Claudia Liebelt, Istanbul Appearances: Beauty and the Making of Middle-Class Femininities in Urban Turkey (New Texts Out Now)

Claudia Liebelt, Istanbul Appearances: Beauty and the Making of Middle-Class Femininities in Urban Turkey (New Texts Out Now)

Claudia Liebelt, Istanbul Appearances: Beauty and the Making of Middle-Class Femininities in Urban Turkey (New Texts Out Now)

By : Claudia Liebelt

Claudia Liebelt, Istanbul Appearances: Beauty and the Making of Middle-Class Femininities in Urban Turkey (Syracuse University Press, 2023).

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

Claudia Liebelt (CL): Beauty is a long-standing keyword of feminist debate, but it is also a global, consistently growing multibillion market. I long wanted to study beauty norms and practices from a critical, ethnographic perspective. Istanbul, a city that I first visited in the late 1990s and developed a very close personal relationship with, proved the perfect place to do so: Turkey now ranks among the top countries worldwide with the highest number of cosmetic procedures, and Istanbul, its cultural and economic capital, has become the center of its beauty and fashion industries. In the past twenty years, numerous private beauty clinics and salons, fitness centers, nail spas, and tattoo and waxing studios have opened up all over the city. I wanted to know how this affected its residents, especially female residents from the lower social strata and in conservative neighborhoods.

Istanbul Appearances attests to the unruliness, vitality, and resilience of female bodies in relation to various forms of surveillance of what is beautiful, but also proper, good, and respectable.

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

CL: The book addresses the changing norms of middle-class femininity in an increasingly authoritarian, neoliberal, and neoconservative political climate in present-day Turkey. Female bodies have become a major site for the negotiation of gendered citizenship in Turkey and Istanbul Appearances attests to the unruliness, vitality, and resilience of female bodies in relation to various forms of surveillance of what is beautiful, but also proper, good, and respectable. 

As an ethnographic work, the book gives voice to beauty service workers and their clients, as well as mostly female cosmetic surgery patients, investigating their everyday considerations, affective desires, and anxieties. The seven chapters of the book address themes like Istanbul’s urban “beautyscape” and the role of its large media and entertainment industry; everyday concerns and working conditions in beauty salons and clinics; meanings of feminine beauty and concepts of aging in different segments of the urban middle-class; and different cosmetic surgery treatments, such as anti-aging treatments or nose and female breast-reduction operations, both more frequent in Turkey than elsewhere.

Istanbul Appearances also addresses the local repercussions of the global beauty boom. It brings into conversation debates in Middle East studies, social anthropology, and women and gender studies with the emerging field of critical beauty studies. It is the first book-length publication in this field to draw on ethnographic material in a Muslim-majority country. On a more conceptual level, it complicates earlier feminist assumptions, which often focus on the oppressive, painful, and harmful aspects that beauty work involves for women in the global North. Experiences of beauty and beauty work, it shows, are subjective and may be contradictory: they include the pain under drying hood machines or after surgery, the despair of finding time for supposedly obligatory beauty within a highly competitive work environment, and the immense comfort, self-satisfaction, and overbearing joy derived from nail polish, lipstick, or even a new nose.

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

CL: I have come a long way, from writing about the Filipino labor diaspora in the Middle East to writing this book! But even if Istanbul Appearances, which is my second book, seems more like a departure from my earlier work, there are also many connections. An ongoing thread in my work is certainly the question of how gender norms and expectations impact the ways we live our everyday lives, as well as how to shed light on the transnational connections and global mobilities through detailed ethnography. In both my first book about Filipina care workers in Israel and Istanbul Appearances, a major concern is how gender norms and ideologies impact on the organization of social reproduction or care, including self-care, in contemporary global capitalism. Both works look at gender in the Middle East from hitherto marginalized and perhaps unexpected perspectives and locations. 

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

CL: The book’s most immediate contributions are certainly in the fields of social and cultural anthropology, gender and sexuality studies, as well as Middle East and modern Turkey studies. In these disciplines, Istanbul Appearances will be useful for graduate and undergraduate teaching in the fields of gender politics in the modern Middle East and modern Turkey, the effects of the global beauty economy and its transnational images, and lived Islam and secularity. As an ethnographic work, it is highly readable and combines personal narratives with conceptual reflections.

Moreover, I hope that Istanbul Appearances will be read not only by scholars and students, but also by the wider public, in Turkey and beyond. After all, we are all affected by and must deal with the forceful images of beauty. These images and the normative regimes that give rise to them affect the ways we look and act and how we represent and feel about ourselves. To deal with them requires collective efforts and various ways of knowing. I hope that the book will contribute to an ethnographically informed ethical debate on gendered norms and feminine beauty, perhaps even a feminist pedagogy of beauty, which is conscious of what we define as beautiful, desirable, harmful, or healthy and what the implications are of doing so. 

