Rana Issa, The Modern Arabic Bible: Translation, Dissemination and Literary Impact (New Texts Out Now)

Rana Issa, The Modern Arabic Bible: Translation, Dissemination and Literary Impact (New Texts Out Now)

Rana Issa, The Modern Arabic Bible: Translation, Dissemination and Literary Impact (New Texts Out Now)

By : Rana Issa

Rana Issa, The Modern Arabic Bible: Translation, Dissemination and Literary Impact (Edinburgh University Press, 2023).

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

Rana Issa (RI): I am attracted to texts that work as prisms for disentangling and analyzing the complexities of systems of domination. The modern Arabic Bible is one such prismatic text. When I decided to delve into its history, I knew that I would have occasion to explore the entanglements of colonialism, capitalism, and modern systems of knowledge as they shaped an ancient text, native to the region, and transformed it into a global, Western text that set certain standards for Arabic language use and book publishing in the nineteenth century. I studied a very specific moment in Arabic Bible translation, a moment that was at once intensely local, in how the Bible contributed to the development of Modern Standard Arabic, while also being intensely global: Anglophone missionaries had unified translation strategies that they applied to the eighty-eight versions of the Bible that they produced in world languages. The paradoxes of the nahda thicken in the production and translation of the Bible. In this sense, the Bible was a perfect case for exploring how a text belonging to the genre of scripture ushered in the secular ideologies of modernity through its production processes that depended on philology, modern printing presses, and synchronistic multinational missionary translation strategies.

I examined its life as a book in the process of production, by actors who labored to articulate its exchange value.

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

RI: This is the first study of its kind that narrates the historical context of the translation of the Bible in Arabic and analyzes its impact on the development of modern Arabic language and literature. I studied the Bible as a commodity; in other words, I examined its life as a book in the process of production, by actors who labored to articulate its exchange value. Its physical attributes—how it was translated, packaged, promoted, and priced—were crucial to exploring how it produced new readers with new tastes about what is to be considered good Arabic style and a good Arabic book. I was especially interested in how the nineteenth-century Bible was produced in Classical Arabic, when earlier Arabic Bibles were mostly produced in dialect or in middle Arabic registers. I was also interested in how work on Bible translation affected the young local translators who assisted the missionaries in realizing their dream of making the Bible available for “forty million heathens” of the “mohammedan faith” and “nominal Christians.” I was interested in comparing the Bible beginnings of al-Bustani and al-Shidyaq to their later and more famous works, and to explore how the Bible has framed some of their thought on key issues in language and literary ideology, the relationship to past texts and to scriptures, as well as their contributions to forging a new political imagination and politics of belonging. 

To explore those issues, I read four Bible versions and compared to various other earlier versions from the canon of Biblia Arabica. I also read in classical lexica and dictionaries. I focused on al-Bustani’s encyclopedia and al-Shidyaq’s al-Saq ala al-Saq as well as most other works in their corpus. I assembled an archive for these authors as well, and so also read through their correspondence, a labor that has only rarely been undertaken in scholarship. I connected this massive corpus to the early careers of these authors as Bible translators. In addition, I read nineteenth-century periodicals, correspondence, catalogues, and out of print books and worked on manuscripts and lexica in several languages, including languages that I only superficially knew, especially Hebrew, Greek, and Syriac. This extended philological labor explored the Bible’s contribution to the conceptual history of modern Arabic, and as I argue in the book, the Bible versions that became canonical at the time actively competed with the Quran and participated in the production of a sectarian national imagination. 

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

RI: This is my first book, and it took ten years of labor to produce. I started writing this book one month after Lebanon began its journey towards total collapse, in September 2019, when I was still a faculty member at the American University of Beirut (AUB). When I set out to do the research for this book, I was interested in analyzing some of the structures that began collapsing all around me at the time of writing. I had started my inquiry into these structures when I was still a bachelor student at AUB, and when time came to write my Master’s thesis, I chose to work on Edward Said and produced a gendered study of his work. My interest in postcolonial and gender studies was rooted in my political awakening in post-civil war Lebanon and my deepening understanding of how colonialism has shaped many of the violent structures that continue to rule us today. After AUB, I spent two years at the University of Marburg researching pre-nakba Palestinian literature and published an article on the topic before I began my PhD. In many ways the book is a culmination of my critical study of the early beginnings of resisting Zionism in writings by Palestinian authors. I sacrificed gender in this project, but I cultivated skills in philology, translation, and history that I hope to transfer to other research interests in the future.

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

RI: The book intervenes in theoretical debates on translation and world literature by historicizing the role of the Bible as the inaugurating object for thinking translation, since Eugene Nida’s foundational impact on the field. The book deprovincializes the case of the Arabic Bible by revealing its generalizable characteristics in its impact on literary cultures of modernity, as well as on thinking translation as a practice and as a modern academic discipline. The book targets an interdisciplinary readership in theology, translation studies, literature, Middle Eastern studies, and nahḍastudies. It is suitable for middle to upper-level undergraduate courses. I have used some of the material in this book in undergraduate courses such as: “Introduction to Translation Studies,” “Translating the Nahḍa,” “Survey of World Literature,” “Introduction to Victorian Literature,” as well as in graduate seminars: “Translating the Nahḍa Bible,” and “Individual, Religion, Nation.” It can also be part of courses on “Biblia Arabica,” “Foundational Texts of Modernity,” “Modern Translations of the Bible,” and “Historical studies in Translation.”

