Alison Glick, The Other End of the Sea (New Texts Out Now)

Alison Glick, The Other End of the Sea (New Texts Out Now)

Alison Glick, The Other End of the Sea (New Texts Out Now)

By : Alison Glick

Alison Glick, The Other End of the Sea (Interlink Publishing, 2021).

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

Alison Glick (AG): For a long time, I resisted writing about anything connected to the Middle East after I returned to the United States from living six years in the region. I tried and failed to write about different things in my life—my family, other things happening in the world. No matter what I wrote about, somehow my work led me back to the Middle East and my experience there.

In an essay workshop I took several years ago, the teacher’s feedback on my piece was, “I’m not sure what this is but it’s not an essay. It might be a book chapter. I think you need to write a book.” So, finally, I gave up resisting and wrote a memoir, because I always thought of myself as a non-fiction writer. When he saw the manuscript, my editor at Interlink encouraged me to turn it into a novel. He thought my literary writing style would lend itself to telling a story that was broader, more universal than that of a memoir, which is technically bound by what “really” happened.

At first the thought of fictionalizing the manuscript was terrifying because of how I had defined myself as a writer. Once I embraced the fear of the unknown and decided to trust the process (and my editor), the experience was liberating. I could create characters, tweak scenes in ways that added to the narrative, and craft a story that I hope appeals to readers beyond those interested in the Middle East. I drew on my experience in the region and on relationships I had with people, so it was also important to do what I could to respect the privacy of those individuals. Creating a work of fiction allowed me to do that, and to write a love story that reflects the experiences of others in very different situations.

It provides a glimpse into the lived experience of Palestinians...

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

AG: I think the book addresses a variety of issues, which I hope is one of its strengths. It provides a glimpse into the lived experience of Palestinians, as viewed through the lens of the non-Palestinian protagonist, Rebecca—occupation, settler colonialism, exile, state violence. But it also surfaces issues that are universal: loss, alienation, the cruelty of borders and who controls them, (re)building community and kinship in a world that is antagonistic to both, and my favorite—radical love.

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

AG: In many ways, almost everything I have written has led to this book. The reports and analysis I wrote while living in the Middle East helped develop my knowledge base and writing muscles. The few things I published after returning to the United States, including a brief excerpt of the manuscript-in-process, boosted my confidence after a long period of not writing. The big departure from previous work is this being my first published work of fiction.

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

AG: One of my goals was to write a book that would be read by those who do not know much about the Middle East, or who are open to exploring different ideas about the region. I think a novel is more likely to be picked up by such readers. As an activist, I am focused on reaching people whose positions on Palestine and other pertinent issues can and should change for the better. I hope that some who read the book will start rethinking what they believe and begin moving in the right direction (or should I say left direction). 

For example, the setting for a significant part of the book is Gaza, a place of incredible beauty and immense physical devastation. Gaza has played a pivotal role in the history not only of Palestine but the broader Middle East. Gaza is the subject of dozens of poems—love poems, really—written by poets across the Arab world. Yet, Israeli policy has deemed it a “lawn to be mowed” every few years with gravity bombs and white phosphorous. How many people hear the word “Gaza” and think of lush gardens filled with roses and lemon trees? Or a place where people court and fall in love? Gaza is a place of immense economic poverty but also vast emotional and creative riches. Imagine the possibilities if, instead of the images with which the mainstream media have polluted our minds, what people think of when they think of Gaza is a place that centers and sustains life. To me, that is Gaza. I hope after reading my novel, some will be almost as smitten with the place as was Rebecca, the narrator.

J: What other projects are you working on now?

AG: Another writer and I are developing a project that will focus on first-hand narratives of those who witnessed and participated in the first intifada. 

J: Your novel employs humor, often in unexpected places in the narrative. Why did you choose to use humor in this way?

AG: I think we underestimate the value of humor as a universal survival strategy, political tool, and means for social cohesion. One thing I came to understand and love about the Arab world is the importance and power of humor for people facing critical and dangerous situations. It demystifies oppressors and gives the oppressed a sense of power. Humor can be disarming in critical situations. Anyone who can find humor in the situations that the novel’s characters face is asserting control over conditions meant to render them powerless. Humor is also a way of disrupting the process of dehumanization—affirming our humanity in the face of forces meant to dehumanize us. I think it also allows readers, who have not been to these places or do not share these experiences, to relate to the characters. After all, when you laugh with, not at, someone, your perspective about that person or situation shifts. Sharing a laugh makes it that much harder to debase someone, to brand them an enemy.

