These bright examples however do not reflect the overall picture in terms of the implementation of 1325. The role of the UN Secretariat, the secretary-general in particular, leaves much to be desired, to say the least. Undoubtedly, there is a clear need for his genuinely active and dedicated engagement in using the moral authority of the United Nations and the high office he occupies for the effective implementation of 1325.

What Can Be Done?

What then can we do in the coming months and years to move forward in ensuring an effective, real and faithful implementation of 1325 in letter and spirit?

As a start, even after all the enthusiasm generated by the 10th anniversary of 1325 last October, the leadership of the secretary-general should be manifested in at least four areas:

First, the secretary-general should give top priority to energizing and supporting the UN member states to prepare their respective National Plan of Action (NAP) for 1325 at the country level. Of 193 UN members, only 24 have prepared such plans so far – a meager one-third of which are developing countries. He should personally write to heads of states and governments – a civil society demand made to him a year ago – suggesting a timeframe to have their plans ready and get the UN resident coordinators to follow up on that. In real terms, NAP is the engine that would speed up the implementation of Resolution 1325.

Second, special attention should be given to the need for the promotion of awareness and sensitivity and training of the senior officials within the UN system as a whole with regard to Resolution 1325.

Third, urgent attention should be given to put an end to the sexual violence and abuses which take place in the name of peacekeeping and which have been ignored, tolerated and left unpunished for years by the UN. There should be no impunity whatsoever for the perpetrators of such acts.

Fourth, the secretary-general needs to take the lead in setting up a six monthly inclusive consultative process with civil society organizations at all levels and involving all relevant UN entities for the implementation of Resolution 1325. He should also encourage similar consultative processes with non-governmental organizations at country level.

UN Women, the new UN entity established in July 2010 by the General Assembly, to promote gender equality and empowerment of women, should take these four areas up in earnest to make progress and to show early leadership.

A gender-responsive justice system is an integral element of effective peace processes and a necessary component of nation-building activities in post-conflict situations. When women are able to participate in peace processes, the development of such a system is one of the priority concerns they raise. Such a justice system helps to break the continuing cycle of violence against women, and ensures their meaningful participation not only in peace negotiations, but in rebuilding their communities and in transforming their societies.

Calling upon warring parties to adopt “a gender perspective” on peace negotiations and “gender mainstreaming” in all UN peacekeeping missions would sound hollow and meaningless unless we build women’s capacity and provide real opportunities and support to ensure women’s political, economic and social empowerment, a place at the peace negotiation table and equal representation at all levels of decision-making.

After the failure of the Security Council to adopt the indicators proposed by the secretary-general last October, it is high time to ensure that a doable, realistic and practical set of indicators to monitor and measure progress in the implementation of 1325 receive the whole-hearted approval of the Council. As we face the reality after the 10th anniversary, the international community’s commitment in 2011 is crucial.

1325 Belongs to Humanity

As my personal contribution to the effective implementation of Resolution 1325, at a meeting on 1325 at the United States Institute of Peace in Washington, DC in July 2010, I launched my own proposal entitled “Do-able First-Track Indicators for Realizing the 1325 Promise into Reality,” outlining measures that could be initiated without further delays and without prolonging our agony and frustration after 10 years of waiting in expectation.

Resolution 1325 belongs to humanity – it is owned by us all and it is for the benefit of all – it was intended as such since March 2000 when the conceptual breakthrough was made. Therefore, on the occasion of the 10th anniversary at the peace gathering of civil society in New York, on Oct. 25, 2010, I declared “1325: a common heritage of humanity,” wherein the global objectives of peace, equality and development are reflected in a uniquely historic, universal document of the United Nations.

We should never forget that when women are marginalized, there is little chance for the world to get sustainable peace in the real sense.

Anwarul K. Chowdhury

Download The Intrinsic Role of Women in Peace and Security: Genesis and Follow Up of UNSCR 1325 by Anwarul K. Chowdhury as pdf-file (7 pages, 332 KB)

**************************************************************************************************************

Gender, Power and Politics in Israel

The story of women, politics and power in Israel is fraught with anomalies. Women have traditionally been active participants in the public sphere, but their power has been consistently constrained. They have suffered from systematic underrepresentation, but as their number in the formal political arena has grown, their substantive impact has waned. And while they have scored significant achievements, gender inequality endures. Never have these inherent contradictions been more apparent than during the past decade, when the rising political clout of women has not been translated into sustained power, their increased political presence into effective influence, or their tangible legislative gains into significant socioeconomic progress. These trends highlight not only the ongoing impact of chauvinistic, militaristic and particularistic strains on Israeli politics in general and the depth of the recent move to the right in particular, but also the innovative potential of gender-rooted alternatives.

