Rania Kassab Sweis, Paradoxes of Care: Children and Global Medical Aid in Egypt (New Texts Out Now)

Rania Kassab Sweis, Paradoxes of Care: Children and Global Medical Aid in Egypt (New Texts Out Now)

Rania Kassab Sweis, Paradoxes of Care: Children and Global Medical Aid in Egypt (New Texts Out Now)

By : Rania Kassab Sweis

Rania Kassab Sweis, Paradoxes of Care: Children and Global Medical Aid in Egypt (Stanford University Press, 2021).

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

Rania Kassab Sweis (RKS): After spending two summers in Cairo interning in the offices of global aid organizations, where I was researching questions around medicine and globalization in the Middle East, I noticed how children and youth were so frequently the targets of global health and development projects. I began to follow these projects—their discourses, how they were implemented, their outcomes—at the bureaucratic level in these aid offices, spanning Cairo, Paris, London, and New York. Yet after moving past this discourse, which often speaks to state institutions or powerful donors, I ended up with more questions than answers regarding the full experiences of the children and youth who were the receivers of this help. That led me to conduct over two years of intensive ethnographic fieldwork with young aid recipients and aid workers in Egypt, culminating in the core data that comprises this book.

Yet there is another reason why I chose to write a book that looked critically at global aid and humanitarian interventions in Egypt. The Middle East is often framed as a violent, disaster-prone region, one that needs western intervention—be it military or humanitarian, or both. While recent scholarship in anthropology delved into humanitarianism in the region critically, exploring how the western urge to help people there can be beneficial for the givers of assistance, not only the receivers, little attention had been paid to children or child bodies, and this seemed tragic to me because children are often framed as the most vulnerable of vulnerable subjects in global aid discourse. Approaching the subject of global health for children in Egypt critically, therefore, seemed urgent to me, because, at a time when we were all grappling with the onset of the Covid-19 global pandemic, medical aid and global health projects needed to be approached not only as benevolent acts but as complex, political practices in which states, non-governmental institutions, individual healthcare workers, and medical care recipients all have stakes.

... the book offers a deep look into how aid travels, in real time, from experts to recipients, and what it does, on the ground over time, for all groups involved.

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

RKS: The book sits at the intersection of multiple scholarly fields, including globalization studies, Middle East studies, healthcare studies and the medical humanities, and gender, childhood, and youth studies. It directly addresses literatures in these fields but also delves deeply into questions of structural violence, state violence, and poverty in the region.

The main issue the book addresses is the intimate biomedical humanitarian experience as it is lived by children who fall into two main recipient groups: “street children” and “out of school village girls.” Because the research method I employed throughout is ethnography, the book offers a deep look into how aid travels, in real time, from experts to recipients, and what it does, on the ground over time, for all groups involved.

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

RKS: I am trained as a cultural and medical anthropologist and scholar of gender and transnational feminism, so this work extends my previous research focus on gender and the body by focusing critically on children, child subjectivity, and child embodiment.

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

RKS: In the book, I express my hope that not only students and researchers in the scholarly fields mentioned above will find the work useful to think or write with, but that humanitarian workers, medical practitioners, and people who donate to global humanitarian causes—be it their volunteer time or financial donations—find it helpful as well.

Because helping is a process that shapes both the receivers and givers of help, my hope is that more people will question how, and with what social effects, aid—especially medical assistance and global healthcare—really impact those who receive care, particularly those who remain extremely vulnerable yet possess a sense of agency over their lives and bodies, like children. With this broad readership in mind, I tried to make the book as accessible as possible. 

J: What other projects are you working on now?

RKS: I am currently working on another ethnographic book focused on medical humanitarian aid in the Middle East. In this new work, I focus on the Syrian civil war and how Syrian global medical aid providers negotiate their aid work alongside relational ties and feelings of belonging to their “homeland.” This work will also explore Syria’s long-standing public health history, as well as its unraveling in various regions of the country due to war. 

J: What surprised you the most during the process of conducting the research for this book?

