Collective Antigone (ed.), Imprisoning a Revolution: Writings from Egypt's Incarcerated (New Texts Out Now)

Collective Antigone (ed.), Imprisoning a Revolution: Writings from Egypt's Incarcerated (New Texts Out Now)

Collective Antigone (ed.), Imprisoning a Revolution: Writings from Egypt's Incarcerated (New Texts Out Now)

By : Collective Antigone

Collective Antigone (ed.), Imprisoning a Revolution: Writings from Egypt's Incarcerated (University of California Press, 2025).

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

Collective Antigone (CA): This book is not so much edited as curated, by a team of Egyptian and international scholars, human rights defenders, and activists who came together in support of prisoners of conscience in Egypt. With this volume, we have tried to bring together letters, as well as poetry and art, that not only reveal the injustice and even horrors associated with the system of mass political incarceration in Egypt but also offer, with all its particularities, a collective voice to the world about the freedom erased and the dreams crushed by the collective imprisonment of a generation of Egyptians. Many of those imprisoned for alleged “political” crimes were guilty of nothing more than a Facebook or Twitter post, or even just being at the wrong place at the wrong time.

At least 100,000 Egyptians have been imprisoned since the beginning of the 2011 revolutionary uprising by each successive governing regime, under extremely dire conditions. As tragic, this regime of mass incarceration has proceeded with the effective indifference of the international community. Egypt’s incarcerated are largely absent from international discussions, existing mainly in documents and reports by local and international human rights and prisoner solidarity organizations. Their personal stories remain mostly unknown and their humanity hidden, if not erased. Against this longstanding and increasing violence, literature has long had the power to inspire empathy and support. We believe these letters have a strong literary character and quality despite the majority being written by unknown, “ordinary” Egyptians.

Imprisoning a Revolution reveals that there are numerous Antigones in Egypt today.

J: Why did you name your curational team Collective Antigone? 

CA: Antigone, daughter of Oedipus and Jocasta, appears in the fifth century “Theban Plays” trilogy by the Greek playwright Sophocles and especially of the eponymous tragedy. She defied the orders of her uncle, Creon, newly crowned King of Thebes, and buried her brother Polynice, accused of treason. Antigone’s defiance of the king’s authority in fidelity to her family and her principles has long served as inspiration for those seeking justice within authoritarian systems. Imprisoning a Revolution reveals that there are numerous Antigones in Egypt today. What’s more, adopting a pseudonym protects the team from obvious risks. It also reflects the collaborative nature of this work, which would have been impossible without the dedication of every single person involved in it. 

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

CA: The book is composed of four parts. It begins with an essay by award-winning Egyptian author Ahmed Naji, who narrates his prison experiences to question the still common notion that the main value of prison writing lies in its function as testimony. He argues for the equal value of prison writings as literature. The sometimes tense relationship between literature and testimony, aesthetics and politics, raised by Naji sets the tone of the book. An introductory curational essay follows, which documents the deep relationship between the modern Egyptian state and its carceral system, from the late Ottoman era to the present day.

The third and main body of the book consists of forty-six chapters, each with a short author biography and comprising some one hundred letters, poems, and images of artwork created by prisoners from a wide variety of sources. They include well-known journalists and activists such as Alaa Abd El Fattah, Ahmed Douma, Mahienour el-Massry, and Sarah Hegazi, as well as unknown workers, women as well as men, young and old. These letters do not just denounce the condition of detainees in Egyptian prisons; they document from a very specific point of view the history of the 2011 Revolution and the counter-revolution in Egypt. Said otherwise, they compose a micro-history from below of contemporary Egypt from 2011 until 2023.

Finally, the fourth part of the book comprises an interview that members of Collective Antigone conducted with the famed Kenyan novelist, playwright, and philosopher, Ngugi wa Thiong’o, himself imprisoned in Kenya in 1979 for a year for his political writing. With over half a century as one of the world’s foremost thinkers about the power of language and writing as forms of resistance, Ngugi revisits his experience in prison through the letters in our volume that most moved him. He gifted Imprisoning a Revolution with a message of hope to the imprisoned authors and, through it, to all Egyptians still hoping for a democratic transformation in Egypt.

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

CA: The experience of prison today has become even more difficult than in previous eras, reflected in the desperation that is expressed in many of the letters, especially in recounting the routine humiliations, torture, overcrowding, and sickness suffered or witnessed by the writers. Reflecting the immediacy of experience rather than its recollection, the book polyphonically captures history in the making, and does so in a manner building on the increased attention to imprisonment in Egypt and across the region. This volume connects to rather than departs from our previous work. We are a multi-generational collaboration, with members sharing experiences that go back to the Egyptian student movement in the 1970s, feminist activism since the 1980s, the internet and social media generations, and the “Tahrir generation” that led the #Jan25 revolution. 