Until recently, patterns of female participation in the formal political arena in Israel did not differ substantially from those of their male counterparts. Women’s participation rates in elections have dovetailed with those of men; no marked distinctions are evident between male and female involvement according to sector, ethnic background or geographic distribution. As a result, women as a collective, in all their diversity, have rarely played a distinctive participatory role in formal politics. They have, however, been prominent in the public domain on the level of civil society.

Emergence of Domestic Feminist Movement since the 1970s

Indeed, while during the first two decades of Israeli independence women were pointedly relegated to the private sphere, since the 1970s, with the emergence first of a domestic feminist movement and, in subsequent decades, of the Israel Women’s Network and then of a variety of separate women’s initiatives dealing with a range of issues (from violence against women, female poverty, economic rights and personal freedoms to the formation of associations to promote the specific interests of a range of particular groups such as Orthodox, Mizrahi, Arab and immigrant women), they have succeeded in developing critical analyses and generating alternative perspectives on key topics on the political agenda (1). 

This has been especially apparent in the field of reconciliation and conflict resolution. Women have always constituted a clear majority of activists in mixed-gender peace organizations. They have formed a variety of women’s groups devoted to ending the occupation, including Women in Black, the Jerusalem Center for Women, Bat Shalom, the Coalition of Women for Peace, the International Commission for a Just and Sustainable Palestinian-Israeli Peace, Isha l’Isha and Machsom Watch. And they have been central in forging a new, human discourse on matters of security and defense (2).

Only sporadically, however, have women’s voices and approaches penetrated into the official realm: in the 1970s with the campaign launched by Shulamit Aloni and Marcia Friedman to combat violence against women and again in the 1990s when avowedly feminist members of Knesset undertook an overhaul of laws related to gender equality. But with these notable exceptions, when both liberal and even radical strands of feminist thought were given concrete articulation, the lack of linkages between the informal and the formal spheres resulted in a marked inability to transform women’s political participation into lasting political power. This is especially noticeable in the 21st century, when a bifurcated vision of a male-dominated world has dominated the Israeli political scene.

Tzipi Livni’s “Different Kind of Leadership”

The 2009 elections were, at least in some respects, a deviation from this norm. Ostensibly, these elections had a strong gendered flavor – not only because Tzipi Livni headed a major political party, but also because all involved sought to capitalize on this factor. The Likud’s slogan (“It’s Too Big for Her”) set the tone. By implying, through its crafted double message – Tzipi Livni the individual and the woman – that women are unfit for the highest office, it almost begged for a response in kind. This was not late in coming, especially when it became clear during the last two weeks of the campaign that 65% of the unusually high number of undecided voters were female.

The subtext of Kadima’s rejoinder, the “Different Kind of Leadership” campaign, reinforced by the “Either Tzipi or Bibi” barrage in the last days before the ballot, was clear to anyone who cared to listen: Women should vote for Livni also, if not exclusively, because she’s a woman. Events were organized to popularize this call, specific appeals were issued and a veritable gender buzz was created. Major women’s organizations joined in the effort – to the distress of competing parties such as Labor and Meretz – who were unable to challenge the logic of Kadima’s female outreach without undercutting their own proclaimed feminist proclivities.

The 2009 elections were the first in Israel’s history in which the gender factor played a significant role (3). Kadima narrowly outstripped the Likud precisely because the personalization of the campaign allowed for its utilitarian feminization. In fact, a 7% gender gap in Kadima’s favor proved unequivocally that, in elections with a personal flavor, not only do women prefer to vote for female candidates, but they cannot be summarily dismissed as a political force. And while this game occupied center court, an equally telling story was unfolding within the rival parties as more women were selected to realistic slots on their lists and Balad, the first Arab party to field a woman candidate in a realistic slot, garnered substantially more votes among female than male voters. These findings, however, should not be exaggerated: Substantive feminist discourse was, once again, marginalized, and though the possibility of transmutation of strategic participation into actual power was raised, it was hardly actualized.

