Ihsan Abdel Kouddous, translated by Jonathan Smolin, I Do Not Sleep: A Novel (New Texts Out Now)

Ihsan Abdel Kouddous, translated by Jonathan Smolin, I Do Not Sleep: A Novel (New Texts Out Now)

Ihsan Abdel Kouddous, translated by Jonathan Smolin, I Do Not Sleep: A Novel (New Texts Out Now)

By : Jonathan Smolin

Ihsan Abdel Kouddous, translated by Jonathan Smolin, I Do Not Sleep: A Novel (Hoopoe, an imprint of The American University in Cairo Press, 2022).

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

Jonathan Smolin (JS): I translated this novel because there was an urgent need for Ihsan Abdel Kouddous to appear in English. Ihsan was one of the most prolific and popular writers of Arabic during the twentieth century. He wrote over twenty classic novels and six hundred short stories. Almost fifty films, including some of the most important films in the history of Egyptian cinema, were adapted from his work. He was also one of the most productive Arabic journalists of the twentieth century, writing at least one and sometimes several political and cultural editorials each week for decades. Yet, somehow, none of his writings have been widely available in English. After reading his novels, I picked I Do Not Sleep as the inaugural translation because of its masterful plot, thrilling pacing, and brilliant character development. The novel was a sensation when it was first serialized in the mid-1950s in Rose El Youssef, Egypt’s most popular weekly at the time, inspiring both indignant outrage and devoted admiration for the way it broke taboos on gender, sexuality, and family life. Even though the novel was written almost seventy years ago, its timeless themes of repressed sexual desire and destructive jealousy resonate as powerfully today as in the height Nasser’s Egypt, when the novel was published.

I Do Not Sleep represents a metaphorical confession of Ihsan’s own anxiety, regret, and despair at the results and consequences of working to inadvertently install military dictatorship in the country.

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

JS: As I wrote in the introduction to the translation, I Do Not Sleep can be read on two entirely different levels. On one level, it is an epistolary novel written to Ihsan Abdel Kouddous by a young woman named Nadia Lutfi. In the letter, Nadia recounts coming home from boarding school to discover that her bachelor father has gotten married. Engulfed in jealous rage, Nadia plots to expel her new stepmother from the house and install a new wife, whom she carefully selects for her father. The novel could therefore be read as a sensational confession of family scandal. On another level, however, the novel alludes in shocking ways to Ihsan’s own personal history of collaborating with the Free Officers before the 1952 coup to spark the revolution, expel the British from the country, and embed Gamal Abdel Nasser in Egypt. In this reading, I Do Not Sleep represents a metaphorical confession of Ihsan’s own anxiety, regret, and despair at the results and consequences of working to inadvertently install military dictatorship in the country. 

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

JS: I Do Not Sleep was a major turning point for Ihsan. The novel was significantly more complex and longer than his previous work. It also stirred up public controversy much more than any of his previous fiction. Rose El Youssef, where the novel was serialized, received hundreds of letters from readers about the novel, many of them expressing outrage at its depiction of female sexuality, scandal, and deception. Mothers accused Ihsan of harming the morality of their daughters while others accused him of being an existentialist, a term synonymous at the time with licentiousness. Many readers, including the Emir of Kuwait, expressed their tremendous admiration for the ground-breaking novel. The development of the narrator, Nadia Lutfi, was so convincing that many men wrote into the magazine asking to meet her or even proposing marriage.

As for my work as translator, this is the first novel that I have translated from Egypt. My first two translations were ground-breaking police novels by the Moroccan writer Abdelilah Hamdouchi (The Final Bet and The White Fly). I then translated the masterful A Rare Blue Bird Flies with Me by the Moroccan novelist and dramatist Youssef Fadel, a novel which explores the 1970s in Morocco, a period of human rights abuses known as the Years of Lead, through a fictional collage of real-life memoirs of political imprisonment. I Do Not Sleep, an Egyptian classic written and set during the mid-1950s, is therefore a major departure for me as a translator. Nonetheless, I took on the project out of a deep conviction that there was an urgent need for Ihsan to appear in English, a sentiment that I felt about both Hamdouchi and Fadel before I began translating their work. 

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

JS: Ihsan is still so popular across the Middle East, yet he is completely unknown outside of the region. First and foremost, I want the wider English public to discover this brilliant writer for themselves. He was such an innovator, combining elements of the popular press with fiction on a wide scale for the first time in the Arab world. His language is crisp and catchy, almost cinematic. His topics are universal in their appeal—jealousy, desire, rage, regret—but he embedded them all firmly in the historical moment in which he wrote, which was the height of Nasser’s Egypt. I also hope that people interested in the Middle East in general and Egypt in particular read the novel. Much of the history of modern Arabic literature has been impacted by what novels have been translated to English. Ihsan, therefore, has not received the critical attention that he deserves for his role in developing and popularizing modern Arabic fiction. I hope that the appearance of I Do Not Sleep—as well as my forthcoming translation of another masterpiece of his—will help rewrite this history.

