Ebtihal Mahadeen, Women and the Media in Jordan: Gender, Power, Resistance (New Texts Out Now)

Ebtihal Mahadeen, Women and the Media in Jordan: Gender, Power, Resistance (New Texts Out Now)

Ebtihal Mahadeen, Women and the Media in Jordan: Gender, Power, Resistance (New Texts Out Now)

By : Ebtihal Mahadeen

Ebtihal Mahadeen, Women and the Media in Jordan: Gender, Power, Resistance (Palgrave Macmillan, 2022).

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

Ebtihal Mahadeen (EM): The book is an attempt to weave together academic necessity with personal and political interest in questions of gender dynamics in/and the media in Jordan. I worked on it during the pandemic and multiple strict lockdowns, so it feels also like a personal triumph of sorts! 

I have always felt that research on Jordan is a bit lacking, in the sense that it can be easily charted across a few distinct lines of inquiry to the detriment of others—gender and media studies being some of the latter. It is a bit of a black hole in so far as there is very little academic research that applies a feminist, critical lens to questions of gender and the media. For example, to my knowledge, there are no comparable books that explicitly and singularly focus on gender-media dynamics in the country. So this book is my attempt to address this gap and to contribute to correcting the bias that does exist in academic literature on Jordan. It is also partly motivated by a personal (and political) desire to engage critically with these questions, being a Jordanian scholar myself, having been brought up in Jordan, and having worked in Jordanian media in a previous life. My entire academic career has been centered on unpacking and understanding gender issues in Jordan, particularly as they manifest through the media. So it made sense to fulfil these various desires and impetuses in a monograph.

I hope to contribute to an understanding of how gender dynamics shape media messages and the mediascape in Jordan, and how those in turn shape gender relations...

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

EM: This book provides a feminist, critical study of how gender power relations are played out through and across multiple mediated arenas in contemporary Jordan. It departs from an understanding of the status of women in Jordan as highly charged subjects, and a view of the media as not just a locale where tensions play out, but also as an important arena for contestation and resistance. So, in this work I examine the dynamic relationship between women and the media in Jordan as it manifests at three key levels: labor, representation, and activism. To this end, I engage with wider issues such as the political economy of the media, regulatory and legal frameworks, the economic participation of Jordanian women, the history of Jordanian feminist activism, gender-based violence, and the political context of the Arab Spring in Jordan. 

As a feminist scholar and a Jordanian, I hope to contribute to an understanding of how gender dynamics shape media messages and the mediascape in Jordan, and how those in turn shape gender relations, be that by reinforcing and perpetuating gender inequality or contesting and challenging it. My approach here is to select case studies to unpack the complex role of legal, political, and social factors in shaping women’s relationship to the media. Throughout, I prioritize and center the experiences of women and highlight their agency, disobedience, and efforts to negotiate and resist the limitations imposed by Jordanian patriarchy. In doing so, I illustrate how gender, power, and resistance interplay through and within Jordanian media. 

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

EM: The book builds on my previous research, which has always been located at the nexus between gender and media studies. My previous research has covered such areas as representations of femininities and masculinities in Jordanian media, as well as questions of media hegemony, activism, and the gendered politics of culture. But the book also consolidates this research and, in my view, is the fruit of all that previous work. 

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

EM: I hope the book is useful to researchers and students working within the fields of media studies, gender studies, Middle East studies, and feminist media studies. Beyond the strictly academic, I hope the book is found useful and enjoyed by media practitioners, those concerned with women’s rights in Jordan, and the Jordanian public.

While this is an academic text, I have made a conscious attempt to make it as accessible as possible, and have selected my case studies with care to ensure the analysis is relevant and impactful beyond academia—which I find often to be interested in only speaking to itself. I am hopeful for this book to reach a broader audience, as my findings can be carried forward to inform policy and practice both in Jordanian media institutions and at the level of women’s rights activism.

J: What other projects are you working on now? 

