Sahar Khamis and Amel Mili, eds., Arab Women's Activism and Socio-Political Transformation: Unfinished Gendered Revolutions (New Texts Out Now)

Sahar Khamis and Amel Mili, eds., Arab Women's Activism and Socio-Political Transformation: Unfinished Gendered Revolutions (New Texts Out Now)

Sahar Khamis and Amel Mili, eds., Arab Women's Activism and Socio-Political Transformation: Unfinished Gendered Revolutions (New Texts Out Now)

By : Sahar Khamis and Amel Mili

Sahar Khamis and Amel Mili (eds.), Arab Women's Activism and Socio-Political Transformation: Unfinished Gendered Revolutions (Palgrave Macmillan, 2018). 

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

Sahar Khamis and Amel Mili (SK & AM): We felt the need to dispel a number of persistent stereotypes and misconceptions about Arab women and their lived realities, identities, challenges, and resistances. Arab women largely suffer from three layers of intertwined invisibilities at the socioeconomic, academic, and media levels. In an effort to overcome these multiple invisibilities, we decided to embark on the journey of putting together this edited volume to unpack the varied struggles in which Arab women are engaging on three parallel levels: politically, socially, and legally. 

We formulated the broad themes and goals of this edited volume, and then invited different authors we perceived as best suited to achieve these goals, based on their own areas of expertise and previous publication records. We gave the authors the necessary latitude to draw on their varied perspectives and backgrounds when formulating the main themes and arguments of their individual chapters. We were keen to ensure maximum diversity by inviting authors from different Arab countries, including Egypt, Lebanon, Bahrain, Tunisia, and Morocco, as well as authors from outside the Arab world including in the United States and Japan. We were equally keen to achieve gender diversity by including a male author, who wrote an excellent chapter on Morocco, because we truly believe in the value and significance of diversity across both national and gender levels. 

Like any edited volume, this book represents a snapshot of the intellectual reflections of both the contributors and editors around the various topics which are tackled in this volume.

... the study of Arab women’s struggles to achieve gender equality is inseparable from the study of political transitions for democracy.

J: What is the relationship between democracy and gender rights in the MENA region?

SK & AM: Despite the fact that gender standards and democratic standards are highly correlated worldwide, the correlation between them has not been deeply investigated in many countries in the MENA region. Therefore, we felt the pressing need to explore the intertwined evolutions of gendered struggles and sociopolitical transformations in the MENA region and to address their many intersections and overlaps.

Like democracy, gender equality has been largely missing in the MENA region, and, therefore, the study of Arab women’s struggles to achieve gender equality is inseparable from the study of political transitions for democracy. In light of recent developments in the MENA region, broadly defined as the “Arab Spring” uprisings, women played central roles, both as actors of change and subjects of this change. 

There is ample evidence that Arab women and their organizations played a key role in political organization and mobilization and in defining the terms of the political debate during these transitions. Unsurprisingly, this unique “revolutionary moment” was characterized by an increased visibility of Arab women who emerged as both actors as well as symbols of the revolution. However, as soon as the “constitutional building” process started to redraw existing constitutions in some Arab countries, and to negotiate new ones in other countries, the “Arab Spring” seemed to enter a new discursive space that would dictate the terms of what success and failure meant, and women became subjects of this change. Detours from democratic transitions which have been witnessed in the so-called “post-Arab Spring” countries, albeit in various forms and to various degrees, have had detrimental effects on the intertwined struggle for gender equality and women’s rights.

Therefore, our attempt to examine women’s resistances and continued struggles for a more equitable and egalitarian society is also an attempt to shed light on the intertwined evolutions of gendered struggles and sociopolitical transformations taking place in the MENA region and their potential impact on the future of democracy in this volatile part of the world. Far from being completed, these efforts and struggles are still ongoing and evolving, as the subtitle of this edited volume, “Unfinished Gendered Revolutions,” implies.

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

SK & AM: This book examines Arab women’s multiple resistances and continued struggles to secure gender equality and to create more egalitarian societies. It attempts to unpack the complexities and nuances of the intertwined evolutions of gender activism and sociopolitical transformations in the MENA region. We covered a wide range of topics in a number of Arab countries, ranging from women’s struggle to achieve full citizenship rights and gender equality in Tunisia, Morocco, and Egypt to their fight against sexual harassment in Egypt, their ongoing social battles in Saudi Arabia, and their political struggles to amplify their voices in Lebanon and Bahrain. 