J: What other projects are you working on now? 

JS: I am currently editing my translation of another masterpiece by Ihsan, tentatively entitled A Nose and Three Eyes. This novel was first serialized in 1963-64 and set off a scandal that engulfed Ihsan and the magazine where it was published. By the time the novel was completed, Ihsan became the first novelist brought before the Egyptian parliament under charges of harming public morality. Once Ihsan was interrogated by the police for the novel, he took his case directly to Gamal Abdel Nasser, who ended the prosecution. Nonetheless, as a result of the novel, Ihsan lost his long-time position as editor-in-chief of Rose El Youssef and was exiled from Egyptian public life for nearly two years. With the publication of A Nose and Three Eyes in English, readers will not only encounter Ihsan at the height of his literary powers but also discover the scandal, little known until now, surrounding the first novelist in the modern Middle East charged with harming public morality for writing fiction. 

J: When will Hoopoe Press publish the next translation of Ihsan’s work? 

JS: Spring 2023, assuming no Covid delays!

 

Excerpt from the book (from Chapter One, pp. 18-23)

I was fourteen. I had an older schoolmate named Kawthar. Kawthar wasn’t my friend, but I liked her. She was dark, beautiful, stylish, confident, and nice. She walked as if she were floating on air and talked as if she were singing a beautiful tune. Her smile was radiant and when she let her long black hair hang down her back she was like an angel protecting night from day. 

All the girls loved her. 

During summer break, I met Kawthar on Sidi Bishr beach in Alexandria. There wasn’t anything between us but a passing “hello” that we’d exchange every morning while we were walking on the beach. Days passed, and I noticed that my cousin Medhat was following her wherever she went. He’d spend the day under the umbrella in front of her cabin, only getting up from under it when Kawthar left her cabin. 

It was easy to see that love had sprung up between them. That kind of pure, innocent love that grows between a girl whose family kept a close watch over her and a young man with strong character and good intentions; a love that doesn’t usually go beyond words exchanged stealthily behind the cabin, far from the family’s eyes. 

My cousin didn’t tell me about his love, but he became more interested in me, inviting me to sit with him under his umbrella. He’d talk to me for a long time, finally ending with him chatting about my school and classmates. He knew Kaw- thar was my classmate. He wanted me to talk about her, but I ignored what he was after and I kept quiet. When you read my story, you’ll know that I’m good at staying quiet.

Then Kawthar became interested in me. She started trying hard to befriend me. She insisted on inviting me to her cabin and giving me ice cream. But, without thinking about it, I blocked her attempts, ignoring the friendship she was offering me. 

The wicked feeling started creeping into my chest. 

I started feeling the ugly desire to destroy the doll . . . and there were two dolls in front of me to destroy! 

I wonder what pushes children to destroy dolls. 

I swear to you that I resisted this feeling and desire as hard as I could, with all my will and all my nerves. There wasn’t any rational reason making me revolt against this pure, innocent love. I loved my cousin like a brother and I wished nothing but the best for him. I just about loved Kawthar, and I wanted the best for her too. I had no excuse to hate them or envy them or fear one could harm the other. So why did I think about destroying them? Why did I commit a crime against them?

I succeeded in controlling this evil feeling all summer. All I did was spend a lot of time with my cousin, sitting with him under his umbrella and having fun with him, especially when Kawthar was in her cabin. Up until that time, I hadn’t launched into any set plan. 

We returned to Cairo and went back to school, where I was surprised by all the girls talking about Kawthar’s love for my cousin Medhat.

I pretended to ignore all this talk. I didn’t join in and I didn’t encourage anyone to talk about it with me. But it started fanning the flames of evil in my chest, and the craving to destroy started to overwhelm me. When I went to bed, I started not being able to sleep. I’d think and think, until I came up with a plan and started executing it. I began savoring the feeling, savoring the fear, terror, and hesitation, the pleasure of putting my intelligence to the test, the intoxicating anticipation, the excitement of the gambler as he bets everything he’s got.

I was friends with one of the neighbor girls, who wasn’t a classmate. I came to an understanding with her and then told her about the plan. 

I called Medhat and when I heard his voice, I handed the phone to my friend, who spoke with feigned anxiety and fear, as if someone were keeping tabs on her. I kept my ear pressed against the phone next to hers so I could hear.

“Hello? Medhat? How are you?”

