Johanna Sellman, Arabic Exile Literature in Europe: Defamiliarising Forced Migration (New Texts Out Now)

Johanna Sellman, Arabic Exile Literature in Europe: Defamiliarising Forced Migration (New Texts Out Now)

Johanna Sellman, Arabic Exile Literature in Europe: Defamiliarising Forced Migration (New Texts Out Now)

By : Johanna Sellman

Johanna Sellman, Arabic Exile Literature in Europe: Defamiliarising Forced Migration (Edinburgh University Press, 2022).

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

Johanna Sellman (JS): As a graduate student in comparative literature, I happened upon a few literary texts by Iraqi authors living in Sweden, some circulating online and some in print. I became curious about how these texts were both building on and departing from the modern “canon” of Arabic travel and migration literature. More exploration led me to understand that there was a relatively large and recent corpus of Arabic texts on different forms of forced and precarious migration to Europe.

I have for a long time been interested in literary expression born of mobility, border crossings, and the navigation of multiple forms of belonging (and often multiple languages). I think academic books, like other kinds of writing, spring from the persistent queries of our own lives. I grew up on the move across three continents, many countries, and multilingual, not quite at home in any single space. I think I have, in some way or another, been paying attention to frameworks that destabilize the assumptions about belonging (one home, one nation, and in the United States, one language) that are still so dominant. That said, this book is about Arabic literature of forced migration and about the unanswered questions that arise from forced and precarious migration, which is simultaneously ubiquitous and often described as “irregular.” As a white woman with a Swedish and US passport, I have not experienced the violence of border policing and the racialization of migrant populations that is so pervasive in Europe and the United States. I suppose my own queries brought me to the project and I have since then found myself in a place to learn from texts that are exploring outside spaces of citizenship, using literary means to defamiliarize belonging and migration literature.

... the literature both supports a project of undoing received understandings of borders and migration and points to the necessity of imagining mobility and belonging in new ways.

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

JS: Arabic Exile Literature in Europe analyzes the aesthetic and political transformations of Arabic exile literature in Europe. Since the 1990s, Arabic exile literature in Europe has increasingly become a literature written from the perspective of refugees, asylum seekers, undocumented migrants, and others who are situated outside of normatively defined citizenship. The majority of the works that I discuss in the book are written by writers from Iraq, Syria, Algeria, and Morocco and set in recently established diasporic communities and migratory routes in Europe, such as Finland, Denmark, Sweden, Germany, the Mediterranean Sea, and the Balkans. 

Arabic Exile Literature in Europe demonstrates how frameworks such as east-west cultural encounters, political commitment, and modernist understandings of exile, which were dominant in twentieth-century Arabic exile literature, have been giving way to writing that explores the dynamics and mass media representations of large-scale migration and the liminal spaces of borders and borderlands. The book identifies defamiliarization as a widely variable but shared literary tool of resistance to the material and discursive realities of contemporary forced migration. The heightened defamiliarization in the narratives analyzed in the book include speculative modes of writing (such as science fiction and fantasy) and other narrative strategies that destabilize discourses on forced migration. In doing so, the literature both supports a project of undoing received understandings of borders and migration and points to the necessity of imagining mobility and belonging in new ways.

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

JS: There are at least two aspects of my previous work that connect to this book. One is my previous work on Maghrebi writers who, in the context of longstanding and postcolonial linguistic multiplicity in the region, were refashioning language in ways that navigate and creatively subvert colonial legacies of the French language and the homogenizing impulses of postcolonial nationalism. The other is my previous work on Moroccan testimonial and fictionalized prison writing and the ways that it intervened in an unfolding state-driven process of reconciliation. Both of these previous projects shaped my understanding of literature as a space where creativity in language and narrative generates openings for both complexity and resistance. This current book’s focus is on how literary narratives of migration use defamiliarizing modes of writing in the service of resisting expectations put on the genre itself (to offer testimonies and documentary style narratives of forced mobility, for example) and to de-naturalize taken-for-granted understandings of borders, nation, and citizenship.

What was new for me was delving into the many different forms that defamiliarization takes, everything from speculative modes of writing that draw on sci-fi and fantasy to creative uses of mistranslation and writing spaces that invite us to see belonging and citizenship in new ways. From the perspective of genre and regional scope, the corpus of texts I discuss might seem broad and eclectic, but my aim was to put into relief a shared form of creative resistance where defamiliarizing takes many forms.

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

JS: I think the primary audience would be folks in the field of Arabic literary studies and migration studies, though I would be very interested in being in conversation with people outside of those fields as well. I am grateful to already have had the chance to discuss parts of the book with authors whose texts I discuss, and I hope that the book will be read by people who have different relationships to the writing—creators, scholars, learners. The book is now available open access through Knowledge Unlatched.