And finally, with the background of ongoing injustices and the violence of Turkish politics, and against far-reaching depression and frustration about the politics of the day, I hope that Istanbul Appearances may open up a space for thinking about the otherwise. Thus, Istanbulite middle-class women’s transforming and transformative desires for beauty may be considered generative acts of healing from social suffering and tedious everyday routines. They are often quite imaginative and relational in their world-making, “a corporeal reaching out to the stars,” as I write in my conclusion. I want beauty to be taken seriously in academia and in everyday life, not something that is superfluous and politically irrelevant, but something that is a cosmological concern, a widely shared desire, and a vital force in an increasingly virtual world. Beauty being, of course, multiple and much more than the stereotypical images of the global industry. 

J: What other projects are you working on now? 

CL: Following up on the research for Istanbul Appearances, I started working on perfumes and fragrances. Beauty is manufactured in a social encounter that includes a vast array of sensorial experiences, among them vision, smell, and touch. Nevertheless, in scholarly studies of beauty, the olfactory aspect of beauty is often overlooked—even though concerns with odors are of the utmost practical importance in beauty salons and figure highly in conceptualizations of beauty, at least in Turkey. So, in my new project, which is part of the research cluster “Affective Societies” at the Freie Universität Berlin together with two PhD students from Turkey, I look at “Olfactory Belongings” and the role of scents in urban publics in Istanbul and Berlin.

J: Finally, who is the most impressive person or persons you met during your research? 

CL: I met many impressive persons during my research, which stretched over a long period between 2011 and 2015. I conducted more than one hundred interviews, mostly with customers and patients of hair and beauty salons and clinics, but also with beauty salon owners and workers, aesthetic surgeons, and other physicians and experts such as tattoo artists, feminists, a fashion photographer, and an Islamic scholar who rules on the permissibility of beauty treatments. 

However, I was impressed by one person in particular, namely a young woman named Saliha in the book. Saliha was an extremely skilled and well-articulated nail artist and beauty service worker, who dreamt of opening her own salon. She was only fifteen years old when she entered the beauty sector, helping out by working in a salon to make a living after her mother divorced and took her and her younger sister to live with relatives in Istanbul from Gaziantep, in the Turkish southeast. When we met, Saliha had worked herself up from this small neighborhood salon in a conservative neighborhood on the outskirts of the city, where she continued to live, to a fancy nail bar in the upmarket central district of Nişantaşı. Despite her busy routine at work, Saliha was supportive of my research from its very beginning, allowing me to watch her work and introducing me to several of her clients, and eventually to her extended family. Without Saliha’s unwavering support, and of course that of many other interlocutors, this book would not have been possible!

 

Excerpt from the book (from Chapter 1, pp. 38-45) 

As the city becomes more beautiful, its inhabitants also want to be more beautiful. This is why body aesthetics [estetik] in Turkey are becoming ever more widespread. (Interview with Dr. Ibrahim Oskui, Sept. 2011) 

When in 2011, in one of my first interviews on the topic of femininity and aesthetic body modification in urban Turkey, the well-known cosmetic surgeon Dr Oskui responded to my question as to why cosmetic surgery and beauty services had recently become so popular in Istanbul, his answer, quoted above, came as a surprise. The longer I studied aesthetic body modifications in Istanbul, however, the more the link between the transformation of urban bodies and space started to make sense. It did so from Dr Oskui’s vantage point especially, as his office overlooked Istanbul’s central Taksim Square. [...] 

For Dr Oskui, the link between the “beautification” of central Istanbul and urban bodies made sense not least because many of his patients were part of the endless stream of tourists populating Taksim Square and its surroundings, the site of many mid-range and luxury hotels. Born in Iran and trained in Turkey and the US, he was one of several highly mediatized Istanbul-based plastic-reconstructive and cosmetic surgeons who often performed surgery on so-called “cosmetic surgery tourists.” More than half of his up to four hundred patients per annum arrived from abroad, notably from Iran, northern Iraq, Azerbaidjan, and the Turkish labour migration diaspora in Western Europe. While we conducted our interview in his stylishly furnished office, complete with a large white leather sofa, extravagant porcellain statues, orchids, and oil paintings of Paris, he received three phone calls from patients calling from Tehran and Dubai whose surgeries were scheduled for the next few days, inquiring about details of their respective journeys to Istanbul and surgery. From where we sat, hundreds of visitors could be seen walking in Taksim Square and taking pictures of the Republican Monument against the setting sun. They in turn could see the large illuminated panel on the top of the building we sat in, inviting them to get in touch with Dr Oskui, an “internationally acclaimed” cosmetic surgeon. [...] Medical tourism has become big business and is a source of national pride for Turkey, with statistics indicating that it ranks high in the number of medical tourists globally. According to Turkey’s largest health tourism agency, 662,087 medical tourists visited Turkey in 2019, the year before the COVID-19 pandemic affected global travelling, and earned the country US$1.06 billion in revenue, approximately 60 percent from plastic surgery. [...] 

