|
Home
About IsraCampus
Search
עברית
Русский
Ben Gurion U
Hebrew U
Tel Aviv U
U of Haifa
Other Schools
A-C
D-G
H-K
L-N
O-R
S-V
W-Z
Israeli Academic Extremism
Israeli Academic Extremists outside
Israel
Anti-Israel Petitions Signed by Israeli
Academics
ALEF Watch
IDI Watch
IsraCampus Essays
How to Complain
Contact Us |
Other Schools
Interdisciplinary Center (Herzliya) - Galia Golan's (School of
Government) Gynocentric Campaign for "Palestinians" against Israel
In many cases, women are used not only to
moderate behavior (the role, for example, of Machsom Watch at the
checkpoints) but to actually carry out the many tasks associated
with human security and winning over the hearts and minds of the
population. Research has indeed found that women tend to take on the
stereotypical "tough" characteristics of males in the military, but
there is also evidence that police forces, for example, have become
more restrained when large numbers of women have been added to their
ranks. Other research has shown that men may react more favorably to
women, believing women (according to the stereotype) to be more fair
than men, more considerate and trustworthy.1
There is of course, the risk of
exploitation of this stereotype or misuse by the military of soft
power, for purposes other than genuine peace-building, but the
advantages as distinct from "hard power" may be worth the risk.
Women May See Things That Men Don't See
This is not to say that men cannot employ
soft power, undertake the tasks of human security, or come up with
peace-building ideas such as peace parks instead of early warning
stations. Indeed, a man, Dr. Alon Liel, proposed that a peace park
be created on the Golan Heights once it is returned to Syria, and
the idea has been employed in southern Africa for some years.
However, a gender perspective of security arrangements would most
likely focus on solutions with the potential to produce different
ideas or introduce different considerations. Even as women differ
from one another according to class, culture, background and so
forth, women's experience of daily life is different from men's
experience. Women, therefore, may well see things that a man does
not. This is one of the reasons why security studies deal with the
subject of agency and in particular human agency, which is
increasingly associated with non-state actors, including women.
Women become the ones doing the job, but they also set the
discourse, raise the issues, determine priorities, suggest what must
be done and articulate just what constitutes security, by and for
whom. Thus women become not only the recipients, or the object of
security considerations, but also resources for deciding on and
producing security. And with this, women can perhaps contribute to a
change in the concept of security to a concept more suited to an era
of peaceful post-conflict relations rather than the concept of hard
security that characterizes the Israeli scene today.
http://pij.org/details.php?id=1370
A Gender Perspective on Security
Viewing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through a different lens.
by Galia Golan
The Palestine-Israel Journal
Vol.17 No.3 & 4 2011 / Women and Power
The Van Leer Program on Women in Public
Life recently held a discussion on gender perspectives on issues in
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Women dealt with the core issues
of the conflict, namely borders, settlements, refugees, etc. in an
attempt to determine if a gender perspective would add or otherwise
change the negotiators' approach to these issues. This was not the
often-held discussion on women and peace or whether or not women are
more peace-loving than men, but rather an effort to see if a look at
the issues through a different lens might produce a different
approach or suggest something not noticed before. One of these
issues is that of security arrangements — an area generally
perceived to be the exclusive domain of former military or security
figures, most of whom are male.
Until now, the basic concept underlying
Israel-Palestinian negotiations and discussions of security
arrangements has been a concept not based on peace, that is, an
agreement to usher in a new reality of peace. Rather, they have been
based conceptually, at least on the Israeli side, on the idea of
creating a situation in which Israel will be prepared for the next
war (or hostile actions). As a result, security arrangements have
concentrated on such things as the need for an Israeli military
presence in the Jordan Rift valley, fences and walls, early warning
stations, control of air and electromagnetic space, etc. All of this
is based on an anticipated threat or expectation of war, not peace.
Hard and Soft Security
Given this approach, only measures of
what is termed "hard security," that is, arms, weapons systems and
the like, are accorded serious (if any) consideration. If one were
to conduct negotiations on the basis of peace with the intention of
building and accommodating an environment of peace then security
arrangements might be considered measures connected with "soft
security." These would include, for example, peace parks along the
borders, designed for tourism, industry, recreation or educational
centers and the like. In creating a physical environment for peace,
the foundations for the development of trust would also be created.
The point would be to move from a
concept of building "security from a threat" to one of building
"security to live." Such a move is commensurate with a shift in
international relations, codified by the United Nations, to a
broader view of security as "human security." This relates to the
security that people feel in their daily lives, with regard to
livelihoods, food, shelter and health. Applying this to security
arrangements would mean, at minimum, consideration of how a border,
whether a fence or any other physical barrier, would affect daily
life on both sides. Considerations of this type would have priority
over those of territorial expansion or strategic heights, for
example.
