Ahmed Abdel Halim, The Body in Egypt: From Politics to Consumption (New Texts Out Now)

Ahmed Abdel Halim, The Body in Egypt: From Politics to Consumption (New Texts Out Now)

Ahmed Abdel Halim, The Body in Egypt: From Politics to Consumption (New Texts Out Now)

By : Ahmed Abdel Halim أحمد عبد الحليم

Ahmed Abdel Halim, The Body in Egypt: From Politics to Consumption (Gossor Publishing and Translation House, 2024).

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

Ahmed Abdel Halim (AAH): The idea of the book arose from my interest in writing about the body and its relationship to surrounding spaces. It explores the political, intellectual, and organizational state of paralysis that has afflicted Egyptian society due to the oppression of the current regime. From here, I attempted to answer the question: How did Egypt reach this state of authoritarianism? This is done through engaging with the body and its multiple representations, invoking the historical context of the authoritarian “right of ownership” philosophy in Egypt over the bodies of citizens. It examines how its sovereignty and policies began, utilizing and isolating citizens’ bodies for the preservation of authority and dominance, with a focus on the post-2013 authoritarian system. This is based on a wealth of theoretical narratives witnessing and interpreting this authoritarianism, aiming to explore various perspectives regarding politics, mass consumption, and their intertwined and contrasting interactions on the body.

Prison is nothing but a confined, monitored, engineered, and reproduced body, and thus politics resides in the body.

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

AAH: After 3 July 2013, the authoritarian system in Egypt focused on body control, by dividing the body into different categories: killing, disappearance, or isolation (imprisonment) for the “opposing body”; industry, training, and preparation for the “subordinate body,” serving as a tool to activate exceptions; co-optation reserved for the “supportive body”, to either align it or at least maintain its neutrality; and blame and warning for the “surplus body.” Throughout my research and reading, particularly influenced by the ideas of Khalid Fahmy and Timothy Mitchell, I observed politics in the body since the inception of the modern state in Egypt, especially the current authoritarian policy, which has been more centered on the body than its predecessors.

This centrality made politics a distant, desiccated space, avoided by all out of fear for the body. This is because approaching politics correlates inversely with the destruction of the body, either by its death, disappearance, isolation, mutilation (torture), or even its engineering (i.e., its demolition and reconstruction), as seen within the prison space. Over the past years and up to now, political discourse in Egypt has been preoccupied with “prison.” Government statements deny the existence of political prisoners or even promise to release them, while political and human rights groups demand their release. Prison is nothing but a confined, monitored, engineered, and reproduced body, and thus politics resides in the body. Politics itself, through various tools, becomes consumptive. Consumption manifests itself through the body, in its appearance and utilization. Hence, I attempted to dissect and read the intersections between politics and consumption, as the body transitions between them through its various representations.

My perspective, analysis, and reading stemmed from practice, my own lived experience as a former prisoner. By “practice,” I mean selfhood, embodied in real-life experiences, from protest, imprisonment, surveillance, exile, and then reading and discussion, and other “selfhood” practices where the body has been an active agent in all these scenes. I termed this selfhood “practice” because it is not an individual selfhood that solely concerns me, but rather a selfhood that has ventured beyond and has gathered communal selfhoods with it. Over the past years, I conducted dozens of interviews with former prisoners or people who had dealings with the security establishment in Egypt, resulting in numerous dialogues and testimonies on various subjects. I attempted to preserve this communal selfhood to become primarily a social history inseparable from the political history of post-2013 authoritarianism. These testimonies, which I consider testimonies of life in its political, social, intellectual, and psychological dimensions, not only chronicle what happened but also help to analyze the indirect or “unannounced” methodology of this authoritarianism about owning the right to the body. Analyzing the speeches and statements of the supreme authoritarian leader and thinker, Abdel Fattah El-Sisi, were also crucial to answering the question of how authoritarianism works. This is a starting point for a more aware and expansive understanding of the Egyptian state and its historical relationship with the bodies around it—the basic body always, and the political one in special cases.

Regarding the structure of the book, in the first chapter, I laid out a preamble to contextualize in the history of modern Egypt the relationship between authority and its citizens’ bodies. I dealt with the authority as if it were a production tool with vital internal parts, assisting it in survival and dominance, defined by the French philosopher Michel Foucault as “biopower.” From here, I discussed (historically, philosophically, and practically) how this interaction occurred, focusing on post-2013 authority, as its policy (and sovereignty, as described by Giorgio Agamben) combined the management of all bodies, dividing them into the four body types I mention above. I moved on to clarify what discrimination and exception mean within oppression, which the authority activates against various segments of society. Such authority operates by activating a state of exception against the political body, by killing, concealing, and imprisoning it. I subsequently analyze the representations of what comes after this exception, specifically post-imprisonment, and how the exit of Egyptian “oppositional” bodies from prison becomes harder than their entry into prison, and how those who are released enter a new orbit that the authority employs and closely supervises with the aim of subjugating their bodies and monopolizing any thought or practice that might emanate from them.

