Helga Tawil-Souri and Dina Matar, eds., Producing Palestine: The Creative Production of Palestine through Contemporary Media (New Texts Out Now)

Helga Tawil-Souri and Dina Matar, eds., Producing Palestine: The Creative Production of Palestine through Contemporary Media (New Texts Out Now)

Helga Tawil-Souri and Dina Matar, eds., Producing Palestine: The Creative Production of Palestine through Contemporary Media (New Texts Out Now)

By : Helga Tawil-Souri and Dina Matar

Helga Tawil-Souri and Dina Matar (eds.), Producing Palestine: The Creative Production of Palestine through Contemporary Media (Bloomsbury, 2024).

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

Helga Tawil-Souri and Dina Matar (HTS & DM): This book was a collaborative project with the many contributors and which we worked on prior to the current genocide. We wanted to address “new” media and technologies (even if these were reconceptualizations of something “old”) and were interested in organic, non-mainstream, oppositional forms of mediation rather than institutional or hegemonic ones: “texts” and spaces that had not been written about much which consider what Palestinians themselves are doing and how and why, how Palestinian-ness is expressed and (re)conceived, what Palestine becomes. In short, we wanted to focus on contemporary visions and expressions and look at how media, technologies, screens, and platforms enable forms of creative production. 

We were keen to consider how our world is increasingly marked by screens and spaces of mediation, open to both liberating and oppressive processes, depending on how these are built and used, by whom, to what ends, in what ways, and under which conditions. Screens and spaces of mediation nowadays are much more than simply television sets and cinemas, or books and magazines. They include maps, databases, apps, snapchats, film footage shot on phones, graffitied surfaces, and posters, as well as kites, photo albums, games, windows, stickers, and selfies. These have become the spaces, infrastructures, and elements on, in, and through which we experience so much of the world. These new visions and new technologies evoke questions well beyond those of representation and invite us to think about issues such as reality and illusion, surface and depth, visibility and obsolescence, presence and ephemerality, temporality and distance, and more… And we were interested in bringing together these questions in relation to Palestine, Palestinians, and Palestinianness, across multiple geographies and periods. 

Producing Palestine was conceived with the aim of addressing a discernible increase in the production of Palestine—through (“new”) technologies, screens, infrastructures, ways of doing. It was also conceived with the hope of accessing, and making accessible, Palestine through the process of its production.

“Palestine” is about the possibilities that emerge through social arrangements of varying scales that operate in the production of life and (his)stories.

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

HTS & DM: The book addresses the creative production of Palestine in diverse spaces and cultural genres by multiple actors. In focusing on the action and activity of producing and production, we consider the complexity of the social, of recognizing that there is no single dominant hegemony that is to be filled with different content, but rather that “Palestine” is about the possibilities that emerge through social arrangements of varying scales that operate in the production of life and (his)stories.

The cases (rather than traditional academic “chapters”) are organic, deliberate, contingent on one another; they themselves are forms of creative labor production that attempt to blur the distinction between a (media) producer, artist, reader, interpreter, scholar. They bring together production that includes games, personal and archival photographs, films, graffiti, posters, TikTok videos, memories, food, music, the kuffiyeh, digital maps, everyday objects, drone footage, among others, and reflect on, demonstrate, partake in, and generate multiple expressions and imaginaries of producing Palestine. Collectively, they theorize the transcendent activities taking place across media, across languages, across temporalities, across geographies, and across disciplines as modes of productive labor that take place in relation to how Palestine has been and continues to be presented, represented, misrepresented—"contained,” if you will—from both within and without.

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

HTS & DM: The book continues our collaboration on critically engaging with Palestine and Palestinians. In our first edited book, Gaza as Metaphor (2016), we used the concept metaphor to think of how Gaza itself had become a metaphor and metonym for the Palestinian condition. In this book, we focus on the imaginative production of Palestine in diverse spaces, therefore addressing questions related to media, mediation, and production that are central quotidian practices in the contemporary period.

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

HTS & DM: We hope this book will be read by a wide range of readers, students, scholars, activists, journalists, artists, producers of all sorts, and NGOs. Readers that already know about Palestine and those for whom Palestine is new. We envision the book to provide a different and agentive reading and explanation of what Palestine means, how Palestinians themselves engage with expressing, representing, creating themselves in and beyond mediated spaces, and an understanding of how Palestine is and has come to be a global symbol of resistance, struggle, and birth and death.

J: What other projects are you working on now?

DM: I am currently editing a book on political communication in the Middle East and North Africa in which I have a chapter about the necessity to look at storytelling and oral history as politics in the margin and spaces for producing anti-colonial knowledge. I am also working on other chapters and journal articles related to the ongoing genocide in Gaza. I hope to embark on a follow-up monograph to my first one, “What it means to be Palestinian,” focusing on the Palestinian diaspora and imaginations of Palestinian-ness in the context of a permanent war.