The main focus of the book is the gendered aspect of the sociopolitical transitions which have been taking place in the Arab region before, during, and after the so-called “Arab Spring” uprisings. While we fully acknowledge the significance of these uprisings, and their multiple and far-reaching effects, we resist the temptation to limit the analysis of Arab women’s activisms and struggles to the confines of this historical moment. Rather, we adopt a more holistic and comprehensive perspective which accounts for Arab women’s feminist movements and struggles across a wider timeframe.

Although the scope of this book extends temporally beyond the “Arab Spring” uprisings, and it extends spatially to cover countries which were part of this wave of upheaval as well as those which were not, it still pays special attention to the “Arab Spring” as a particularly important turning point in contemporary Arab history. It recognizes it had numerous implications for Arab women’s ongoing political, social, and legal struggles, which are acknowledged and addressed in this edited volume. 

In analyzing these complex and intertwined processes, we avoid faulty assumptions of causality between gendered activisms and resistances, on the one hand, and the shift towards sociopolitical transformation and democratic reform, on the other hand. In other words, we do not assume that one is directly caused by the other, or that one necessarily leads to the other. Rather, we deal with both phenomena and depict them as simply correlated and associated with each other, with a possible “catalyzing” effect whereby each could possibly boost and speed up the other, rather than create it.

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

SK: As an ethnographer, a feminist researcher, and an Affiliate Professor of women’s studies, the notion of women’s rights and their struggle for these rights has always occupied my mind. Therefore, the “Arab Spring” moment, especially the visibility of Arab women’s roles in it and their struggles to pave the way for it and to contribute to its initial success, certainly had a huge impact on my research agenda. I have heavily focused on the notion of “cyberactivism,” and the accompanying sister phenomenon of “cyberfeminism,” in a lot of my research studies, in order to unpack the nuances and complexities of these phenomena, their developments, and their impacts. In doing so, I tried to steer away from the notion of “technological determinism,” which positions social media as the perfect tools for democratic reform and transformation, by accounting for myriad other factors that have been tactfully tackled in the various chapters in this edited volume. Therefore, this edited volume is a natural extension of my scholarship in this area of research. 

AM: In my previous work, I have analyzed the correlation between democratization and women’s rights in the Maghreb. My previous empirical research tackled the paradox that gender standards and democratic standards are not correlated in the Maghreb, despite ample evidence that these two factors are highly correlated worldwide. In light of recent developments in the MENA region and the visibility and centrality of women’s roles in the midst of the 2011 uprisings and beyond, including their continued struggles during the so-called “constitutional building” phase, I wanted to revisit this “paradox” again and to shed more light on it. That is how the theme of this book intersects with my previous research agenda. 

J: What other projects are you working on now?

SK: My current research agenda mirrors the new realities in the Arab political and mediated landscapes a decade after the “Arab Spring,” by focusing on the shifts towards increased digital authoritarianism in this volatile region. I am writing on the heightened governmental crackdowns on the opponents of authoritarian regimes, both at home and in the diaspora, as well as online and offline, which escalated amid the Covid-19 pandemic. I am paying special attention to the gender-related implications of these new developments.

AM: I am currently expanding my research on the significance of legal activism in the Arab world and its implications for women’s rights, with a special focus on the role that the administrative court in Tunisia has played during the “Arab Spring” and beyond, to support the democratic transition, in general, and gender equality, in particular. 

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

SK & AM: This edited volume should be of interest to both a general, mainstream audience who would like to understand gender dynamics in the MENA region, as well as a specialized, academic audience. The academic audience would include faculty, students, and researchers interested in understanding the intersections of gendered activism and sociopolitical transitions in the MENA region, in particular, and the sociopolitical dynamics of this region, more broadly. We hope that this edited volume can help readers gain better and deeper insight into the sociopolitical forces at play in the MENA region, which are constantly impacting Arab women’s social, political, and legal realities. We also hope it will help readers obtain a more holistic and nuanced understanding of how past and recent developments in this region may overlap, intersect, or diverge when it comes to influencing these dynamic realities, and why this is the case.

