Ali Abdullatif Ahmida, Genocide in Libya: Shar, a Hidden Colonial History (New Texts Out Now)

Ali Abdullatif Ahmida, Genocide in Libya: Shar, a Hidden Colonial History (New Texts Out Now)

Ali Abdullatif Ahmida, Genocide in Libya: Shar, a Hidden Colonial History (New Texts Out Now)

By : Ali Abdullatif Ahmida

Ali Abdullatif Ahmida, Genocide in Libya: Shar, a Hidden Colonial History (Routledge, 2020).

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

Ali Abdullatif Ahmida (AA): My grandparents were freedom fighters in the anti-colonial resistance in Libya. With the exception of the work of a few anti-fascist and courageous scholars, the genocide (1929-34) of Libyan nationals at the hands of Italian Fascists remains virtually unknown to all but the Libyan people—a genocide silenced and mostly forgotten for over eighty years. In 1929, over 110,000 Libyans, the total population of rural Eastern Libya, was interned in concentration camps. By 1934, only 40,000 were left alive amid widespread executions, suicide, starvation, and disease. The ensuing silence around colonial Libya has contributed to the persistent notion that Italian Fascism was somehow moderate. The voices of those lost in the genocide risk being lost forever, with now only a few survivors still alive to tell their stories.

Why has this brutal phase of Italian Fascism been overlooked until now? Three factors partially explain this ongoing silence among liberal, radical, and conservative scholars of Italian Fascism: Eurocentrism, anticommunism, and the rise of neo-Fascist movements in Italy and Western Europe. This is why part of the book outlines the larger historical context between 1922 and 1939. The United States was not only unthreatened by Italian Fascism, but it in fact welcomed the anticommunist ideology of a country that once had the largest communist party in Western Europe. Even critics of Mussolini often portrayed him as a buffoon or ordinary dictator, rather than a representation of an actively ideological threat. 

Today there are still scholars who advance the notion of moderate Italian Fascism as Mussolini’s legacy. The case of Libya is ignored within recent books on forgotten genocide, such as the remarkable book by Ben Kiernan, Blood and Soil: A World History of Genocide and Extermination from Sparta to Darfur (2007), Rene Lemarchand’s edited Forgotten Genocides (2011), or Rutgers University’s Forgotten Genocide Project. I also came to realize little was known about this topic during my talks at universities, such as Columbia, NYU, UC Berkeley, UCLA, Yale, Harvard, and Georgetown, Washington University, between 2005 and 2011. 

Not only is there a lack of awareness about the Libyan genocide, but there are also counter-political forces actively trying to produce the myth of Italian Fascism as a moderate and lesser evil than the Nazi genocidal state. The contemporary rise of the Fascist Party in Italy, the New Alliance, lends force to the theory that Italian Fascism helped modernize Italy, especially after it captured fourteen percent of the vote, or one hundred of the 630 seats in the Italian lower house, and joined the government as a legitimate party in 1994. In 2001, party leader Gianfranco Fini became deputy prime minister in Silvio Berlosconi’s government, and on 20 November 2004, he became the new Italian foreign minister. Italian Fascism is becoming respectable again, not because it is less evil, but because we have forgotten what it means. 

... the book presents a paradigm shift and a new research agenda based on a critical model of Italian Fascism ...

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

AA: I challenge Eurocentric and colonial scholarship, and present a new subaltern narrative based on primary sources fieldwork, oral history, interviews, and testimonies of the survivors, as well as Arab and European scholarship on genocide. The book examines new primary archival and oral evidence to understand what exactly happened and why there has been such a profound silence regarding the memory of this phase of Italian Fascism. In addition, I investigate public perceptions and scholarship; the context and causes for such views; alternative critical scholarship; the history of Fascist genocide in Libya based on the views and narratives of the Libyans who survived the concentration camps between 1929 and 1934; and the politics of official and unofficial memory inside Libya, Italy, and the United States. 

In short, the book presents a paradigm shift and a new research agenda based on a critical model of Italian Fascism, with clear implications for future studies of the documentation of genocide in general, and the tragedy of modern Libya in particular.

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

AA: It continues my critical analysis of colonial and post-colonial discourses and the production of knowledge within my previous books: The Making of Modern Libya (1994), Post-Orientalism (2009), Beyond Colonialism and Nationalism In the Maghrib (2009)Bridges Across The Sahara (2009), and Forgotten Voices (2005). 