J: How can we problematize and rethink media in all its forms during livestreamed genocide and excessive violence?

HTS & DM: The final edits of the volume took place after October 2023, during the first months of carnage in Gaza. That renewed and magnified violence, combined with the destruction of media, the killing of journalists, the censorship and obfuscation of Palestinian voices, and yet also the emergence or presence of Palestinian voices, images, and stories circulating in ways they previously had not (through social media for example), made it clear that questions of self-representation and production were and remain important.

And while it is clear how much contemporary hegemonic forces and media outlets are a continuation or extension of a long history of dispossession and silencing of Palestinians and destruction of Palestinian life worlds, there is also no denying the increase in “pro-Palestine” solidarity and the widespread recognition of Palestine as part of, and increasingly understood as interlinked with, various forms of oppression and of struggle. We think that the existence of these, the increase and expansion of these actions, these fissures in hegemonic structures, are in part owed to what we call the (continuous) production of Palestine. As we wrote in the epilogue: 

The urge and the action to document, to record, to describe, to perform, to express, to archive—in short, to produce—Palestine is not created only in response to or as a challenge against violence, dehumanization, or silencing; nor does it exigently draw on historical points chosen by Zionism, Israel, or others. We can and do produce without being held in opposition to others’ political or institutional objectives, whether material, discursive, psychic, or otherwise. The production of Palestine also traces roots and intertwines with circuits outside hegemonic constraints in all kinds of ways. We use our own slang, we have our own idioms, we connote our own meanings, and we reuse our own materials. What we produce, what we choose to mediatically (re)produce, imbricates our fabrics, herbs, utensils, colors, and fruits. We claim our own ruins, children, and martyrs, and decide which we render into symbols. Palestinians have agency. And production requires agency.

The renewed and expanded violence against Palestinians, the incessant attempt to obliterate and silence Palestinians, and yet the ongoing expressions from within and outside of Palestine, only demonstrate to us how important it is to document, to archive, and even to celebrate what is produced in the now. Because we still believe that it is production that grounds us in the act of making and being engaged in and with the world. 

 

Excerpt from the book (from the Introduction by Helga Tawil-Souri and Dina Matar, “Producing Palestine: Representational (Im)possibilities,” pages 1 to 13)

Palestine has often been defined and constructed in the global imaginary by (as) conflict, resistance, oppression and violence. Palestine is so overridden with claims, associations, and conflicting representations, continuously “framed, hedged about, shaped, controlled, and surveilled from every possible perspective” that, in WJT Mitchell’s words: “it is a wonder that the earth’s crust does not buckle under their weight.” Yet Palestine, to Palestinians especially, also remains inaccessible: an ongoing settler-colonial experiment that is exclusionary and violent in its destruction and attempted erasure, a scattering of fragmented and diminishing lands locked up behind walls on the other side of which are disappearing traces of erased villages, an expanding and distant diaspora forbidden from return or even a visit, a political project and cultural identity that are continually contested whose past existence and narratives are contested too. 

Because of the multitude of claims and counterclaims, representations and misrepresentations, Palestinian cultural expression and production is frequently attempting to “correct” or readjust these representational politics, while also contending with continued and changing forms of representations, repression, silencing, and erasure. Moreover, the relationship of Palestinians to Palestine is often defined by inaccessibility, by immobility and insecurity, and thus, again, Palestinian cultural production contends not only with how to disrupt the current order of things, but with how to access, how to preserve the disappearing and ephemeral, how to survive and make meaning out of and despite continuous political impasses, how to conjure a future that is generative and inclusive rather than forlorn and exclusionary. As such, grasping Palestine, accessing Palestine, depicting Palestine, and even “correcting” the image of Palestine, in short, producing Palestine, is a multilayered activity, mobilized by various actors taking myriad different routes (not all of which are tangible), relying on both “old” and “new” technologies, stimulating and in some cases also simulating new visualizations, realizing Palestine while also contending with its possible and impossible horizons.

“Producing” Palestine, we suggest, refers to a series of overlapping active processes: the experimentation and experience that take place through cultural, mediatic, and technological modes of action; through analysis, juxtaposition, and challenging of these creations by an array of “producers”; through interpretation of all of these by “readers,” which in turn (re)invigorate new creative expressions. Creative production is undertaken at multiple points, by multiple actors, successively and simultaneously considering, generating and reinscribing what is and what remains possible. Producing Palestinethus, means to actively partake in transcendent activities across media, across languages, across temporalities, across geographies, and most certainly across disciplines. 

Producing Palestine refers not simply to a monitoring or documenting project, or only a theoretical or speculative undertaking; it is an enlivened and enlivening praxis that engages “producers” and “readers” (as kinds of producers themselves) of different kinds. Our orientation around production is based on the recognition that all social formations are heterogeneous arrangements and relations – of material and immaterial forces, of matter, images, desires, languages, technologies, among other processes – that resonate together. This productive labor is complex, time-consuming, individual and collaborative, conceptual, interpretive, relational, perhaps ultimately also ontological. This kind of labor also occurs in continuous relation to how Palestine has been and continues to be presented, represented, misrepresented – ‘contained’ if you will – from both within and without. 