In the second chapter, I discuss the lost identity of authority. It is neither an extension of Nasserism, Pan-Arabism, nor nationalism, nor Sadatism or Mubarakism, nor even Pharaonicism. Rather, it takes what suits it from all previous Egyptian authoritarian narratives, and its primary identity lies in exceptionality, an ideological, mental, narrative, and practice that justifies its authority and thus its survival and dominance over governance. I read the representation of this exceptionality in the monopolization of non-politically active cultural spaces, specifically through television, as well as artistic spaces and educational/pedagogical spaces like governmental and private schools.

In the third chapter, I explore the direct manifestations caused by authority, affecting hundreds of thousands of opposing Egyptians, especially the youth among them. I discuss the transformations of feelings and thoughts within years of imprisonment, then move on to outside prison and even outside Egypt (i.e., exile), to see a portion of the youth (those belonging to the Muslim Brotherhood) and how these stages of manifestations affect them. I move from the specific to the general, to observe the trends and paths of youth inside or outside of Egypt with little to no political interest. I also discuss the exceptional situation within opposition groups, concerning the philosophy of authority in dealing with Islamists as adversaries of power, and their future in social life, including politics, as well as inside Sisi's authoritarian prisons. I turn to the manifestations of consumption and its rise against the potentials of politics, its thought, organization, and practices, and even the transformation of politics itself into a consumptive policy. Here, I use the example of the Egyptian opposition, especially those residing outside Egypt, to observe and analyze how they have become a functional, consumptive opposition in terms of organization, thought, and practice—not a solid, reformist, or revolutionary cultural opposition. I also look at the concept of political self and its transformations from the real to the virtual, and the manifestations of this transformation on the nature of politics in the current Egyptian scene and its future. I include a question about how the body transitioned from being a political body to a consumptive body. And finally, instead of a conclusion, I attempt to discuss what is to come regarding the visibility of authority in Egypt, after President Sisi's dominance over governance until 2030.

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

AAH: The book is my fifth authored work and the fourth focusing on body-related themes. Previously, I published a short novel titled Dancing Bodies (Umam Foundation: Beirut, 2021), which explored the movement and formation of the body within prison. Also, my book Who Owns the Right to the Body: A Reading of Prison Life (Umam Foundation: Beirut, 2022) delved into the various images of the body formed as a result of the experiences of prison life. Additionally, I published the book Representations of Egyptian Society: Self, Body, and Identity (Dar Riyad al-Rayis: Beirut, 2023). This discusses and interprets the manifestations and changes that have occurred in Egyptian society in various domains, such as technology (social media), cinema, media, neoliberalism, and urbanism. Therefore, my new book complements those domains, engaging with the realm of politics and its authority in Egypt.

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

AAH: Anyone interested in politics in Egypt, especially post-2013, as well as those interested in the body and its relationship to politics in Egypt. This includes research communities, academia, politics, human rights, and others. I particularly hope readers will be those who do not belong to any specific category but are Egyptian citizens dealing with political and security authority and perhaps have experienced actions on their bodies by the authorities in Egypt.

J: What other projects are you working on now?

AAH: Currently, I am working on writing a novel titled The Subordinate and Suleiman: Chatter in Exile, through which I attempt to elucidate the relationship over the past decades in Egypt between the marginalized (the subordinate), as described by Antonio Gramsci, and the authoritarian head of state, the philosopher, who “understands everything.” This is done through a narrative style that is satirical, playful, and revolves around the tales of the marginalized, as well as tales of politics, imprisonment, exile, love, sex, power, suicide, death, consumption, and other concepts and representations.