EM: I am currently in the planning stages of another book project that, again, centers women’s experiences and voices. This new project does this in a different way, however, through listening to Arabic-speaking feminist interventions and debates (in translation). This means a turn away from strictly media-focused and Jordan-focused research, and an opening up of my work to broader geographical and thematic areas. I am very excited about this new project as it will contribute to debates on decolonizing feminism(s) and will play its part in de-centering White, Anglo-European discourses on women’s rights and feminist activism. 

 

Excerpt from the book (from the Introduction, pp. 1-11)

Why write about women and the media in Jordan? For one, there is a dearth of feminist media research focusing on Jordan and the wider Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region more generally. Jordan, specifically, seems not to capture the attention of many scholars of media studies or gender studies whose work otherwise focuses on neighbouring countries such as Egypt, Palestine, Iraq, and Syria. In contrast to its neighbours, Jordan is a country renowned for its political stability and ability to survive in a turbulent region. Yet despite the relative lack of turmoil and conflict (both very attractive to researchers of the MENA), the country makes for a rich subject of study: a patriarchal, conservative, Arab and Muslim-majority country with a rich history and a dynamic social makeup as a result of changing economic conditions, waves of refugees, ever-evolving internal and external political dynamics, advanced information and communication technologies, a booming media scene, and an overwhelmingly young and educated population—this profile makes for an interesting subject of study indeed. Specifically, the interplay between gender and media in Jordan is worthy of study. It is often in mediated locations that we can observe assertions and contestations of gendered power through dominant and counter-discourses, activism, and even institutional and self-censorship. Similarly, it is only by taking a critical, gender-sensitive analytical lens to the workings of the media that we can truly unpack how it functions, in terms of the legal and regulatory frameworks that govern it, its political economy and employment practices, as well as its messages and representations.

[…]

Like other Jordanians, I witnessed the country undergoing deep social, economic, and political transformations in the 1990s and 2000s. During this time, great strides were made towards improving women’s access to economic opportunities and some progress was made on their legal rights as well. Yet to say that Jordan is a patriarchy is stating the obvious. But what concrete evidence do we have to diagnose Jordan as a patriarchy? This is not a rhetorical question, especially at a time when the articulation of a gender equality agenda elicits the seemingly jokey, but deadly serious response that I have often heard in Jordan: “women have all the rights they need, now we should demand rights for men!”. So what evidence do we have that Jordanian women do not, in fact, “have all the rights they need”? What is happening at the legal, political, economic, and social levels that would expose such dismissive responses for what they are: false? What does it mean to be a woman in Jordan?

[…]

I, along with other Jordanians, also witnessed the rise and diversification of Jordanian media first-hand. We witnessed its transformation from a very limited offering of official, state-owned television, radio, and newspapers that spoke in the name of the state and conveyed its viewpoint, to a booming landscape of online and traditional media that now includes privately owned satellite television channels, news websites, tens of radio stations, and numerous publications. Early investment in the infrastructure and education needed to build and sustain information and communications technologies and a push to put Jordan on the map with the advent of the internet meant that rapid developments took place and private investments flourished, especially in internet provision and online media. Yet, counterintuitively, legal frameworks governing Jordanian media and those relating to freedom of speech did not keep pace with the technological developments that occurred and, indeed, heavily impacted on the potential and the scope of Jordan’s expanding media scene. The waves of modest opening then rigid pushback against media freedoms continue unabated, and the country’s international ranking in media freedoms and freedom of expression have suffered as result.

[…] 

As a feminist scholar and a Jordanian, I hope to contribute to an understanding of how gender dynamics shape media messages and the mediascape in Jordan, and how those in turn shape gender relations, be that by reinforcing and perpetuating gender inequality or contesting and challenging it. To this end, in this work I introduce a number of analyses that each focus on a specific angle of the women-media interaction. I present this book as a concise, non-exhaustive tour of the key issues I argue are paramount to understanding the spectrum of dynamics between women and the media in Jordan, these include legal and regulatory frameworks, the political economy of the media, media labour and its gendered nature, feminist (and anti-feminist) media activism, representations and discourses, and the political utilisation of the media and patriarchal gender norms. 