In terms of impact, I am hoping to bring attention to some of the shared questions that are being raised in contemporary Arabic migration literature (and though I use the term “Arabic literature,” I also include a few texts that are written in other languages that establish a relationality with Arabic). This broad scope allows us to see how Arabic literature is engaging with questions of mobility, citizenship, and contemporary discourses on migration in very meaningful ways. I am also hoping to be part of a continuing conversation on speculative modes of writing in Arabic literature. 

J: What other projects are you working on now? 

JS: I am at a very exploratory stage of a project that expands the concerns of this book to focus on literary narratives of migration in Middle Eastern contexts and with an increased attention to landscape, built environments, and ecologies. Like my previous research, this project will also focus on how the defamiliarizing capacities of literature and other creative works creatively reframe narratives, especially the flattening or crisis-oriented narratives that we often see in media and humanitarian discourse.

I am also planning to continue a current project of translating Arabic literary theory into English. My hope is to work collaboratively with other translator scholars to create an open access bilingual volume of modern Arabic literary theory in translation.

 

Excerpt from the book (from chapter one, pp. 22-27)

Shifting Frameworks for Studying Contemporary Arabic Literature of Forced Migration: A Case for Border Studies

Contemporary Arabic literature of migration in Europe is often labelled and marketed as exile literature (adab al-manfa). However, the valences of this term (and many of its cognates) are fluid and changing. In contemporary Arabic literature of forced migration to Europe, modernist and postcolonial discourses on exile and migration found in literary narratives that centered on topics such as political exile, students travelling abroad for study and labour immigration have been giving way to literature that explores the perspectives of refugees, asylum seekers and other migrants. This more recent writing grapples with subjectivities born of mass migration and encounters with borderlands, and explores spaces located outside citizenship. Although terms such as ‘exile’ and ‘migration’ continue to be used to situate this literature, they are quite fluid. This spaciousness is vital and offers us a wide array of linkages and possibilities for situating and analysing these literary texts. While keeping the literature’s contemporary contexts in mind, we can also attend to the ways that it is being reimagined with earlier literary texts and frameworks. One of the important questions to attend to is how to situate the postcolonial in these twenty-first-century literary texts of migration. 

In an interesting juxtaposition, in a review of the 2004 novel AqmarʿIraqiyya Sawdaʾ fi al-Suwid (Black Iraqi Moons in Sweden) by the Sweden-based Iraqi novelist ʿAli ʿAbd al-ʿAl, the reviewer places the book alongside classic colonial and postcolonial Arabic novels of migration to Europe, Tawfiq al-Hakim’s 1938 ʿUsfur min al-Sharq (Bird of the East), Yahya Haqqi’s 1944 novella Qandil Umm Hashim (The Lamp of Umm Hashim) and Tayeb Salih’s 1966 novel Mawsim al-Hijra ila al-Shamal (Season of Migration to the North). A recurring trope in Aqmar is that of the exile as a moon that has lost its orbit. Extending the metaphor of Salih’s iconic postcolonial novel Mawsim al-Hijra, the reviewer notes thatthe characters in Aqmar are living a season of forced migration, mawsim tahjīr. This metaphor situates the novel within a distinct period of time that both flows from and marks a break with a form of migration and literary expression located in a particular postcolonial past. How do we describe this new season? 

Since the 1990s, Arabic literature of migration to Europe has increasingly foregrounded the perspectives of refugees, asylum seekers and undocumented migrants. For example, numerous Arabic, francophone and anglophone harraga novels from the Maghreb, including those by writers such as Youssef Fadel, Tahar Ben Jelloun and Laila Lalami, feature undocumented Mediterranean crossings and tell stories of those who choose to embark on them. Harraga, meaning ‘those who burn’, refers to the practice of burning citizenship documents before the crossing, but also, figuratively, to burning pasts. These literary narratives centre on the violence that border-building practices enact on migrants’ bodies and often draw on fantasy, different modalities of storytelling and metaphors of wilderness to stage spaces outside citizenship. This genre of writing about undocumented crossings extends beyond North African literature to sub-Saharan African literatures and other Arabic literatures. Taytanikat Ifriqiyya (African Titanics) (2008), by Ethiopian writer Abu Bakr Khaal, and Der falsche Inder (The Village Indian), by Iraqi writer Abbas Khider (2010), both draw on myth and popular storytelling motifs in crafting stories of undocumented migration. Furthermore, many short stories by Iraqi writer Hassan Blasim, now based in Finland, explore border crossings and the spaces of undocumented migration in settings such as Serbia, Turkey and eastern Europe. Through a kind of ‘nightmare realism’ Blasim’s stories explore a variety of border subversions, linking the crossing of borders in undocumented spaces to ways of imagining belonging and interconnections beyond citizenship.