RKS: As I was researching this book, there were two aspects of the ethnographic process that surprised me the most. The first was the resiliency and strength of children who were living in extreme conditions of structural violence. We can all imagine how these children, some as young as seven or eight, feel pain and suffer, but what was less apparent, and not commonly part of the global humanitarian narrative, is how they negotiate daily circumstances with incredible logic, understanding, and wit, like making decisions about what is best for themselves, without the assistance of adults. I ensured this aspect of the research, children’s agency, was a major part of the book’s overall argument. 

The second aspect of the research that struck me as surprising was the critical and complicated role local medical aid providers play in the global aid process in Egypt. Over two consecutive years, I worked closely with, and got to know quite well, numerous Egyptian doctors and healthcare workers who struggled to manage global aid expectations with grounded realities, including resistant children, limited resources, or the police. I witnessed how they must often “fill in the blanks” left open by global aid projects, which they must “apply” to local settings that are always more complicated than the aid policy stipulates. In addition, these local aid workers share the unique social and political conditions their recipients navigate each day, so their lived experiences and medical knowledge is crucial to the success of the aid project. The great extent to which these workers struggle on the job and improvise their work on the spot, all with a drive to do the best work possible for young aid recipients, remains inspiring to me.

 

Excerpt from the book (from Chapter Three, “Healthcare on Patrol”)

PAIN AND MEDICAL NONCOMPLIANCE

Amir was eleven years old and a regular patient at the Shubra al Khaima stop. When I first met him, Dr. Mohamad had already been treating him in CCI’s mobile clinic for a year, for symptoms ranging from minor infections to general checkups. Clinic workers knew Amir’s history quite well. He had been working on the streets around the metro stop since the age of nine, when he left his household. This was also the age when he began smoking cigarettes. After entering the clinic, he greeted Abdou and me with a firm handshake and broad smile, but embraced Dr. Mohamad for several long seconds, a greeting that reflected their shared affection and familiarity with each other. Amir settled onto the examination table without hesitation, his thin legs dangled off the edge. Dr. Mohamad checked his vital signs and asked a set of routine questions about his health and overall status, saying, “Are you having any problems right now?” Amir quickly responded that he suffered from a recurring dry cough and sore throat. These were causing him tremendous pain, which, once the examination was under way and his vital signs checked, he expressed to us by grabbing his throat and speaking loudly in a hoarse, broken voice. 

Looking into his throat, Dr. Mohamad questioned Amir about his ongoing smoking habits, which everyone in the clinic was aware of. Amir deflected the question away from his smoking by asking Dr. Mohamad for a bottle of cough syrup so that he could simply be on his way. Dr. Mohamad explained to Amir that he had an infection, one that required antibiotic pills, and that the cough syrup would not be enough to cure his condition or alleviate the pain. To this, Amir shook his head in defiance and expressed aversion to the antibiotics. He responded by repeating that he wanted the syrup, because it was the only medication that would produce immediate results. Craning his neck, he looked up directly into Dr. Mohamad eyes and said that “pills take too long,” and what he wanted was immediate relief.

Dr. Mohamad sighed and pulled a white box of antibiotics out of the medicine cabinet, along with a small bottle of herbal cough syrup. He placed both in Amir’s small hands, but not before proceeding to educate Amir on how antibiotics work: first by traveling through the blood, then by traveling to the throat, and finally curing the infection and providing lasting relief as oppose to the syrup’s temporary effects. Amir listened to this medical lesson with a smile, but halfway into it he shook his head in defiance and again asked for the syrup. His willful giggling and head shaking during Dr. Mohamad’s explanation was a sign of his resistance and medical noncompliance. Dr. Mohamad continued to attempt to educate Amir, his frustration with Amir growing more visible by the second. Eventually, he ended the encounter by sending Amir on his way with both medications. 

Having witnessed the subtle sparring between Amir and Dr. Mohamad, I asked if Amir would eventually take the pills, throw them away, or if he would consume the entire bottle of cough syrup all at once in order to experience its intoxicating effects. Dr. Mohamad believed any of these things might occur. “Carrying a bottle around the city is troublesome for street children. They need to travel light, so he might drink the syrup all at once.” We were both unsure about how Amir would consume the medications he had received, or whether his painful throat infection would be cured. Dr. Mohamad said he strongly doubted that Amir would heed his advice about taking the pills. My unease at this unknown outcome and my concern for Amir’s welfare undoubtedly showed on my face. Dr. Mohamad attempted to reassure me by smiling, shrugging his shoulders, and claiming that this was business as usual with street children. In educating Amir and providing him with medication, he had reached the limits of his humanitarian intervention with Amir. He softly mumbled, “What else can I do?”