 

Excerpt from the book (from Chapter 4, “Shotgun Wedding”, pp. 67-72) 

East across the expanse of two-story cinderblock buildings that formed the middle-class neighborhood of Gaza City, a plume of thick black smoke drifted into the startling blue sky— charcoal on pastel. As if on cue, minutes later the gunning engine of an army jeep could be heard before it could be seen roaring toward the barricade of burning tires. The deep thud of a fired tear gas canister was followed by the acrid scent of the fumes that carried on the wind. I picked up my pace to avoid the effects of the gas and wound my way deeper into unknown territory.

The jasmine vine reached down over the large metal gate to greet us as Lutfi and I pressed the intercom button and waited for Um Ayman to buzz us in. The gate was part of a privacy wall that was standard for most middle-class houses in Gaza, and like many this opened onto a well-tended garden, small patio and driveway. Passing through the garden and entering the house, we could hear the dialogue of an Arabic soap opera spilling into the hall. Dr. Riad’s mother lived on the ground floor and could usually be found watching TV from her sofa, which was strategically placed for her to observe the comings and goings of her son’s and daughter-in-law’s visitors. The door to her apartment was closed only when she was upstairs with Dr. Riad’s family.

Sabah al kheir, ya hajee. Good morning,” Lutfi and I greeted her in near unison.

Sabah al noor! Tefudulu. Good morning! Come in,” Um Riad’s cigarette-deepened voice replied.

Smoke from her skinny brown cigarillo curled up from the ashtray and seemed to dance in the late morning light. She looked up from her show and grinned widely at us from under a thin scarf. Her large gray eyes never hesitated to meet one’s gaze. Even seated alone watching an afternoon soap opera, she conveyed the authority of a family matriarch.

Shukran. Thank you,” we nodded, continuing up the stairs to Dr. Riad’s flat.

We rang the doorbell, and Dr. Riad’s middle son opened the door, grinning knowingly at me and extending his hand in greeting. We moved into the living room, past the blaring television with the other two boys gathered around it and into the more formal sitting room. Um Ayman emerged from the kitchen, wiping her hands on a dish towel, her sweet, cherub-like face beaming. She greeted us and motioned for us to sit while she returned to the kitchen to get us something cold to drink.

“Where is Zayn?” I asked.

Dr. Riad came down the stairs, an ever-present cigarette dangling from his lips.

“He’s gone to get the sheikh,” he managed without removing the Marlboro. Islamic law was the default jurisprudence for family legal matters under the occupation, so all marriages were performed by religious clerics in Gaza.

“But how?” I wondered aloud, knowing that Zayn couldn’t drive our orange Peugeot on a strike day.

“In an ambulance,” replied Dr. Riad.

No doubt he had used his connections at Shifa Hospital to facilitate things. My husband-to-be, thirty-five years old and on the lam from the Israeli military, was to be married to me, a Jewish woman from the Midwest, in Gaza, on a strike day, in the middle of the intifada, by a sheikh who was arriving in an ambulance.

Soon Zayn appeared with the sheikh, an older man with a spotty white beard and thick, square glasses so large they seemed to announce his presence a step or two before his actual arrival. He was cloaked in a sand-colored jebbeh and sported a matching emma, the robe and skullcap worn by Muslim clerics.

The sheikh took me in, his eyebrows arching above his massive glasses. He turned to Zayn and started to say something but stopped. Dr. Riad shook his hand and guided him to a chair. The sheikh hoisted his briefcase onto the coffee table that had been pushed close to him and ceremoniously began pulling out sheaves of paper and, finally, a pen.

He began completing the marriage certificate, directing his questions to Zayn. In Arabic he asked my name.

“Ra-bek-ah Klin,” Zayn replied, over articulating the foreign words so they could be transliterated into Arabic.

“Gaza is full of women but you could only find a foreigner to marry, Zayn?” the sheikh muttered in Arabic. His gaze remained on the papers as he pondered whether the “ei” in Klein should be represented by the Arabic letter “ya” or “ayn.”

Zayn chuckled and glanced at me. Lutfi shifted in his chair.

The sheikh looked up suddenly from his paperwork and shot a question at Zayn.

Khaberet abuk an hathe? Does your father know about this?”

“This is not the concern of my father, ya sheikh. Do you want to perform this marriage, or shall I bring someone else?”

He glared at Zayn a moment and returned to his writing.

Ism abuha. Her father’s name?” the Sheikh all but demanded of Zayn.

