Blackstone Group in 2006 – and worth more than all the money raised by the entire US venture capital industry over the preceding 30 months.

The record-breaking nature of this deal is one sign of the role that Saudi Arabia, along with five other members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) – the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, and Bahrain – now play in global financial markets. Backed by large surpluses accruing from more than a decade of rising oil prices, Gulf investors, both state and private, have come to control a global asset base worth several trillion dollars. Ranging from banking, industry, technology, and real estate across Western Europe and North America, through to farmland, retail chains, and manufacturing plants in some of the poorest places on the planet, Gulf investments are encountered in virtually all countries and economic sectors. Many well- known international firms – Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, Barclays, Volkswagen, Glencore, P&O, British Airways, Sainsbury’s, and Twitter, to name just a few – now count Gulf investors as major shareholders or controlling owners. London property icons such as Camden Market, Canary Wharf, Harrods, the Shard, New Scotland Yard, and the London Stock Exchange are fully or partially owned by Gulf investors – even the US embassy in the United Kingdom pays rent to a Gulf landlord. And through a little-known acquisition that took place in 2014, a Gulf-based firm became joint owners of HC-One, now the largest operator of nursing and residential homes in the United Kingdom. Moreover, it is not only traditional business activities that have been targeted in this buying spree – some of Europe’s most prominent football teams are controlled by individuals and firms based in the Gulf, or emblazon logos of Gulf firms on their uniforms and stadiums (Barcelona, Arsenal, Manchester City, Bayern Munich, and Paris Saint-Germain). Almost a decade ago, investments such as these led the global consultancy firm McKinsey to describe the Gulf as one of the ‘new powerbrokers’ in the global economy. Since that time, the oil price has crashed and much of the world economy remains mired in stagnation – nonetheless, as the SVF deal indicates, Gulf investments appear to continue apace. Indeed, in 2016, the net value of cross-border mergers and acquisitions made by firms based in the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar ranked twelfth in the world, coming in just behind net purchases from the United Kingdom.

These cross-border capital flows form just one part of the Gulf’s interaction with the global economy. There are, of course, other sides to this relationship. Most importantly are the Gulf’s vast reserves of oil and natural gas, which remain critical to transport and industrial production across the planet. By 2014, the Gulf Arab states were responsible for nearly one-quarter of global crude oil and natural gas liquids production, a level that had risen from around one-fifth in 2000. Over the same time frame, the Gulf’s share of world exports of these commodities had grown from 27.6% to 32.5%. The circulation of such resources through global production chains – as energy or feedstock for other industries – has made the region, and by association the wider Middle East, a pivotal focus of global politics ever since the transition to an oil-centred world economy in the early twentieth century. They remain essential to understanding contemporary patterns of global capitalism – China’s emergence as a major economic power, for instance, is heavily dependent upon oil from the Gulf, which now supplies around one-third of the country’s total crude imports.

But the Gulf’s involvement in international trade patterns cannot be reduced simply to its oil and gas exports. Today, the Gulf plays an increasingly central role in the worldwide circulation of all commodities. Gulf-based firms and the region’s aviation and maritime industries are frequently described as ‘global super-connectors’ – transit routes that link different zones of the world market and integrate production and consumption across the planet. This is true for people as well as for goods. The Gulf now boasts the busiest airport in the world for inter- national passengers – Dubai International Airport, which surpassed London’s Heathrow Airport in 2015 – as well as Dubai’s Jebel Ali, the fourth largest container port in the world. The speed of the region’s integration into global trade and supply chains – often lauded in business magazines as evidence for the foresight and outward-oriented vision of the Gulf’s rulers – is held up as an exemplary model for other developing countries to follow. Indeed, many of the buzzwords that define the corpus of trade and logistics policymaking today – ‘intermodal transport hubs’, ‘logistics cities’, ‘integrated free trade zones’, and the like – find their preeminent examples in the Gulf.

As the Gulf extends itself globally it has likewise deepened connections to its immediate neighbourhood. Over the last two decades, the Gulf monarchies have taken a distinctive and highly consequential role in the affairs of most Arab countries. As later chapters will show in some detail, capital flows from the Gulf now encompass and dominate key economic sectors across the Middle East – reshaping patterns of ownership and control, and pivoting the centre of gravity of Arab capitalism increasingly around a Gulf axis. From 2003 to 2015, the Gulf was responsible for a remarkable 42.5% of total new (so-called greenfield) foreign direct investment (FDI) across 10 non-Gulf Arab states. Mergers and acquisitions (M&A) figures further illustrate these trends. From 2010 to 2015, European, Gulf, and North American investors spent just over 20 billion euros on M&A in the Arab world – the Gulf’s share of this was 45%. At the same time as these economic linkages with the Middle East have intensified, so has the Gulf’s political weight in the region. From the devastating wars in Yemen and Syria to the new governments that have emerged following the Arab uprisings of 2011, the Gulf states are now pivotal to the course of political processes across all Arab countries. The Gulf’s political and economic interests increasingly superintend the regional system – one marked by massive polarisation of wealth and power, alongside unprecedented levels of violence, conflict, and mass displacement. Most strikingly, the struggle to contain and direct these regional trajectories has precipitated sharpening tensions between the various Gulf states themselves – and with other regional powers (most notably Iran). These patterns not only hold serious implications for the ‘big’ issues of Arab politics and economics; they also intensely mould the lived, day-to-day reality of social life for much of the Middle East’s population.

All of this suggests that we can learn something about global capitalism and its spatio-temporal dynamics from the vantage point of the Gulf. Yet much contemporary writing on the global economy tends to marginalise the position of the Gulf, either ignoring it completely or viewing it simply as a source of oil or a protagonist in conflict. As a result, the considerable flows of capital, commodities, and labour – both from and through the Gulf – are largely invisible in narratives around the making of the global. This partly reflects a more general geographical blind spot of political economy scholarship, which, as David McNally observes, typically focuses ‘on a number of capitalistically developed nations – the US, Germany and Japan – and treat[s] the world-economy as largely an aggregate of these parts’. But even attempts to more fully integrate the role of ‘emerging’ markets into a global frame usually overlook the Gulf – the concept of ‘BRICS’, for example, terminologically excludes the Gulf, despite the region’s striking parallels with these other rising powers.

One of the goals of this book is to address such theoretical and geographical gaps in approaches to the global. I seek to ask what we can learn about global processes from the perspective of the Gulf Arab states. In investigating this question, I will particularly emphasise the concurrent reworking of the broader Middle East – a regional shift that has been closely implicated in the Gulf’s global trajectories. In doing so, I hope to show that approaching the world market in a top-down fashion – simply by focusing on what is going on in its ‘commanding heights’ – omits something very important about how the world works. Our understanding of the global must look beyond simply the additive inter- action of individual national states – it needs to also incorporate an appreciation of how the regional itself is being reshaped as part of the making of the global. This is not only a matter of adding yet another case study to our understanding of global processes; it is about seeing the global in and through its relation to the Gulf, viewing the whole as more than just an aggregate sum of supposedly lesser or greater parts. By better understanding the relation between the global and the Gulf – including, most centrally, what this means for the Gulf’s wider regional neighbourhood – we reveal something qualitatively new about the whole itself.

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.