J: What other projects are you working on now?

RI: I have two projects at the moment. Together with Suneela Mubayi, I am in the process of translating Ahmad Faris al-Shidyaq’s travelogue with the title Tickets to London and Paris by the Remarkable Ahmad Fares. This translation is a by-product of my work on the Bible and will make available to English readers a more accessible al-Shidyaq text than his masterpiece Leg over Leg that was translated by my friend and mentor, the late Humphrey Davies. I am also on a writing sabbatical to develop a memoir project that covers four generations of women in my family. I use queer methodologies of analysis as well as my philological and translational skills in this memoir. The wager is to learn from maternal politics of care a viable modality for how we can mend our societies despite the continuing onslaught and fragmentation decimating us. I see this memoir as a continuation of my work as a literary historian of translation, whereby I push the limits of my thinking around translation’s Arabic cognate, tarjama, which also encompasses biography writing, into a praxis of micro history that connects with my sustained critical interest in describing and resisting systems of oppression operating in the Levant. 

J: What are three main features of change that occurred for the modern Arabic Bible that set it apart from past translations?

RI: The commoditization of the Arabic Bible in the nineteenth century was a major shift in how the Bible came to be perceived as scripture in modernity. The new Bible was a best seller, when in earlier epochs it enjoyed only limited availability, and circulated mostly in clerical and some elite circles. The commoditization of the Bible influenced the language style the missionaries ultimately chose for the Bible. Whereas in earlier times the Bible translations produced in the Levant were distinguishable by their local dialects, the new Bible used a simplified form of classical Arabic that came to be known as Modern Standard Arabic. Consequent upon its commoditization, the reading practices around the Bible also changed. Whereas in earlier times, most Christians would encounter the Bible in Church services and would be acquainted with it as a written text only in small excerpts, like by reading Psalms or the Gospel of Matthew out loud to the village priest, the new Bible was for almost a decade the cheapest book one could purchase in Arabic. Even the proletarian classes (regardless of their religious belonging) could afford to purchase it.  This wide availability promoted solitary reading practices among people and ushered a new market for Arabic books that spanned the entire Arabic continent.

 

Excerpt from the book (from Chapter 4, pp.149-187)

Butrus al-Bustani: Translator (excerpt)

The death of Eli Smith in 1857 disentangled Butrus al-Bustani from his engagements with the Syria mission, and his career as a Bible translator came to an end. Two years before Smith’s death, this friend and mentor had left him a long letter explaining why his candidacy for the position of minister of the evangelical church in Beirut had been rejected. As Smith writes, al-Bustani had acquired a ‘secular rather than spiritual’ reputation, as a ‘man of great intelligence’, whose skills and contribution to the secular betterment of the people can be seen in his dedication to ‘secular business whichever be of the literary kind that would leave for the pastorate a divided mind and heart which would certainly stand in the way of success’. Fearing that al-Bustani may become too distracted by his literary pursuits from the work of the ministry, Smith might have triggered al-Bustani’s release from the burden of spiritual responsibilities that he was carrying throughout his employment with the missionaries. Under no legal obligation to honour his contract upon the death of one of the signatory parties, al-Bustani left the Bible unfinished, in the care of Cornelius Van Dyck, his friend and colleague, who would carry out the task of the full translation of the continuous text mostly alone, aided only by the Muslim sheikh Yusuf al-Asir, as copyeditor. Al-Bustani went on to build a literary legacy that he envisioned as part of modernising Arab society and a propellor for its progress. This legacy included newspapers, lexicons and literary translations. In all these endeavours, translation was the primary tool that was deployed for the production of texts. 

Smith’s death interrupted al-Bustani’s trajectory so he could transform his biblical interests and his skill in translation to the root and method that anchored his secular endeavours. Al-Bustani’s later work embodies one of the great paradoxes of modernity, in how he decided to base his secular thinking on religious thought. The secular inversion, as I show, represses the extent to which the modernity he advocated for was based on religious assumptions. Al-Bustani is often celebrated for his anti-sectarian pronouncements and is identified by academics as the seminal author for a radical rethinking of Lebanese identity outside the sectarian divide. I examine how al-Bustani readjusted concepts like adab and tarikh within a discourse of modernity as a secularisation that leads to progress, and showcase how these two concepts were given a biblical genealogy as the basis for his participation in their definition. Translation was for al-Bustani not merely an intellectual activity of the technical kind. Rather for him translation carried an epistemic value; emerging as the very model of knowledge production and social commitment. His investment in translation complicates a reading of local translators as postcolonial tricksters, searching for ways to appropriate Western culture in order to subvert it. Al-Bustani’s agency as a translator was turned inwards, towards his own society, and what he laboured to subvert was not the power the missionaries exerted on his culture. Rather, he celebrated the missionary intervention and berated his society for its lethargy in catching up with them.