In fact, these elections highlighted the growing paradox of women’s political representation in Israel. Although more women were elected to the Knesset in 2009 than ever before, fewer are explicitly committed to gender reform. The increase in the quantity of women in public office does not signal a qualitative change either in the content or the culture of Israeli politics.

Quantity, but Not Quality

Twenty-one women were sworn into the 18th Knesset in March 2009. At mid-term, because of personnel changes, their number has risen to 24 (a full 20% of Israel’s parliament) (4). This is a real increase over the 17 (13.6%) who served in the 17th Knesset, the 14 (11.2%) of the 16th Knesset, and the 12 elected to the 1st and the 13th Knessets (10%). These figures, however, hide more than they reveal. Seven parties in the Knesset today have no female representation at all (primarily religious and Arab parties, but also, for the first two years of this term, Meretz). The largest percentage of women (33%) can be found in Yisrael Beiteinu (five of 15), Balad (one of three) and now, after rotation, in Kadima (nine of 28) and Meretz (one of three). The Likud only has five women members (19%) and Labor – before the split – only three (17%) (5). For the third consecutive time, there are more women members on the center-right of the political spectrum than on the center-left – a deviation from the norm in the democratic world. And, even though of the 30 ministers in Binyamin Netanyahu’s coalition there are only two women, in strictly numerical terms, Israeli women’s formal political representation has improved incrementally in recent years.

What holds true for quantitative representation does not extend to substantive representation (6). With just a few exceptions, most of the current female members of Knesset are devoid of any history of gender activism and do not describe themselves as feminist (at least two have reveled in pointedly anti-feminist stances). Their parties (including Livni’s Kadima) did not highlight women’s concerns during the election campaign and have failed to offer any systematic policy agenda on these issues. Their initiatives have focused almost exclusively on traditional topics of female protection (in the home and in the workplace), and their legislative output has been meager at best. This post-feminist climate has allowed some liberal women’s views to be aired but has given virtually no space at all to more critical perspectives.

This makes it painfully evident that much more than just numbers are needed. Meaningful representation of women requires a concerted effort to alter gender relations, something that is not being achieved on the formal political level either in elected or in appointed office despite significant laws passed in the middle of the decade, which dictate a gender review of pending legislation and the inclusion of women in all public committees and policy teams (including peace negotiations) (7). If any progress has been recorded in substantive representation, it has emanated from the civil sphere, which has consciously sought to expand the scope of gender concerns to include questions of religion and state, the economy and social justice and, tellingly, peace and security. The biased way these fields are structured is the main cause of gender inequality in Israel – as in many other countries – and their reorganization is the key to changing power relations.

Vigorous Development among the Palestinian Israeli and Orthodox Women

Gender study programs at the universities and research institutions continue to produce cutting-edge studies that point to new directions for greater equality. But the most intriguing assertions of diverse feminisms are occurring precisely where women have been most systematically suppressed. The most vigorous organizational development is taking place amongst Palestinian women citizens of Israel. A complex network of groups concentrating on everything from professional training, micro-finance and leadership empowerment to previously taboo topics such as violence against women, honor killing and gay rights has been established during the last decade. Female representation in the High Follow-Up Committee of Israeli Arabs – the umbrella organization of Palestinian citizens of Israel – has been secured, and women’s issues have become an integral part of its agenda.

In a similar vein, Orthodox women are now leading a quiet revolution which promises to bring them into the heart of the heretofore male bastion of textual learning and interpretation. They are devising creative ways to secure their personal status, even at the risk of confronting rabbinical authorities. Feminist groups are developing new techniques – including the employment of tort law – to secure economic rights. A similar momentum is now apparent among new immigrants from Ethiopia and the former Soviet Union. And women’s peace groups have launched gender reviews of permanent status issues, spearheaded the employment of new tactics against the occupation and brought suits against the government for non-compliance with gender representation requirements (8). The key developments in the substantive representation of women are thus unrelated to the rise in their quantitative presence in the world of elected politics.