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

CA: We have multiple audiences in mind. First, we hope to reach an educated public, policymakers, and journalists. We hope that the power of the writing can shock the conscience and mobilize the public and governments globally to take seriously the ongoing abuses by the Sisi regime, and to use the repression and the often horrific costs of imprisonment for the incarcerated, their families, and Egyptian society as a mirror to consider the similarly, if often more hidden (or at least less discussed) costs of similar carceral regimes in their own countries. Second, we hope to reach the community of Arab, Middle East, and Islamic studies scholars, to provide both a historical introduction on carcerality in Egypt (and through it the broader region) and a collection of primary source texts for research and for pedagogy.

J: What were the main challenges you have met while working on this book?

CA: Like most projects, the hardest part was to calibrate our expectations with what was realistically achievable. As this was conceived as a collective project of solidarity since day one, building the team required reaching out to a broad network of scholars and activists who work in Egypt and have long experience of human rights work and engaged scholarship. As we describe in the Introduction, there is less chance today for most prisoners to communicate safely with family, friends, or even their lawyers than in the past. Beyond that, only a fraction of them have written letters that would be relevant to a public collection such as ours, and even fewer were written in a context that would enable their publication. Even so, we were able to obtain far more letters than could possibly be published, which necessitated the equivalent of assembling a jigsaw puzzle without a picture of what the finished work is supposed to look like. We were quickly overwhelmed by the variety and the number of writings we collected and deciding what to include was made more difficult by the fact that each letter bore the story of an individual and their community. 

We described this broader complex as a “carceralocracy,” a system of global governance that relies on the imprisonment of political dissidents in authoritarian contexts with the indifference or even support of Western liberal democracies. In the book we also argue that this is more than a legacy of the colonial order; it is its continuation in the postcolonial world.

We worked hard to make this collection as inclusive as possible in terms of the backgrounds of the letter writers—age, gender, religious, and/or political affiliation—and the ultimate disposition of their sentence (released, still imprisoned, executed). Yet we still wound up with relatively few letters from several groups, most notably members of the Muslim Brotherhood and the Ultras movement, in good measure because their conditions of imprisonment were even more restricted and securitized, or they simply did not tend to write letters in the manner other groups did. Nevertheless, we feel the final collection offers an important and broad window into one of the most important phenomena in contemporary authoritarian politics in Egypt and globally.

J: What other projects are you working on now?

CA: Each member and organization participating in the collective is working on their own individual research and advocacy projects, comprising a broad range of topics including the relationship between art and politics in the Arab world and Africa, human rights in authoritarian contexts, Arabic literature, and feminist studies. But all of us remain involved in various ways in human rights and particularly prisoner-related work, in Egypt and across the region.

We hope that this volume will encourage similar efforts to bring forward the voices of societies suffering from mass political imprisonment. Palestine is an obvious case study, and the ostensibly miraculous fall of the Assad regime will likely encourage memoirs and anthologies of reflections on previously hidden or at least unpublished letters from the over 100,000 Syrians imprisoned under even worse conditions than their Egyptian counterparts. We hope that this volume can inspire and in various ways serve as an example or encouragement for future collections, not just in the global Middle East, but also in countries such as El Salvador or, potentially today, the United States, with large-scale prison complexes. 

And we also feel it is important to move beyond words and offer direct support; thus, all royalties from this volume are being disbursed directly to families of Egyptian political prisoners through a fund established with Amnesty International.

 

Excerpt from the book (from pages 136 to 38)

Mostafa al-Aasar, a freelancer for regional newspapers including UltraSawt and Al-Araby, was detained in February 2018, and hiss pre-trial detention renewed until Egypt’s Supreme Court Security Prosecution ordered his release on bail on May 7, 2020. He was released on July 18, 2021.

Ramadan Nights in Prison

This is my second Ramadan without friends.

Friends: they are mine and I am theirs. Do I remember them? Forget them?

Remembering is painful and stabs me in my mind, diminishing its ability to keep pivotal moments of my memory intact, even though the moments aren’t in a chronological and logical order—but the mind has its own methods, and it’s impossible to just follow [whatever path] we want.

The blurry moments of memory exhaust me, as if a part of me is being separated from me and I cling to it so that it does not escape. The clear moments destroy me like a punch with an iron fist in the face, but those in between kill me because they remind me of my condition. I am the one who is caught in the middle of two conditions, neither winning nor losing, neither happy nor sad, neither free nor constrained, neither alive nor dead, existing like a reserve player. I am the living embodiment of the irritating state of indecisiveness!

Prison kills us slowly. It empties us of our human content. Every night it sucks yet another drop of our blood, and in the morning it takes the breath from our lungs. It takes a step from our feet every time it prevents us from moving. It takes speech from our tongues in every situation in which we are impotent, unable and powerless to express, complain, or scream. It takes all of this and in return it gives us fear, insomnia, nightmares, rheumatism, osteoarthritis, muscle atrophy, emotional imbalance, slow reaction, calcification of the mind, and scars on the heart whose effects time cannot erase. It takes the rays of light from our eyes and from our vision. It strips us of everything except the dampness and cruelty of [our] prison cells. It strips our minds of memories, the past, ideas, and all previously stored images. The mind becomes an empty box, and the body becomes a corpse without a soul.