… 

“Producing Palestine” as a process allows us to theorize the dynamics between media and politics beyond dominant approaches that remain bounded by Eurocentric privileging of media as an anchor in social practices that have emerged within the closed worlds of media organizations and structures. Such a proposition demands a critical engagement with continuous meaning-making and productive labor of and by ordinary people within and beyond formal structures or institutions. It also demands interrogation of the overused concept of representation as reductive, particularly when talking about colonized Palestine, because of its genesis in Western epistemologies, and its unfolding within specific contexts of histories and institutions of empire. Producing Palestine underlines the act of production by Palestinians transformed — and able to transform themselves — through their knowing practices and structures of feeling. For it is through practices that the intersections of knowledge, embodied action, and social life comes alive. Producing is thus a moment of vitality, of turning into something living, a moment of (political) becoming, an act that becomes part of a common moment and participates in the articulation of the collective’s potential. 

Media can function as venues and means for historical context and memory. When the arsenal of political and military strategies used by the Israeli state has meant the literal erasure of Palestinian presence on the land, media depicting the making of local dishes, the ability to digitally map and layer, and (re)connect through reincarnation, illuminate that displacement, and reveal a past life that continues its existence in another form, becomes relevant. Media thus testify to Palestinian attachment to spatiality, severed as it is by occupation and exile, attesting to a continued presence, keeping the claims of Palestinian belonging alive, and visible. Media demonstrate and are part of the quotidian resilience of a systemically oppressed community who prevails despite destruction, displacement, and disenfranchisement.

We produce media often because of their potential to function as centralizing spaces that act as and are nodes of our sociality and promote human interaction. We create card games, paint murals, share photographs, or make videos to bring us together. These do not merely depict or represent forms of resistance or activism (or any other politics) by themselves but are inextricably bound in political discourses. They demand, sometimes even command, space in discourses whose limits are no longer solely determined by institutional gatekeepers such as museums, national news stations, or multinational corporations. Rather, like memes gone viral, they can emerge as their own political and visual language, that is, to some degree, beyond the realm of mediation, enacting their own generative politics. They carve out the space to construct (new) publics and means of conversations in and through networks that are transnational or global that do not necessarily succumb to—or are solely constructed by—the institutional or geopolitical.

Media production of Palestine has become and is more quotidian: easy, daily, accessible for more people to participate in, to create and co-create, to interpret and make meaning of, to riff on and be playful, to disassemble and reassemble. Less and less is held, determined, or controlled by institutional forms. Politics then happens not only in formal spaces but in cooking, furtive crossings, singing, graffitying, digital mapping, donning a keffiyeh. Politics happens in unexpected places and through unremarked practices. Politics is everywhere.

Media are subjunctive: they provide presence and legibility, both of which hinge on being there, being recognized, being “seen” by others, enacting the demands of collective life. A website, an Instagram post, a documentary film, and an app are spaces where and through which Palestinians practice those rights. These perform a broader, transnational, mobile, global visuality that is central to self-expression and recognition. The operations facilitated by (“new”) media are not only imminent to the rupture of hegemony but are also constitutive of (political) life itself.

In being subjunctive, media also make visible what is imagined or wished possible, providing spaces for articulation, experimentation, speculation, immanence. Spoons, drones, maps, posters, virtual reality become artifacts, tools, technologies, sites, infrastructures, and relations through which Palestinians engage in acts of world-building. The potentialities of the medium shape the perceptual and relational nature of experience, of a particular mode of subjectivity and the kinds of actions that are embedded in it. They display, reconstitute, and re-engender distinct subjectivities.

Virtual representations of the Palestinian space have long acted as tools to communicate certain political claims and to produce geopolitical territorial arrangements. Representations of Palestinians have also been part of the decolonial and revolutionary struggles for liberation. What is different today is the coming together of these elements. Films, websites, digital archiving tools, maps, photographs, and tweets, among others, are not just evocative but result in an expansion of what Palestine is.

Over the past few decades, the “power” of media, and our theorization thereof, has been enlarged or expanded, not because of informational or computational quotients and measures but by the ways through which they reshape visibility, spatiality, subjectivity, and agency. Palestine, then, is interpreted not only to be as strictly a story of the territory lost to Israel but as an engagement with the production of media. In the latter, space is necessarily open. Palestine becomes a process that emerges through that practice and its constant “reterritorialization.” In other words, films, websites, digital archives, mapping apps, posters, graffiti circulating on social media, photographs, and recipes, among other examples brought together in this book, are not simply detached and marginal cultural or virtual expressions but part of the reconfigurations of (political) power.

 

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.