Inequality Persists in Key Areas of Daily Life

The male-centric crafting of power as expressed in political participation and representation inevitably extends to matters of gender policy and its consequences. The Israeli legal codex contains an impressive array of laws aimed at enhancing women’s rights and promoting gender parity. Nevertheless, inequality persists in key areas of daily life. Israeli women outnumber their male counterparts in higher education (close to 60% of bachelor’s degree graduates are female, 57% of master’s degree recipients and 52% of PhDs), yet the glass ceiling syndrome pertains throughout the key professions (expect, of course, for under-compensated teachers and nurses). While women today constitute 47% of the workforce, they still make barely 70 agorot for each shekel earned by men with the same qualifications in identical positions in the public sector (and scarcely 60% in the private sector). Despite some of the most advanced laws on violence against women, this remains a social scourge; trafficking in women is still rampant. In brief: Real policy gains are not yielding desired results (even though Israel has a National Authority for the Advancement of the Status of Women and, for the first time in its history, a deputy minister in charge of women’s affairs).

Part of the problem lies in inadequate implementation of existing policies. But, in all probability, what is needed is a long-overdue strategic overhaul. The static nature of policy initiatives reflects the widespread propensity to view women as objects, rather than agents, of change. A real shift to gender mainstreaming strategies, heavily endorsed by feminist groups and research institutes, can make a difference.

Some examples are instructive: the gender-based analysis of the national budget conducted under the aegis of the Adva Institute; the Israel Bureau of Statistics’ renewed commitment to gender-specific data presentation; and even the Israel Defense Forces’ designation of gender mainstreaming as a (yet to be adopted) organizing principle (9). Perhaps the most serious work, once again, has focused on the gender mainstreaming of the conflict and its resolution with a conscious effort by a variety of groups to bring women’s perspectives (and not only women themselves) to the negotiating table.

Status of Women and a Just Society

The move from a narrowly liberal, women’s rights-oriented policy outlook to a critically based gender mainstreaming approach depends not only on the empowerment of agents – males as well as females – committed to consolidating a more egalitarian society, but also on a transformative paradigmatic shift which links gender equality with social justice and equality. This means that space must be made to encompass the experiences of diverse groups of women who have different experiences and, therefore, divergent assessments on how proposed policies affect them and their surroundings (10). Clearly the status of women and their power position are an integral part of a vision of a just society based on the recognition of differences. Unless women in Israel in all their heterogeneity, just like their counterparts elsewhere, promote basic human rights and insist on compliance with fundamental democratic norms, they will not advance their society and will consequently fail themselves.

Israeli women have always operated in a gender-skewed public domain colored by historical, cultural, instrumental and existential constraints. Despite the empowerment of women’s voices and the mobilization of women’s perspectives in the public sphere – leading to not insignificant gains in women’s rights – these have not coalesced into a more widespread societal transformation. On the contrary, the first decade of the 21st century, with its notable rightward shift on the formal level, has not only stifled progress in the area of gender and social equality, but has also sanctioned new forms of sexism – a close kin of ultra-nationalism, extremism, fundamentalism and, sadly, racism.

These patterns have also undermined Israel’s commitment to its democratic ethos. In this respect the linkage between women’s participation, representation and policy impact is a function of the country’s democratic resilience. Women in politics serve democracy not only because they take part in public affairs, but also because they broaden the terms of the public debate. Democracy, in turn, is the only form of government that can promote and protect equality for men and women alike. And, as women know so well, democratic fortification cannot be ensured as long as Israel rules over another people against their will.

There is, then, a direct connection between the end of the occupation, democratic robustness and the operationalization of a gender-driven societal discourse. Without addressing these linkages, the political experience of Israeli women will continue to be dichotomous – simultaneously promising and frustrating – and, at root, disempowering. Israel’s political world will continue to be binary in structure and its public discourse will lack the creative tension that makes for constructive change.

Naomi Chazan

Footnotes

(1) See: Hanna Herzog, “Re/visioning the Women’s Movement in Israel,” Citizenship Studies, Vol.12, No.3 (2008), pp.265-282, and Hanna Herzog, “Between the Lawn and the Gravel Path – Women, Politics and Civil Society,” Democratic Culture, No.10 (2006), pp.191-214 (Hebrew).