Sadness spreads in the mind like cancer, spreading in every cell until it completely forgets what happiness used to mean. Even the laughter that is forcibly stolen from our lips makes me wonder, why laughter in the midst of tragedy? Is laughter evidence of happiness and its logical synonym? Who is the stupid fool who came up with this ridiculous equation? We may laugh because—sorry—we are no longer good at crying.

The crisis in prison is not only that we strip naked in front of ourselves and in front of everyone with ease and appear in that image that we do not hope for ourselves to the point that we hate ourselves, but rather that there is no way to present ourselves in an alternative image that we like, and that there is no way to escape from this disgusting reality. There is no way. It is effective for distracting the mind and diverting it from thinking. Whenever you try to move away and distract yourself by any trivial means available, your eyes collide with walls, bars, and closed doors, throwing you before your distorted reality, which is represented by weakness, helplessness, and lack of destiny.

There is no distraction in prison. This is a fact as certain as the reality of global warming. There is no distraction or escape. There is no way other than confrontation. Confrontation with an enemy we cannot stand and to whom we are not equal breaks us at every moment until we no longer have a healthy atom.

There are few experiences after which a person does not return to what he was: to experience death—for example—in one of his loved ones, or to experience death—in reserve—as a prisoner.

This new person who is born after the end of the ordeal may live eternally estranged from himself, his community, his acquaintances, and his friends. He may face contempt for the self that has been exposed. He may voluntarily choose death as an effective means of salvation from the knives that are tearing him apart, or he may immerse himself emotionally and intellectually in a radical way in every arriving experience without any thought, becoming like a newborn crawling towards life.

What is certain is that he suffers from dullness and hypersensitivity at the same time, becoming a strange, annoying, and difficult person who is not good at human interactions, and ordinary people do not know how to get along with him, so a new desire for isolation and exhausting distance is born in him, a new conflict that tears him apart . . . something like a strange virus. It affects the brain and prevents it from performing its cognitive functions with the required efficiency, something like a fatal error in human programming.

Harmful psychological experiences, like a thread of smoke from burnt cigarette tobacco, may disappear in seconds if the individual is able to blow them away, but their destructive effects nevertheless remain attached to him against his will, just as smoke clings to the lungs, blood, and bronchial tubes, and just as its flavor clings to the mouth to be clearly announced to every incoming stranger. About ulcers in the wall of the soul . . . and the longer the experience lasts, the more the destruction increases . . . so be gentle with us, for we are more fragile than we appear, and perhaps at the same time we are more solid than you think.

To friends I say, “Do you still remember me when you sit together? I don’t want to lose the last seat—the last thing I can hold on to.

December 5, 2019. Previously published in Arabic on the website Atlas of Egyptian Prison. Courtesy of the author.

Sarah Hegazy

Sarah Hegazy was born in 1989 and started blogging in 2012. A queer activist, on May 17, 2017, the International Day against Homophobia, she created a social media event titled “Support Love.” At the beginning of October of that year she was arrested in the “rainbow flag case,” so known because in September 2017 she was captured in a photo raising a rainbow flag during a concert by the popular Lebanese indie rock band Mashrou’ Leila, whose lead singer, Hamed Sinno, is considered the first performer in the Arab world to come out as gay. Sarah was officially charged with “promoting debauchery and joining an illegal organization that threatens public and societal peace.” Mashrou’ Leila was banned from performing in Egypt, and later in their native Lebanon, and broke up in 2022 after years of harassment.

Imprisoned for three months in 2017, in her writings Sarah denounced the torture and sexual harassment she endured in prison, as well as the sense of alienation from her family and discrimination she faced in her community for being a gay woman. After her release, Sarah fled to Canada, uprooted from her family, her community, and her country, which she deeply loved. She never returned, even when her mother died, but remained engaged with events in Egypt, wrestling with the intersections of class struggle and LGBTQ+ issues. Sarah committed suicide in Canada on June 14, 2020. In an Instagram post the day before she died, under a photo of her lying on the grass with a blue sky above and a smile on her face, she wrote, “The sky is sweeter than the earth! And I want the sky, not the earth.”

A Dedication

Hello comrade,

I am grateful to those 

who make no claim to perfection or excessive idealism! 

to those who [sacrificed] to know the truth and are in constant search of it, secretly or publicly 

to those who heroically persist

to those who search for love on their own

to those who live with the bitterness and the sweetness of the world

to those who plant a rose inside their heart—and inside those of others

to those whose hearts were never orphaned

to those whom depression cuddles like a loyal lover 

to those who feel terror when hatred ravages the world

to those who care about rebellion, books, reading, and music 

to those who fell in love with Fairuz and Asmahan

to those who were fondly in love with someone 

to those who find peace in solitude

to those who search for love and beauty in ugliness 

to those who search for peace amid struggle and war 

to those who endured the struggle 

to those who collapsed in the face of the struggle

to the person who loves and hates, and then reconciles with life and death 

Written in Qanater Prison in 2017 and published as part of “Sarah Hegazy’s Diaries in Qanater Prison 2017” on the “Pride for Sarah Hegazi” Facebook page.

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.