In addition to these numerous literary narratives of undocumented migration, many Arabic literary narratives explore the perspectives of asylum seekers or refugees in Europe. Although these narratives do not typically focus on journeys or crossings, they share a focus on writing borderlands: that is, spaces outside normative citizenship. These writings are often deeply engaged with rewriting the modernist notions of exile that were dominant in Arabic literature, especially in the latter half of the twentieth century. For example, in the 1990s and 2000s, literary narratives by leftist Iraqi writers such as Haifa Zangana, Iqbal al Qazwini and Mahmoud al-Bayaty grappled with the shift from being political exiles to becoming refugees in different European countries. On a larger scale, numerous Arabic literary narratives explore asylum processes as well as the dynamics of mass migration. For example, in al-Nadawi’s (2010) novel Tahta Samaʾ Kubinhaghin (Under the Copenhagen Sky), discussed in Chapter 4, the young protagonist, Huda, considers what it would take for her to transform herself into an exile writer. A daughter of Iraqi refugees who arrived in Denmark as a young child, she struggles to match her own experiences to discourses about exile and the exile writer. Why, she wonders, does exile feel so stifling and how can she, as a second-generation refugee in Denmark, draw on some of the creative agency assigned to the figure of the exile?

The subtext of many of her reflections is that the exilic condition, though painful, is supposed to be freeing and engender the possibility of individual detachment. The novel poetically explores the changing meanings of exile as well as citizenship in contexts of mass migration. Rasha Abbas, a Syrian writer now based in Berlin and whose writings are discussed in Chapter 5, has staged border crossings and the war in Syria through speculative writing that draws on the absurd and elements of science fiction and fantasy. In her 2018 short story collection Mulakhkhas Ma Jara (‘The Gist of It’) and humorous accounts of learning German in her Die Erfindung der deutschen Grammatik (The Invention of German Grammar), which was translated from Arabic and first published in German, she explores alternate meanings of the words and discourses used to shape the public image of the refugee, especially the Syrian refugee after the so-called refugee crisis of 2015–16. 

[…]

Though many different genres of Arabic literature are flourishing in Europe, including some that reimagine diaspora and mobility in different ways from those discussed in this book, this chapter will focus specifically on Arabic literature of forced or precarious migration and on how we might adapt some of our critical frameworks and comparative paradigms to better engage with it. Throughout, I use the terms ‘forced’ or ‘precarious’ migration to denote the broader material conditions that interact with the literature. The International Organization for Migration (IOM 2011) defines forced migration as ‘a migratory movement in which an element of coercion exists, including threats to life and livelihood, whether arising from natural or man-made causes’. Whereas categories such as ‘refugee’ and ‘asylum seeker’ describe specific trajectories towards citizenship in a country of arrival, forced migration encompasses a wide range of legal statuses and the variable (and often overlapping) elements that impel people to cross borders. Here, precarious migration draws on Judith Butler’s definition of precarity as a ‘politically induced condition in which certain populations suffer from failing social and economic networks of support and become differentially exposed to injury, violence, and death’ and refers to the ways that the conditions of migration often increase vulnerability for migrants, especially in spaces outside established networks of support and citizenship. An inquiry into the literature that focuses on forced or precarious migration aligns with ‘border thinking’, which asks us to think from the border and centre the languages and forms of knowledge that have been marginalised by colonial languages and epistemologies. 

Given that these spaces and forms of migration are increasingly part of the global landscape, this chapter considers how we can make the shift to global or planetary understandings of space and migration that are so critical to migration literature. Though I mostly use the term ‘global’ to refer to worldwide trends in migration and displacement, the context and content of this literature on migration and border spaces emphasise the divisions and inequalities that are part of our current moment of globalisation. I thus incorporate some of the planetary critiques of the way that the global often emphasises unity and cross border movement, sometimes at the expense of attention to how borders create immobility and extra-legal spaces for the many who are on the move. The new aesthetics and politics of contemporary Arabic literature of migration are being created in the context of mobility and precarious migration and in a climate of heightened anxiety about state sovereignty, which animates border and wall regimes. Though I refer to specific novels and short stories throughout, this chapter emphasises approaches for reading this literature and its changing contexts, approaches that I will continue to develop within specific contexts in the subsequent chapters. I argue for extending the scope of the postcolonial in Arabic literary studies to include the concerns and contexts of contemporary forced and precarious migration and the border-building practices that states employ in an attempt to limit or manage mobility. Specifically, I suggest that we can productively draw on frameworks from border studies to analyse what the postcolonial means in contemporary migration literature. These include questions about how communities and subjectivities are created by borders and border-building practices. Such queries help us see how the literature itself is theorising these issues and, through its imaginative capacities, introducing new perspectives on this current ‘season of migration’.

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.