I was aware of the significance of poetry to moral and cultural beliefs during the writing of my first book, The Making of Modern Libya. However, it was only during my research on the genocide, and after reading the collected books of Libyan folk poetry written during the colonial period, that I realized it offers by far the richest and the most illustrative source of Libyan colonial history, especially of the camp incarceration years of 1929 through 1934. Among the most notable are published memoirs by Ibrahim al-’Arabi al-Ghmari; al-Maimuni, who writes about his life in the Agaila (the most notorious concentration camp), and Saad Muhammad Abu Sha’ala, who also writes on life inside the camps. These two provide powerful testimony, along with the most outstanding poet of the period, Rajab Hamad Buhwaish al-Minifi, who was interned in the Agaila camp and wrote the famous epic poem Ma Bi Marad (“I have no ill except al-Agaila concentration camp”). Known by most Libyans, the poem is a brilliant and damning reaction to the horrors of the camp, as well as to the impact of killing and suffering on freedom loving semi-nomads. To my delight, I also discovered women poets, such as Fatima ‘Uthamn from Hun, who composed the poem Kharabin Ya Watan (“My homeland ruined twice”), and Um al-Khair Muhammad Abdaldim, who was interned in the Braiga camp. These poets offer powerful testimonies concerning the views of the men and women who experienced uprooting, exile and displacement.  Oral poetry was more profound and significant than I had expected. My new book thus relies much more on this cultural mode of creative communication and imagination.

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

AA: This book is new and timely, for genocidal acts are still occurring. I am the only scholar who consistently has conducted research on this topic across three continents and in three languages (Arabic, English, and Italian) during the last ten years. I hope it will prove an original and trailblazing study based on critical methods, comparative analysis, and, most importantly, previously untapped primary sources. The book will appeal to scholars, students, and policy makers in various fields, such as European studies, American studies, African studies, Middle Eastern studies, conflict resolution, truth and reconciliation, and genocide studies. 

J: What other projects are you working on now?

AA: I plan to finish a second book on the Libyan genocide focusing on the problem of witness testimony, and decolonized archives and knowledge. 

J: How is silence produced through the struggle over memory across cultures?

AA: Mainstream scholarship still is ignoring genocide, empire, and imperialism, and framing history through the nation-state, progress, modernization, and Islam. Power and knowledge are interlinked, as the hidden history of the Libyan genocide is showing us. There is an alternative living history. Yet to recover it we need first critical examinations of academic social and political theories of the Arab world, which often assume that there is no civil society, and that consequently it must be introduced from the outside. I find this mode of thinking problematic and orientalist. Instead of inventing civil society within the Arab world, I argue there is a society that has existed for a long time, but one which has been completely ignored and overlooked. Let us review the common western view of modern Libya, a model which tends to discuss only whether Libya resembles francophone urban Tunisia or not, instead of reading its social history from its own Arab/Muslim and Ottoman dynamics.

 

Excerpt from the book

Introduction: Thinking About Forgotten Libyan Genocide

In October 1911, Italy invaded and occupied the coast of the former Ottoman provinces on Tarabulus al-Gharb. Invoking the restoration of the Roman rule, they renamed the province Libya, forming a new colony. With the advent of the fascist regime under Benito Mussolini in 1922 a new brutal policy was designed to conquer the colony and defeat the interior resistance. The people of Libya had resisted from the outset, and they mounted a major rebellion that the Italians would suppress only after 20 years of counter-insurgency culminating in genocidal policy. I am a grandson of those anti-colonial resistors. 

Between 1929 and 1934, thousands of Libyans lost their lives, directly murdered and victims of Italian deportations and internments that, I argue, amount to genocide. They were forceably removed from their homes, marched across vast tracks of deserts and mountains, and confined behind barbed wire in 16 concentration camps. This is a story that has escaped serious reckoning by the perpetrators and has been soft-peddled at best in the West. The Italians, so it is the commonly held myth, are not a people capable of genocide, certainly not when compared to their brutal German neighbors. Yet, it is a story that Libyans have recorded in their Arabic oral history and narratives, while remaining hidden and unexplored in systematic fashion, and never in the manner has that allowed us to comprehend and begin to understand the extent of their existence. It is the first genocide after the Armenian and Herero genocides during WWI. That is what I set out to do in this book, through cross-cultural critical, anthropological, literary, theoretical, and comparative readings of genocide studies. Why call it genocide? I would argue that it fits the requirements defined by the father of modern genocide studies, the Polish legal scholar Raphael Lemkin, in 1948 at the UN convention. He specifically identified two conditions. First, the intentionality of killing and second, the policy of destroying physical, biological, and cultural patterns of life. 