Gendered Solidarity and Police Violence 

Like Amir, Walid was a regular patient of the mobile clinic at the Shubra al Khaima stop and knew all the mobile clinic aid workers very well. Workers told me he was nineteen years old when I met him. This meant that he did not fall into the formal category of “street child” as laid down in CCI policy—a person under the age of eighteen. Still, having procured care from Dr. Mohamad on and off for over two years, he regularly used the clinic, viewing it as a valuable source of assistance and male sociality. Workers welcomed him accordingly, happy to extend their work with older street children like him beyond the normative age of “childhood.” Typical of homeless boys who have lived on the streets for long periods of time, Walid was missing several front teeth. This showed in the big smile he put on immediately after he entered the clinic one night. Although the summer heat was intense, he wore a faded brown leather jacket over a ripped T-shirt and jeans. Thick, wavy brown hair hung over his face, and at over six feet tall, he had to duck to make his way into the clinic and onto the examination table. Extensive greetings were exchanged between him and Dr. Mohamad. Moments later, Abdou and Ramy joined in on the meeting and relished hearing about Walid’s life since the last time he had visited the clinic. 

Aid workers have grown fondly attached to Walid over the years. They believed he was a brave young man, and were especially proud of his success at avoiding police detention. Despite the recent rights-based amendments to Egypt’s new child law, the police in Cairo continued to detain, intimidate, and physically abuse young men living on the streets. To avoid this, Walid had repeatedly inflicted wounds across his own chest and arms with a knife or razor when confronted by a threatening police officer. Although painful, this worked for Walid and, according to Ramy and Abdou, kept him from being detained. On the examination table, Walid lifted his T-shirt to reveal a tapestry of self-inflicted wounds, showing off what to him were signs of his manhood. I had never seen anything like Walid’s scars before—razor blade marks scattered across his arms and torso. As Dr. Mohamad examined the scars, he explained how they served an important function on the streets. To my surprise, he did not dole advice out to Walid about the dangers of creating such wounds. Instead, he identified danger as lying with the police. He justified the scars by explaining how the police sought to avoid accountability for “human rights abuses.” If a young man appeared to be bleeding, they passed him by so as to avoid responsibility for his suffering or death. For Dr. Mohamad, the state (al hakuma) produced the scars; its concern lay not in decreasing deaths on the streets but in decreasing collective public outrage and uprisings against it. Walid had been arrested and subjected to police abuse before. He had learned, in his eight years of living on the streets, that he could successfully mobilize his own body in this way in confrontations with the police to avoid detention. 

By cutting himself, Walid used his body as a vehicle of “rhetorical performance” with the police, creating a spectacle of wounds in order to secure his own safety and freedom. The scars ran in multiple directions across his chest and arms, some fresh, some ancient, but each narrated a history of gender and class violence. In the clinic, Dr. Mohamad and Walid spoke about these wounds as a sign of masculine bravery and as a means of resistance to an illegitimate state. For them, they were a testament to the scale of terror young homeless men face on the streets. The night he visited the clinic, Walid did not have an urgent medical condition that needed attention. Rather, he had come simply to update aid workers on events in his life. As Walid socialized with us, Ramy and Abdou gave him information about where to travel in the city. They detailed the areas where they thought the police were less present, pointing Walid towards these safer neighborhoods. It had been twenty minutes since his arrival when Dr. Mohamad began a routine check of Walid’s vital signs. After exchanging more friendly banter, and before sending him off for the night, he handed Walid a gift bag, along with a small stack of ointments, bandages, and mild painkillers. Walid left just as Dr. Mohamad affectionately said, “And remember don’t smoke!” It was the one piece of advice he knew Walid would likely ignore.

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.