(2) For a detailed analysis see Naomi Chazan, “Peace Action and Conflict Resolution: An Israeli-Palestinian Exploration,” in Elie Podeh and Asher Kaufman (eds.), Arab-Jewish Relations: From Conflict to Resolution (Brighton: Sussex Academic Press, 2006), pp.283-318.

(3) Einat Gedalya, Hanna Herzog and Michal Shamir, “Tzip(p)ing through the Elections: Gender in the 2009 Elections,” in Asher Arian and Michal Shamir (eds.), The Elections in Israel 2009 (New Brunswick and London: Transaction Books, 2010), pp.165-193.

(4) All these figures have been computed from data appearing on the Knesset website. Since 1948 only 93 women have served in the Knesset.

(5) After the split in Labor, the five-member Atzma’ut Party headed by Ehud Barak has 2 women (20%) and Labor’s remaining 8 members include only one woman (12%).

(6) For an excellent analysis of the differences between quantitative and substantive representation see: Sarah Child, Paul Webb and Sally Marthaler, “Constituting and Substantively Representing Women: Applying New Approaches to a UK Case Study,” Politics & Gender, 6, 2 (2010), pp.199-224.

(7) See: The Gender Implications of Legislation Law, 2007; and the Amendment to the Equal Rights for Women Law (Paragraph 6 (c) 1) of 2005.

(8) Of recent note are the Van Leer Institute’s conference (and subsequent study group) on engendering the Palestinian-Israeli negotiations, the Coalition of Women for Peace’s campaign on “Who Profits from the Occupation” and the successful petition of Itach-Ma’aki on the composition of the Tirkel Commission to investigate the events surrounding the Gaza flotilla.

(9) See: “Report of the Committee to Design the Service of Women in the Israel Defense Forces,” Tel Aviv, October 2007 (in Hebrew).

(10) For one example of the tensions within feminist ranks, see: Henriette Dahan-Kalev, “Tensions in Israeli Feminism: The Mizrahi-Ashkenazi Rift,” Women’s Studies International Forum, 24 (2001), pp.1-16.

Download Gender, Power and Politics in Israel by Naomi Chazan as pdf-file (7 pages, 230 KB)

**************************************************************************************************************

What Would Be Different If the Peace Process Was Run by Women?

Upon first reflecting on the topic under discussion – “What would be different if the peace process was run by women” – I thought it to be an indirect expression of a deep frustration with the peace process. Many observers and stakeholders worldwide realize that if the process is not entirely dead, it is undoubtedly breathing its last breath.

Israeli Policies

One can justifiably point to the reality where the Israeli government has repeatedly proved against the international community’s will that it is not interested in peace on any terms other than its own. The government has tried for a long time to manage the peace process instead of seeking to arrive at a conclusive peace. One can also argue that all of the protagonists have played a part in hindering the process at one time or another. However, judging from the reality on the ground, it is Israel that is adamant to keep pursuing the same policy of annexing as much Palestinian land as possible and clearing it of its Palestinian inhabitants – a policy in flagrant violation of international law. The continued Israeli colonization of the West Bank and East Jerusalem is but one example.

The speech of Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman delivered at the United Nations last September (2010) functions now as a concise embodiment of Israeli policy. To cite some examples of his policy proposals: Lieberman referred to the exchange of populated territories, a far cry from the “land for peace” formula. He also pointed to the futility of Palestinian demands to place the issue of Jerusalem on the negotiation table. And he emphasized the fact that Israel is a Jewish state, expressed in the racist legislation drawn up in recent months. There is no question that Israel is guilty of the arrogance of power, and it has for a long time been perpetrating the most unspeakable, and even criminal, acts.

We are being asked to think outside the box in terms of how women might harness the political weight needed to alter existing realities. This is an important exercise at a time of total deadlock in the peace process and of a dramatic change in the Middle East.

A New World Order

The evolution of events during the first decade of the 21st century has been dramatic, violent and ominous. The developments that have taken place are very telling and, clearly, the end is not yet in sight. A new world order and a new Middle East are coming upon us at a faster pace than expected. These changes are the natural result of a number of factors, such as an increasingly globalized world, the information revolution, better-educated youth, poor socioeconomic conditions, a shift in the balance of power worldwide and the futility of past American policies regarding the Middle East.