Even in the absence of peace, such
physical barriers as may be deemed necessary would take into account
access to hospitals, schools, and markets. A criterion of collective
punishment, employed within the occupied territories during the
second intifada, would clearly defy even the idea of (hard)
security, not to mention that of human security. Similarly, the
placement of movable/temporary checkpoints deemed more efficient
(fewer personnel needed) and to some degree providing easier
movement of goods and people, nonetheless impedes human security.
Such arrangements bring with them a strong element of uncertainty
for the local population. Indeed, it is the uncertainty that renders
"spot checks" the favored method of totalitarian regimes, for it
creates fear as well as instability in daily life. Concretely, one
may never know if one can reach work on time, pick up the children
at a designated time or plan one's basic daily life. These, too, are
elements of human security.
Using Soft Power to End Wars
Related to these different concepts of
security are varied concepts of power, namely hard and soft power.
Hard power, as noted above with regard to hard security, is
identified with military might — weapons, missiles and the like. In
the era of globalization, with the emergence of "new wars" as the
norm rather than the exception, the idea of soft power has emerged.
The "new wars" discussed by political theorist Mary Kaldor are not
wars between states but, rather, within states or between non-state
actors, involving civilians not only as victims (or targets) but
also as protagonists whose support is essential. Moreover, the end
of a conflict will most likely produce a situation in which the
protagonists will have to live together or in close proximity.
Therefore, even militaries today recognize the need to "win over
hearts and minds."
This is where soft power comes in to
play. Rather than the force of arms, such concepts as persuasion and
understanding are needed. Indeed, peacekeepers have become
peacemakers and peace-builders. An international force brought to
maintain security finds that it must deal with more than "hard
security" such as disarming protagonists or conducting armed
patrols. It must also engage with the local population, interacting
not only with officials in order to keep order but also with NGOs,
religious leaders, neighborhood groups and the returning Diaspora
community. Whether part of their mandate or not, they must deal with
day-to-day matters and issues of human security, for which soft
power is far more appropriate.
Examples in Liberia, Afghanistan and
the Middle East
Given these tasks, many have found that
women may be more suitable than men in view of the fact that women,
usually lacking the tools of hard power, are more accustomed and
possibly more skilled in "soft" power. Thus, the UN sent an
all-women Indian peacekeeping force to Liberia, and the U.S. marines
in Afghanistan include women engagement teams in their forces. In
many cases, women are used not only to moderate behavior (the role,
for example, of Machsom Watch at the checkpoints) but to actually
carry out the many tasks associated with human security and winning
over the hearts and minds of the population. Research has indeed
found that women tend to take on the stereotypical "tough"
characteristics of males in the military, but there is also evidence
that police forces, for example, have become more restrained when
large numbers of women have been added to their ranks. Other
research has shown that men may react more favorably to women,
believing women (according to the stereotype) to be more fair than
men, more considerate and trustworthy.1
There is of course, the risk of exploitation of this
stereotype or misuse by the military of soft power, for purposes
other than genuine peace-building, but the advantages as distinct
from "hard power" may be worth the risk.
Women May See Things That Men Don't See
This is not to say that men cannot
employ soft power, undertake the tasks of human security, or come up
with peace-building ideas such as peace parks instead of early
warning stations. Indeed, a man, Dr. Alon Liel, proposed that a
peace park be created on the Golan Heights once it is returned to
Syria, and the idea has been employed in southern Africa for some
years. However, a gender perspective of security arrangements would
most likely focus on solutions with the potential to produce
different ideas or introduce different considerations. Even as women
differ from one another according to class, culture, background and
so forth, women's experience of daily life is different from men's
experience. Women, therefore, may well see things that a man does
not. This is one of the reasons why security studies deal with the
subject of agency and in particular human agency, which is
increasingly associated with non-state actors, including women.
Women become the ones doing the job, but they also set the
discourse, raise the issues, determine priorities, suggest what must
be done and articulate just what constitutes security, by and for
whom. Thus women become not only the recipients, or the object of
security considerations, but also resources for deciding on and
producing security. And with this, women can perhaps contribute to a
change in the concept of security to a concept more suited to an era
of peaceful post-conflict relations rather than the concept of hard
security that characterizes the Israeli scene today.
1
Maoz,
I. (2009).
The Women and Peace Hypothesis? The Effect of Opponent-negotiators'
Gender on Evaluation of Compromise Solutions in the
Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.International Negotiation,14,
521-538
|