Ism abuee Marvin. My father’s name is Marvin,” I answered.

At the sound of my voice the sheikh’s head once again jerked up. His eyes—sweeping between me and Zayn—grew larger with each look at the bride and groom. I caught his gaze and smiled. He quickly turned back to scribbling.

I looked at Zayn, who was shielding his face with his hand and laughing noiselessly, his body heaving with the silent effort.

According to Islamic law, I was owed a mahr—a payment from the groom to the bride at the time of the marriage to show his intent to be a responsible husband. In order to complete the marriage contract, we agreed on the spot that mine would be one thousand Jordanian dinars (about fifteen hundred dollars at the time), one dinar of which was payable immediately, with the rest to be paid “at a future date.” Zayn had no cash on him, so my about-to-be-brother-in-law took out his wallet and handed over the marriage’s down payment.

The ceremony proceeded.

Bismallh, al rahman, al rahim. In the name of God, the most gracious, most compassionate,” the sheikh intoned, indicating the beginning of the ceremony.

But with each vow we made before God and the sheikh, Zayn seemed to lose it a little more. As I affirmed that I was the daughter of Marvin Max, Zayn’s body slid a little farther down in the red crushed velvet chair. A loud giggle escaped him. The sheikh’s face flushed from pink to crimson. Between muffled bursts of laughter, Zayn managed to squeeze out that he was indeed Zayn Omar Seif Majdalawi. Then the sheikh turned to Lutfi to affirm his identity as our witness, giving Zayn a chance to collect himself.

The sheikh focused once again on me. At his instruction, I turned to Zayn and said, “I wed myself to thee.”

With those words Zayn’s shoulders hunched. He squeezed back the tears in his eyes and opened his mouth wide, the laughter escaping unrestrained. The sudden burst of his voice reverberated off the sunlit walls of Dr. Riad’s living room. Riad, chuckling himself, tried to shush Zayn. At that point I began giggling as I watched the man who I think was my husband by then convulse in laughter. Even the face of quiet, subdued Lutfi broke into a wide grin.

We exchanged no self-written vows, nor lit a unity candle that day. But a ceremony ending with peals of laughter from Zayn—his expression of love, nervousness, fear—with me learning to laugh along, was the truest beginning of our marriage there could be.

Zayn regained some control, and we finished the brief ceremony, proclaiming our faithfulness before Allah and signing the marriage contract. The sheikh quickly gathered his papers, waving off Um Ayman’s invitation to stay for lunch. The ambulance was called to take him away.

Kufta (spiced meatballs in a tomato sauce) over rice, salad, and homemade pickled vegetables were followed by tiny cups of thick Arabic coffee. Then it was time for us to go home.

I had avoided thinking about the walk home in the blazing afternoon sun, hoping that the bride would be offered the same courtesy of a ride home as the sheikh, but not daring to ask. Relief rushed up in me when we walked out of the house and I could see the emergency lights shimmering in the mid-afternoon sun.

As we emerged into the blinding sunlight, the driver hopped out to open the back door. Lutfi held out his hand as I stepped onto the ledge and then into the ambulance. I squeezed in against the stretcher occupying most of the small space and clutched the low metal fold-down bench. As the vehicle jostled and bounced over the rutted, sandy streets of Gaza, I peered quizzically at the medical accoutrement lining the walls: bottles of antiseptic were stacked next to various-sized gauzes and bandages wrapped in the crinkly white paper that could be clenched in the mouth and ripped opened with one hand while the other hand stemmed a bleeding wound. Closer to the stretcher were tubes, oxygen bottles and square metal boxes marked with large red crosses, presumably opened when things got really bad.

The worse the roads got, the more the aluminum frame gurney shook and bounced, straining against the wheel locks. One particularly nasty rut bounced the metal frame into my knee. As I leaned over to push it back in place, the ghostly outlines of blood stains seemed to rise up from the otherwise white ironed sheets stretched across the gurney.

  • ALSO BY THIS AUTHOR

    • كتب: الجهة الأخرى من البحر

      كتب: الجهة الأخرى من البحر

      لفترة طويلة، قاومت الكتابة عن أي شيء يتعلق بالشرق الأوسط، منذ عودتي إلى الولايات المتحدة بعدما عشت لمدة ست سنوات في المنطقة. حاولت، ولكن فشلت في الكتابة عن أشياء مختلفة في حياتي-أسرتي، أو أشياء أخرى تحدث في العالم. 

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.