Upon his death on the 2 May 1883, the team that was assisting al-Bustani in writing the encyclopaedia decided to bury him in it, in the entry on ( دائرة المعارف Dairat-el-Ma’arif). As they mention ‘We were asked to fix an entry on the deceased under the keyword “Daʼirat al-Ma‘arif” because the B volume had been completed during his lifetime, God rest his soul. So we decided to copy it (naqlaha) or translate it (tarjamataha) from his eulogy in al-Muqtataf’. Significantly this entry valorises translation as the single most important contribution of the deceased, alongside his lexicons. As the entry summarises, after he left his employment as a teacher in the school of Ayn Waraqa, the deceased began to work as a translator for the English military power that defeated Ibrahim Pasha and drove him out of the Levant. Then he went into employment with the American missionaries as a teacher and translator, then worked as a dragoman for the American consulate in Beirut, in conjunction with his work as a translator, educator and preacher. He began working on translating the Bible with Eli Smith but left the work unfinished to embark on his lexical projects. His legacy was remembered for how ‘he included many colloquial words [in his dictionary] that could be of use to foreigners learning Arabic . . . Between 1843 and 1866, he spent much time in translation and writing’. In addition to his several authorial achievements in lexicography and journalism, the entry goes on to mention his work in ‘translating Pilgrim’s Progress, The History of the Reformation, Salvation History, the Bible, and Robinson Crusoe’. This chapter explores the Bible as it shapes the legacy of Butrus al- Bustani. By making direct references to the Bible and the world views that have emanated from it, al-Bustani reformulated the project of Arab modernity embodied by the nahda by asserting that a rupture was needed with the Arabo-Islamic tradition to interpolate Western knowledge for modern speakers of Arabic. As he repeatedly suggested, translation ‘compresses time’, and brings Arabs up to speed with European civilisation. 

Al-Bustani sought a synchronisation with the West that would align knowledge temporally and identify it with modernity. The Eurocentric axis of this desired synchronicity rested on two temporal points of origin: one is the moment of creation, which he traced back to Genesis, and the second is the moment of truth, which he situated in the nativity of Christ. Through structuring Arabic linguistic and literary history around those two temporalities, al-Bustani replaced the stable force that kept the Arabic language in orbit around the Qur’an with an alternative narrative that emphasised the role of translation in enriching Islamicate culture across time. The shift in the temporal axis of Arabic permeates all of al-Bustani’s works, and its impact was at its most ambitious in his two lexical projects, his Muhit al-Muhit, a two volume dictionary that was written in the classical style typical of Arabic lexicons, and his Daʼirat al-Ma‘arif, an enclyopedia that is largely comprised of translating English, French and Italian modern encyclopaedias in an aggregate that deliberately synchronises Arabic civilisation with a Western standard of knowledge. Prior to embarking on these laborious texts.

From the outset, al-Bustani introduced the Bible as a principal text in the construction of an alternative history of the Arabic language and asserted the role of translation in the production of valuable knowledge. Al-Bustani desired to establish contemporaneity with the West, which his translations aimed to achieve through their textual signposts and contexts of enunciation. His worldview made no room for the untranslatable, and whenever he encountered it, he cut it out. In his Khutba he demanded that words be deleted from the copious Arabic lexicon, and in his translations of Robinson Crusoe and The Pilgrim’s Progress, he left out whole passages that might have offended his local readers. These deletions served his ambitions for contemporaneity. For the symbolic potency of this ambition, he has been acknowledged as the mu‘allim, the teacher whose body of work centred around the dissemination and popularisation of knowledge. Whether in his lexicons, newspapers, translations, grammars, or the short-lived school that he founded in 1863, al-Bustani’s pedagogical commitment was fundamentally translational – with lessons from biblical translation providing the framing assumptions and the tools for knowledge production and dissemination […] 

Al-Bustani typified an era that cultivated its cultural specificities and ideological aspirations within a context that was acutely aware of the superiority of Western modes of production. His cultural contributions were produced through a double consciousness of a contemporaneous Western Other, and an othering of the past Islamo-Arabic self. This double consciousness was not unique to al-Bustani. In the changing material conditions of knowledge production, this double consciousness and the tools for its expression were a shared feature, and were not specific to an individual author or school of thought, but constituted ‘an autogenetic response’ to historical materialist conditions, that swept across the regions associated with the nahda, as well as shared ‘its dynamics with many other places in the world, including the West, but crucially also the modernities of Southwest Asia and North Africa.’ The translation of the Bible specifically embodied those material transformations in knowledge production, synchronising worlds and languages. Inasmuch as this was a shared feature, al-Bustani also cultivated individual difference, brought about by the unique geographical location that he occupied. Unlike other modernists and nahdawis, he emphasised the Syro-Arabic inflections of Levantine history through etymological sedimentations. These sediments became his witness for the enduring presence of Arabic-speaking Christians throughout the region’s history. This assertion of presence was forged through translation and under its influence.

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.