The change in U.S. policy towards the region, as expressed in President Barack Obama’s Cairo speech, was a strategic shift designed to align with American interests. In spite of the failure of this statement of intent to bring about tangible changes, it remains an important milestone, in my view. In brief, new formulas for action are required at this juncture if we are ever to move away from the growth of extremism, increased violence and wars. In this context, women must play an important role and maintain their strong priorities aimed at building a better world for future generations.

The question of women’s place in the peace process is hypothetical, not only because women are prevented from attaining a monopoly over political power, but also due to a lack of determination. Neither Palestinian nor Israeli women have made a determined decision to participate in or to sufficiently affect the peace process, directly or otherwise. In general, I have great admiration for both Israeli and Palestinian women who have arguably forged a status of sainthood for themselves.

I do not see a fundamental difference between men and women, as it is the conditions that make the person. For example, I think motherhood would bring a substantial difference to all women in terms of priority. However, women do not normally chase personal power turfs, nor do they accommodate the power of capital or geopolitical interests if they do not serve the nation’s or community’s interests. They do not agree with the adage that “might is right,” or with “the end justifies the means” approach, let alone with warmongering or the ravaging of societies. Realpolitik is hard on women as we tend to fight against it, but it has been prevalent in our life to a shocking degree, thanks to the United States blind support for Israel.

In the Palestinian context, women are currently participating in the electoral process but have not acquired legitimacy in the political arena due to their primary identity as homemakers. They have to deal with what is still essentially a tribal culture with a traditional system of loyalties. They bear the double burden of pursuing jobs and raising families and they face discrimination, in spite of declarations and policies to the contrary. I must acknowledge that in the Palestinian Authority we are on the right track with the introduction of substantial changes to this reality, though it is a lengthy process.

Another important point to note is that women, like men, are not a homogenous category. I work on the assumption that the women who can make a political difference will generally have an ideal profile: highly educated, with solid professional experience; law-abiding; principled; upholding non-violence and the universality of human values; and prioritizing national, community and family interests over personal interests. In short, perfect. I am not, however, excluding men who have such qualities. It is these human qualities that finally matter – qualities that can make a difference in the achievement of genuine and lasting peace in our region.

The Promise

Let us imagine what would have been different had such women been in charge of the peace process.

These women would not be indifferent to suffering, injustice and violence and would not allow themselves to be stripped of their humanity. They would succeed in creating the necessary confidence-building conditions between Israelis and Palestinians without having to receive external instructions in this regard.

I believe women are better democrats and can work with more ease, patience and compassion with their public. They would not work alone in an ivory tower but would find ways to consult with people in various direct and indirect ways and prepare the ground for any future agreement. Women would be more rational and realistic and would try to convince their respective publics that the two-state solution along the 1967 borders and the principle of sharing is the only option for the foreseeable future. Women are more law-abiding and pursue the force of the law rather than the law of force. They would respect international law and human rights as an inalienable right of all people, irrespective of ethnicity or creed. I believe they would have insisted on the implementation of the Fourth Geneva Convention in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, including East Jerusalem, and would have secured the rights of people under occupation, as we pursue the search for a political solution.

There would have been neither settlements, checkpoints nor the isolation of Jerusalem. There would have been neither the Qana nor the Jenin massacres, but the gradual implementation of the Oslo Accords leading to an independent and sovereign Palestinian state in 1999. Should the Oslo agreement still have failed, the Camp David summit would have been considered a chance for rapprochement, and more would have been invested in negotiations, instead of [Israel] discrediting its Palestinian partner, accelerating land expropriations and increasing checkpoints, home demolitions and the revocation of residency rights. There would have been no destruction of institutions or infrastructure. The economic, cultural and social gains of the ’90s would have been preserved, as would have the link between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.

The Arab Peace Initiative would have been adopted and implemented in 2002 instead of having a wall built to separate Palestinians from Israelis – which has brought so much suffering, dividing Palestinians from one another and from their land and essential social services – consciously creating non-viable enclaves prohibiting growth or development. There would have been a disengagement from Gaza that allowed for progress and a continued link to the West Bank, and oppressive policies in East Jerusalem and the West Bank would have been avoided. At the very least, the Road Map would have been implemented in order to create a Palestinian state in 2005.