This book examines the hidden history of the Libyan genocide by the Italian colonial state that took place in eastern Libya between 1929 and 1934. The genocide resulted in a loss of 83,000 Libyan citizens as the population declined from 225,000 to 142,000 citizens. Some 110,000 civilians were forced to march from their homes to the harsh desert and then were interned in horrific concentration camps. Between 60,000 and 70,000, mostly rural people (including men, women, elderly, and children) and their 600,000 animals were starved and died of diseases. This mass killing and destruction of people and culture was the result of a 20-year anti-colonial resistance and represented, by all measures, genocide based on a racist colonial plan to crush local resistance and settle poor Italian peasants in the colony. The Italian state suppressed news about the genocide; evidence was destroyed, and the remaining files on the concentration camps were hard to find even after the end of fascism in Italy in 1943. After visiting Italy, in an attempt to locate files on the concentration camps, I came to the realization that it was not simply these sensitive files that were missing, but that there was a collective silence and amnesia which persisted. It is about time to recognize that the archives are ideologically constructed and they privilege and exclude certain groups and voices and, in the case of Italian colonial fascism, they cover up atrocities and genocide.

The Italian public’s refusal to recognize fascist colonial atrocities and Cold War politics compromised any attempt at war crimes trials for Italian Fascist leaders and generals. It is not surprising, then, that this case, until recently, was not even cited in books on comparative colonial and forgotten genocides. The invisibility of, and silence about, this story became a puzzle that needed to be solved. This awareness led me to pursue two strategies: to travel to eastern and southern Libya in order to find the survivors and listen to their stories about what happened to them and their families, and to read and research the fields of modern genocide and Holocaust studies and comparative fascism to understand how we might resolve these studies. The book has evolved as a critique and a recovery of alternative examination of the politics of language, identity, and cultural history of survival and healing. 

Long ago, Franz Fanon argued against universalizing and applying western Freudian psychoanalysis when he examined survivors of colonial trauma in Algeria and Tunisia in 1952. Instead, he advocated paying attention to local cultural and colonial specificity of trauma under colonialism. I found his critique helpful for understanding this hidden colonial history and question the American focus on psychoanalysis and cultural representations. Capturing the Libyan case required specialized knowledge of local culture, language and collective nonwestern views of suffering and healing. The survivors relied on their Muslim and Arab/African regional culture and values, but the intermittent and the genocide created a new collective identity for them after 1934. My biggest challenge was in examining and understanding the ways the survivors mediated and negotiated their early modern non nationalist culture and values and the violence of settler colonial “modernity.” 

This book is the product of a long personal and academic journey of discovery that began nearly twenty years ago. However, making sense of the material and overcoming the obstacles required deep reflections and assessment of my early childhood and education in central and southern Libya, my college education in Egypt, and my graduate schooling in the United States. I had no idea what I was going to discover—this book evolved as a journey and a challenge to make sense of the discovery. In short, when I could not find the main files on the case in Rome and only some in Tripoli, I turned to oral history in eastern and central Libya. 

I began to realize this hidden history is not just about a sad colonial brutality, but it is about Libya, Italy, and above all, the discovery of a dynamic creative oral culture. The discovery of living survivors’ narratives and culture became my most significant contribution. Prior to this investigation, I decided to critically examine my own nationalist public-school education in Independent Libya. This self-reexamination allowed me to discover and understand the regional culture of the people who were interned, and how they interpreted their experiences and reactions during and after the years of internment. It allowed me to investigate the silences and representations of colonial and nationalist historiographies, and to locate this hidden case within a larger comparative and transnational perspective, especially the merging links between colonial genocide and Holocaust scholarship. Above all, I had an opportunity to meet and listen to hundreds of ordinary Libyans and learn about their passions, views of colonial history, and humanity.

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.