In Chapter 2, I start with a discussion of the Jordanian mediascape through highlighting the key milestones that have shaped it. This dynamic, contradictory mediascape is highly responsive to the political, economic, and social context in the country, and to advances in technologies and infrastructure. It is also extremely sensitive, and indeed in many ways restricted by regulatory and legal frameworks that are themselves bound to domestic, regional, and international dynamics. I make a concerted effort to link, where possible, these frameworks to the political economy of Jordanian media and I show how they have a direct impact on it, leading to concentrated ownership, poor employment practices, and real obstacles to achieving geographical parity and content diversification. 

In Chapter 3, I turn my attention to building on this preliminary overview to a more detailed investigation of the experiences of female media professionals. Based on qualitative interviews, this chapter provides a gendered analysis of the conditions of these women’s employment, covering the obstacles they face within the media sector. Not surprisingly, female media professionals face obstacles similar to those of other working Jordanian women: balancing their careers with their family life, sexual harassment, pay discrimination, and restricted career progression, among others. Yet they also face a unique set of limitations due to the unique set of demands their media careers make of them. To shed light on women’s experiences, I interviewed twenty-one female media professionals in the summer of 2017 to gain a better understanding of their experiences working in Jordanian media. My respondents were diverse in terms of their specialisations (TV, radio, print and online media, media education and research) and at different stages in their careers. I was keen to dig deeper into their experiences, and unlike previous studies, carved out space for their voices rather than just reporting numbers and statistics that conceal much. Through this fieldwork, I found that these women had varying readings of their place within the media sector, but that their shared experiences were of discrimination and fighting against the odds, purely because they were women who had chosen to pursue careers in the media. 

In Chapter 4, the analysis focuses on feminist media activism that builds on but departs from traditional, more formalised, feminist activism and innovates through its use of the media. Here, the emphasis is on understanding how Jordanian feminists have carved out counterpublics and resisted moral panics designed to silence them. The case study selected for analysis is the 2011–2012 emergence and publication of an anti-harassment video under the supervision of the late Dr. Rula Quawas, of the University of Jordan, and the subsequent moral panic and wave of counter-feminist activism led by social and religious conservatives. The intermeshing of “appropriate Jordanian femininity” and Jordanian identity is of particular relevance to the analysis, as long-established discourses on authenticity, foreign intervention, and sovereignty are recycled to discredit feminist activists. Tensions between liberals and conservatives are also relevant, especially given the dynamics at play during the Arab Spring and the modest gains made by Jordanian women.

In Chapter 5, I analyse the way the Jordanian state deployed the ideology of honour through various media channels to silence female political dissidents. In this effort to understand state-media-gender dynamics I find overt and covert cases of this strategy, including the high-profile case of Enas Musallam in 2012, and accounts from various female activists who reveal the myriad ways they have been intimidated, harassed, and trolled by state agents in order to stop their political engagement. The consequences of these covert and overt campaigns illuminate the contradictory position the Jordanian state holds both towards gender equality and female political participation, and point to a real discrepancy between the Jordanian state’s declared position and its actions on the ground.

In Chapter 6, I focus on changing media discourses and representations of honour-related femicide, otherwise known as “honour crimes”. Here, I select two moments of analysis. The first is 2008–2010 media coverage of multiple instances of honour-related femicide in news items and opinion pieces (published in Arabic), as well as readers’ comments and journalists’ and writers’ statements given in personal research interviews. This work draws on elements of my PhD thesis. The second moment of analysis is a 2020 case study of a single crime that ignited much media and public interest due to its gruesome nature. This is not a direct comparison between the two, but rather an attempt at sketching a rough outline of how discourses on honour-related femicide have changed over the years in response to consistent (and sometimes controversial) activism and pressure. 

This book is thus a concise exploration of different facets of women-media dynamics in Jordan. The aim here is to illuminate choice moments of interaction between the two, to unpack the mechanics of gender, power, and resistance that exist therein, and to open the door for future explorations. The chapters in this work can be read individually as stand-alone case studies, or collectively as component parts of a larger picture of women-media interaction in Jordan. In the concluding chapter, I weave them together by identifying the commonalities that emerge from the analyses, and I sketch out possible future lines of inquiry.

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.