Not only were none of the above objectives pursued, but, in addition, Palestinians were consciously forced into a state of chaos soon after the second intifada. Consequently, political assassinations, massacres and further land confiscation abounded; Palestinian political prisoners grew to over 10,000 and continued to be denied any rights; and Palestinian water resources were abused. All this culminated in the war against Lebanon in 2006, followed by the criminal offensive on Gaza in early 2009. Perhaps, too, there would have been no Hamas-Fateh divide. Moreover, the successful conclusion of a lasting peace would have radiated to the whole region, allowing genuine democracies to develop more smoothly and, most importantly, avoiding so much loss in human, moral and material terms. This is, of course, an ideal situation, but the dynamics behind it are possible and could make a difference. I feel the winds of change blowing quietly and patiently.

Peace Will Come

Historical forces, it is to be hoped, will lead us to peace and relative justice, although when and at what price I do not know. I present two examples of regional change which can aid in understanding such forces. The first is the case of Turkey, which, while it is a strong ally of the U.S.,is now basing its foreign policy on detente and cooperation with all its neighbors. The second is the absence of the invisible helping hands to support former Tunisian President Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali during his recent ouster from power. This has been significant.

Time to Act

Sooner or later, we will have to acknowledge our common humanity and agree to share resources. Women, if well organized and determined, could be an important catalyst to hasten this process by collectively creating a system which helps women reach decision-making positions and by creating pressure groups at the civil society and popular levels.

I envisage a joint women’s movement implementing change in order to effect short-term solutions — for example, to campaign against colonization, especially in Jerusalem, to liberate our Jerusalem parliamentarians who for months have been taking refuge at the Red Cross, and equally to seek to return to the Palestinian Jerusalemites their revoked residency cards so as to ease the anxiety of youths and reunite families. More could be done to follow up on the European Union’s Jerusalem report so that it could be adopted and implemented; the same applies for the cause of our political prisoners. Additionally, we could discuss and approve a common historical narrative, which has been so much abused and manipulated to legitimize mythical claims.

A determined women’s movement with huge networking potential could have the political weight necessary to shape a constructive political process in order to reach a peace agreement. More importantly, women should be ready to contribute to the building of peace after an agreement is signed. One must admit that, were women to succeed at one single endeavor, this would have important resonance with regard to changing the overall environment of the peace process. This is achievable with the support of determined women, locally and internationally, who are ready to make history. We shall then be supported by more peoples and governments than we could have imagined.

This article is based on a presentation that was made at a discussion on “What Would Be Different If the Peace Process Was Run by Women?” organized by Israel Palestine Center for Research and Information (IPCRI) on Jan. 19, 2011, in Jerusalem.

Hind Khoury

Download What Would Be Different If the Peace Process Was Run by Women? by Hind Khoury as pdf-file (5 pages, 202 KB)

**************************************************************************************************************

A Gender Perspective on Security

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.

Footnotes 

(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

Galia Golan

Download A Gender Perspective on Security by Galia Golan as pdf-file (4 pages, 212 KB)

**************************************************************************************************************

Israel and UNSCR 1325

On the night between May 30 and 31, 2010, Israeli commandos attacked the Mavi Marmara, a Turkish ship that was part of a flotilla making its way toward Gaza to break the naval blockade. Nine people died on the ship during the military takeover, which led to international outrage as Israel became a target for political attacks and condemnations from all over the world and from within as well.

The government of Israel established a commission of inquiry in order to allay political pressure amidst the controversy. I refer to this because, believe it or not, this committee may serve as a milestone in women’s struggle for equality in Israel. It should not come as a surprise that none of the five appointed members was female. Rather, these honorable men were mostly ex-army generals. A number of feminist organizations wrote a letter to the committee’s chair, pointing out the fact that under Israeli law, state-appointed commissions and decision-making bodies are required to include adequate representation of women from diverse groups.

This law was passed five years ago, following a long process led by feminist organizations and several members of the Israeli parliament, and was a direct consequence of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325, which was passed in October 2000. The fact that the Israeli law required representation from diverse groups of women was even a unique improvement on the original formulation of the UN resolution.