“How are you?” he asked. “Who’s this?” 

“You don’t know my voice, Medhat?” she asked. “It’s Kawthar.”

“Kawthar!” Medhat cried in a trembling voice. “I didn’t know how I could see you or talk to you since—” 

“I can’t talk now.” My friend cut him off, mimicking Kawthar’s voice. “Au revoir.”  

“But listen, Kawthar—” 

“Later, later, Medhat.” She hung up.

I was exhilarated—by the cleverness of my own plan!

Two days later, we talked to Medhat again, my friend speaking as if she were Kawthar, using the same scared voice, rushed as if someone were keeping tabs on her. 

“Listen, Medhat, come by tomorrow in front of the school as we’re leaving so I can see you. Au revoir.”

The poor guy didn’t get a chance to say a word.

The next day, I went to school pretending to be absent-minded, confused, and sad. I put my arm around one of my classmates.

“Can I tell you a secret?” I whispered, leaning toward her. “But swear you won’t tell anyone.”

My classmate’s eyes sparkled in delight. None of the girls at school knew a single secret about me. My beauty—and I’m not exaggerating if I tell you that I was the most beautiful girl in the school—pushed the other girls to try to gain my friendship and learn my secrets, but I’d frustrate them and not tell them a thing. I relished the knowledge that I was a locked box to them. 

“I swear!” my classmate declared. “I swear I won’t tell anyone!”

“My cousin is driving by the school door to see me,” I told her, pretending to hesitate shyly. “I want you to distract Principal Zeinab so I can talk to him quickly.”

My classmate opened her mouth wide in shock. “Your cousin Medhat?” she asked. 

“Yes.” 

“Do you love him?” 

“Please. He’s the one who loves me.” 

“So why haven’t you talked with your family about it?” 

“I’ll tell you later.”

“Tell me, Nadia, so I know how to play along with you.”

“He came to propose, but Daddy won’t agree to it until he finishes university, when I’ll be nineteen. He hasn’t come back to the house since.”

My classmate’s eyes became so wide that she looked like an idiot.

“But, but . . .” she stammered, then fell silent.

“But what?” I asked, knowing what she wanted to say.

“Nothing!”

I don’t need to tell you that my “secret” spread like wildfire among the students that same day, until it reached Kawthar. 

I saw her from a distance, anxious and miserable, as if she’d aged a hundred years.

We walked out of school.

I played the role of the confused, nervous girl. I started looking around until I saw my cousin in his car. I then looked at my classmate as if asking her for help, pushing her to follow through on her promise. And, indeed, she started talking to Principal Zeinab while the students were getting in the school vans.

I walked toward my cousin’s car and started talking to him anxiously and hurriedly, as if I were committing a crime. I asked him about my aunt, his brothers, and my uncle in a tone closer to sweet nothings. He responded curtly, looking around shyly and hesitantly for Kawthar. I kept moving my head in front of him so he couldn’t see her. 

I left my cousin and went over to get in the school van.

The students greeted me with winks and smiles, except for Kawthar, who was silent and introverted. Her face was pale, as if I’d sucked out all of her blood. 

My classmate came over to me.

“What did he say?” she asked impatiently. 

“He wants to meet me away from school,” I whispered. “But I don’t want to.” 

I smiled to myself. I felt a wicked intoxication—the intoxication of conceit about my own intelligence. 

After that, I was able to make my cousin wait in front of the school gates twice. Each time, I played the same role, sucking more of Kawthar’s blood. 

I then moved on to the second part of the plan, as if the first hadn’t been enough.

For days, we didn’t call my cousin. Then my dear neighbor and I called him again.

“Where have you been, Kawthar?” I heard him say as if his heart were crushed under the weight of his desire. “You made me so worried that I looked through the phone- book for your number until I found it. But whenever I call, I hear a different voice and I hang up. Where have you been?” 

“I can’t, Medhat,” my friend responded as I whispered the words to her. “I can’t call because the telephone is in the office and my father sits there all day long.” 

“What then?” Medhat asked, as if looking for the path to salvation. “Will we just go on like this? For two weeks, I’ve chained myself next to the phone, waiting for you to call.”

“Listen, Medhat,” my friend said, pretending to be in a rush. “Send me a letter and I’ll write back. There’s no other way. Au revoir!”

“But wait, Kawthar!” 

“I can’t. My father’s coming. Au revoir!”

Two days later, I went to the post office and got Medhat’s letter. I opened it and read it. I felt my heart plunge like it was running away from me. It was a pure, tender, elegant letter full of passion, love, and torture restrained by pride, like a man’s tears that didn’t fall but remained shining in his eyes. 

I didn’t sleep.

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.