 

Excerpt from the book (from the Introduction, pp. 1-3)

When in December 2010 a street vendor from a small town in central Tunisia self-immolated in a desperate act of protest against both economic deprivation and the humiliation resulting from mistreatment by the police and local authorities, he unwittingly opened the floodgates of longstanding discontent and frustration at the regime of president Ben Ali, and inspired citizens across the region to stand up against their respective regimes, long perceived to be corrupt, incompetent, and illegitimate. The impact of the tweeted image of this young man setting himself on fire was so profound that it prompted some observers to claim that the flames metaphorically ignited a wildfire that engulfed the entire Arab region. 

Following the example of Tunisians, citizens across the region conquered their fears, raised their voices, and felt empowered to stand up and challenge the authority of their tyrannical regimes, demanding political and social reforms. These sweeping regional uprisings came to be known as the “Arab Spring” or the “Arab Awakening.” While different Arab countries embarked on different journeys in their political transitions, all have experienced a level of public debate that was unprecedented, in both substance and boldness. In many of these countries, political parties and civil society organizations argued in favor of drafting and enacting new constitutions in an attempt to break away from the past, and to ensure that it never returns.

Very early on, gender issues took center stage in the sociopolitical transformations and debates that arose in the context of the Arab Spring uprisings. There are several reasons for the emergence of gender issues at the heart of these sociopolitical transitions and struggles in the Arab world. 

One important reason for the prominence of gender issues is the fact that women played an important and prominent role in political transitions in the so-called Arab Spring countries. Women of all ages, socioeconomic backgrounds, religious orientations, and political ideologies emerged as prominent figures in the midst of these uprisings, carving new places for themselves, even in some of the most traditional, conservative communities, as heroines, public opinion leaders, and role models, for both men and women to look up to and emulate. Many of them took to the streets, side by side with men, facing the dangers of being killed, arrested, or harassed, with amazing bravery and unmatched courage and many of them resorted to new media tools, such as social media applications, to advance their struggles and support their causes (Al-Malki et al. 2012; Heideman and Youssef 2012; Khamis 2011, 2013; Radsch 2011, 2012; Radsch and Khamis 2013).

Through engaging in these multiple forms of struggle, Arab women were, in fact, contesting and redefining new gendered spaces, politically, legally, and socially, which involved risk-taking and the exercise of agency, despite all forms of intimidation and in the face of many constraints. Images and records of the Arab Spring not only confirm the ubiquitous presence of women alongside men in virtually all stages of the uprisings but also attest to their visible and prominent leadership roles. Many women have been seen at the forefront of protests and marches, while others were caught on camera, defying army soldiers, and pushing through riot police and barricades.

These acts of heroism, on the one hand, confirm the historical continuity of Arab women’s struggles, through both social and political movements, while, on the other hand, they signal important shifts in how Arab women articulate and perform their subjectivities as agents of change. This is especially true since, in engaging in these forms of struggle, Arab women were not just confining themselves to stereotypical gender roles, such as nurturing or supporting men in their struggle for freedom; rather, they assumed non-stereotypical gender roles by being in the front lines of resistance, risking their own lives, and exposing themselves to the dangers of arrest or assault. Therefore, we can confidently say that the Arab Spring unveiled “numerous examples of courageous Arab women heroes risking not only their reputation but also their physical safety for the sake of reform” (Al-Malki et al. 2012, p. 81). 

In doing so, they were determined to merge the struggle for equal citizenship and full participation in the political arena with that for greater gender equality in the social arena in their newly transforming societies and transitioning states. For this reason, it has been said that while men were fighting one struggle in the midst of the Arab Spring movements—namely, the political struggle to end dictatorship and to pave the way for democracy—Arab women were fighting two parallel struggles: one to end political injustice and the other to end social injustice simultaneously (Al-Malki et al. 2012; Khamis 2013). 

In other words, it could be said that another reason for the prominence of gender issues in the midst of the Arab Spring or Arab Awakening movements is the crossover from the political to the social realm, and vice versa, as illustrated by the myriad of overlapping issues and intersecting activities which Arab women took part in, and across these two domains simultaneously.

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.