[In Istanbul,] plastic reconstructive and cosmetic surgeons and their agents often self-consciously describe themselves as “healers,” “artists” or, including Dr Oskui during our first interview, as the more effective “psychologists.” Within Turkey, private TV channel shows provide cosmetic surgeons with an excellent platform to mediate and indirectly advertise themselves as such. Thus, Oskui and other Istanbul-based cosmetic surgeons have become TV personalities by selling “spectacular” surgeries on private TV shows such as Seda Sayan’s talk show, or Yeniden Başlasın (“Fresh Beginnings”), a so-called “makeover” reality show similar to Extreme Makeover or The Swan in the US and named after a famous song by Turkish popstar and cosmetic surgery aficionada Ajda Pekkan.

Mass-mediated surgery typically combines several types of surgery with the effect of dramatically changing a patient’s look in the sense of a bodily “makeover.” During one of my meetings with Dr Oskui in early 2014, he presented me with the pictures of some of his recently performed “combined” surgeries on his smart phone, including pictures from abdominoplasty, liposuction, and other kinds of fat-removal surgery on a middle-aged female patient, from whose body he had removed 35 kilograms of fat, all performed during the same general anaesthetic. Intending to “sell” this case and its accompanying images to a private TV channel, in one picture he had arranged the tissue removed from his patient’s body in a kind of art installation, surrounded by more than a dozen glass bottles filled with the body fat removed during surgery. 

Because medical practitioners in Turkey are prohibited from openly advertising themselves, Oskui and several other cosmetic surgeons relied on such shows heavily to reach prospective patients. They subsequently uploaded video recordings of these shows to their personal websites and distributed them via social media. To reach patients abroad more directly, Oskui and others also used advertisements on Turkish-language satellite TV channels in Western Europe and the US (which were excempt from the prohibition), as well as in magazines and TV channels across the wider Mediterranean, Middle East or Central Asia. Competition for cosmetic surgery patients from abroad was indeed fierce in Istanbul, illustrated by the story of another interviewee also working in the cosmetic surgery sector, who one day recounted how in the morning, two of his prospective hair transplant patients from the Gulf had been snatched away from his chauffeur at the airport by an agent, who promised to take them somewhere where they could have the same type of treatment for “half the price.”

The beautyscape of Istanbul as it unfolded itself from Dr Oskui’s office overlooking the modern city centre was one of globalized travel and commerce, of the capitalization of mediatized fantasies, of beauty and glamour tied to a particular urban geography that was itself in the process of undergoing often painful operations of “beautification.” During an era of violent urban restructuring and the privatization of public services, including health and the media, cosmetic surgery has become an increasingly normalized form of beautification in Istanbul. Within the brief history of the cosmetic surgery sector, its centre has now moved from Turkey’s capital, Ankara, where it was rooted in state and university hospitals, to an ever-growing private sector in Istanbul. For another Istanbul-based cosmetic surgeon, Prof. Dr Gürhan Özcan, this formed part of a wider pattern of urban commercialization:

The cost of cosmetic surgery is not covered by state insurance, so they [i.e. his patients] have to pay cash, or by credit card, or whatever.  This [i.e. Istanbul] is the centre of the industry, of the economy of Turkey. So most of the money is here, in Istanbul. So most of the people, who will pay for surgery, they are also in Istanbul. This attracts people who do plastic surgery, for the money it brings. ... It’s a business. [At times I ask myself:] ‘Are you a medical doctor or a businessman?’ Many plastic surgeons in this financial service city, they are business people! I am not happy to say this, but that’s the way it is. So it is not just the centre of Turkish plastic surgery science, but of business! (Interview with Prof. Dr. Gürhan Özcan, March 11, 2014)

The amalgam of money, commerce, urban space, and estetik (cosmetic surgery) described here becomes especially obvious when looking at the urban entertainment industry and its relation to mediated beauty. With its stories of fame and ever-lasting beauty, the urban entertainment industry did much to popularize aesthetic body modification in Turkey and to create a particular kind of urban beautyscape.

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.