 

Excerpt from the book (from Chapter 3, pp. 246-248, translated from Arabic to English)

It is not just suppression that dries up the political interest among people; alongside it, the technological revolution and the exposure of lives have also worked to change people's attitudes towards politics. In other words, political or revolutionary action and their intersections for reform and political change were the only way out for various age groups, whether they were invisible, marginalized, or non-marginalized. Currently, these groups find in the exposure of their lives a gateway to transition from the "marginalized" corner to the center of social recognition. Since birth, these people have not received any social recognition, neither from the state nor from its social or cultural institutions. Most of them are attributed to the subaltern, as described by the Italian philosopher Antonio Gramsci, meaning those who do not have intellectual or organizational affiliations and mostly follow the state and its authoritarian circles as their primary locus in political decision-making. Therefore, the broadcasting of their daily lives, and their existence, even if accidentally, as a "trend", gives them an unparalleled opportunity of a strategic, revolutionary social act. They cling to it, like Mohammad the janitor, or Haitham "Wegz al-Ghalaba," and hundreds of others who struggle for recognition. This is to transition from an "invisible" life to social recognition amidst different groups present in the virtual space, to know them, interact with them, and even love them. This implicitly represents what German philosopher Axel Honneth considered a form of striving for integration and visibility, through the presentation of these daily lives to the public, who begin to see them, know them, and talk about them. Likewise, overcoming marginalization by earning money through YouTube views or Facebook ads and appearances on various television programs becomes a strategic alternative for them, and the screen replaces the party headquarters and political work.

This also intersects with the rise of individualism as a philosophy and practice, focusing on the self, the "body," and restricting its existence and survival to achievement, within what is known as the "society of burnout," where individuals struggle with time, mental, and psychological burnout for an achievement that is never satisfactory at a certain point. The myth of the hero invented and promoted by capitalism, or what Professor of Psychology Bryan Little called the "myth of the lone hero" who everyone races to reach, not out of genuine creativity in a particular field, but out of a distorted individualism and extreme narcissism, desiring to be admired by everyone in an obsession with it. This, in turn, dismantled work within collective organization, meaning working for the community/others, not just working for oneself. Therefore, many adopted the slogan "we don't need organization and politics and its woes," especially if authority manages life through suppression, and since self-representation often takes shape through representing one's own body, its ideal existence. This creates another contradiction to political existence, where exceptional politics eliminates the body, by killing it, imprisoning it, or absorbing it. Hence, the obsession with preserving the body, as it is a "symbolic capital" for the self, and its absence means the absence of the self under the dominance of individualism and its system.

This was portrayed  into reality through surveys conducted by a group of researchers in 2016 under the auspices of the Friedrich Ebert Foundation and in cooperation with a group of partners, following interviews with nine thousand young people from eight Arab countries, including Egypt, Jordan, Bahrain, Lebanon, Palestine, Yemen, Tunisia, and Morocco, in addition to the "refugees" in Lebanon, regarding their interests and views on several issues, including interest in politics in all its dimensions. The overall percentage was that 18% of young people in general are interested in politics. In Egypt, the percentage was only 23%, reflecting the indifference of most young people in Egypt towards politics and everything related to it. This apathy was primarily a result of the suppression of the post-2013 authoritarianism, which dashed the dreams of Egyptian youth for change, reform, and political participation, and even interest in politics altogether.

Here, the body has taken on its representation in consumption rather than in politics. Relationships that were once based on ethical, intellectual, cultural, and political ties have transitioned to being founded on consumer behaviors, materialistic approaches, and brand affiliations. Human relationships themselves have been replaced by the pleasure of consumption, which has also provided psychological, social, and symbolic status in lieu of them. From a historical-political perspective, diving into all pleasures can be analyzed as being "manufactured from desperation," born out of the difficult circumstances many have experienced, whether wars, armed conflicts, failed revolutions, or severe repression through authoritarian regimes, especially if people emerged from those events with disappointing results and dismal failures, as has recently happened in many countries, such as the continued dominance and occupation of Palestinian land by the Zionist entity, the Lebanese Civil War from 1975 to 1990, the Syrian revolution that began in March 2011, and the January 2011 revolution in Egypt. All these events left a negative psychological impact on Arab societies, attracting them to various consumer spaces within multiple psychological, social, and urban settings.

Furthermore, politics and its bodies and vocabularies have shifted from their usual places to consumption arenas, from political work headquarters and street spaces to entertainment and nightlife venues. Lebanon is an example of this transition, what the Lebanese sociologist Samir Khalaf calls the transition "from the battleground to the playground." In the midst of Lebanon's political stagnation governed by sectarianism and its multiple authoritarianisms, which have led the country and its people to a state of economic, political, and cultural deterioration, some bodies have become accustomed to entertainment as an essential part of consumer lifestyles. Politics accompanies them in rhythmic vocabularies, songs, and tunes that insult authoritarianism, and bodies dance in closed spaces unseen by authoritarianism, expressing emotional dissent that doesn't change the political reality but temporarily satisfies the self with the taste of protest, consumer protest. This does not mean that real political work in Lebanon, Egypt, or other authoritarian regimes is easy; it is incredibly difficult. However, this is the cost of change and its obstacles. Authoritarianism, deeply entrenched and rigid, is difficult to uproot through long-term political and revolutionary work.

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.