Historic Supreme Court Ruling

Israel was the first UN member to integrate this resolution into the law of the land. But, unfortunately, Israel has consistently refused to adhere to its own law since that moment of success. This commission of inquiry is only one example. Our demand to include women in the commission was initially ignored, and we were forced to file a petition with the Supreme Court, in which we demanded a place at the table. The court ruling was clear: It ordered the government to search for suitable women to be part of the commission. The government made a very small effort in response to that ruling – it offered a place to five women, all of whom refused to join the committee. The case was closed.

It is important to remember that when Israelis and Palestinians briefly celebrated yet another ceremonial opening of direct talks in Washington in 2010, once again, no woman was nominated to the Israeli negotiating team. But unlike the situation in the past, after receiving a letter from women’s organizations, the prime minister announced that he intended to appoint a woman to the small advisory team to the negotiations with the Palestinians. This did not happen (and meanwhile there are no negotiations, either).

These milestones point to dilemmas that we – women’s organizations, feminists and peace activists – face when we try to make ourselves heard and have an impact on the political process.

The Criteria for Selection

The first dilemma concerns the criteria for selection and emanates from the fact that women form groups of different types. While the desire to promote women and their agenda is a common goal, it is natural that women’s organizations are of varied political colors. What, then, constitutes a “suitable” female candidate for commissions or negotiating teams such as those mentioned previously? Can we define, let alone agree upon, selection criteria? How does our struggle promote women from diverse groups? How do we make sure that our struggle will not end in promoting and strengthening the women who are already strong?

What Is the Feminist Voice?

The second dilemma is political: Who are the women that can bring the feminist voice and perspectives to the table? What is the feminist voice? And more directly: The struggle is not to integrate women as women, but rather to integrate our worldview and political views. And we hope that “our view” as feminists sets us apart from men in meaningful ways. Yet we continue to wonder if this is true. We want a seat at the negotiating table in order to integrate a political vision that would enhance the peace process in ways that we believe men cannot. UNSC Resolution 1325 – which celebrated its 10th anniversary last year – has enabled local and international decision-makers to focus on us, women in conflict areas.

The Joint Israeli-Palestinian Women’s Commission

In 2005 a group of women from Israel, Palestine and the international community, established the International Women’s Commission for a Just and Sustainable Israeli-Palestinian Peace, supported by the United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM). We worked together as a group that spoke with one voice. It was not easy to maintain a working relationship based on common views, especially during times of national stress and violence. It was extremely difficult during the extended period of rocket shelling of the southern Israeli city of Sderot by Hamas, and even more so during the Israeli military attack on Gaza in January 2009. Yet for a number of years we managed to overcome these difficult times and continued to work together, sharing the same political vision. We all shared the idea that peace between our peoples is possible, and it must be based on the achievement of a two-state solution based on the borders of June 4, 1967, with Jerusalem as the capital of both states.

Unfortunately, the tensions generated by the ongoing conflict, particularly after the Israeli attack on Gaza, led to an end to the joint activity of the International Women’s Commission.

A Space for Women – Painful Conclusions

While it was still active, the International Women’s Commission conducted a series of public hearings with Israeli women all over the country. We opened a space for women –  from all avenues of society – to speak about their personal relationship with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and to speak about peace. There are two very strong conclusions that came out of these hearings:

The first was the painful realization that many Israeli women do not have a vision of peace. They could not articulate what peace means to them. They could not dream. Their major concern was security.

The other very interesting point that came out of the hearings was that Israeli women, in general, did not have different views than men. The only women who had different views and could present a different discourse were those who were already active in peace movements, had made an effort to meet with Palestinian women, were able to have a first-hand encounter with the occupation and who had seen the people on the other side. Unfortunately, all the other women could only recite the mainstream militaristic discourse and did not present a different view from the average Israeli man.

This is why it is extremely important that when we have women sitting at the negotiating table and active in the national decision-making processes, they should have gone through this process. They should have been educated in women’s issues and have had a chance to develop their own worldview based on their own life experiences, separate from the mainstream discourse that is very often dictated by men.

Israel’s Militaristic Discourse

There is a third dilemma, which relates to the fact that Israel is consistently flooded with an alpha-male, militaristic discourse. The main political players are almost invariably ex-generals; the main decision making forums are completely male. In such an environment, a single representative of the female gender wouldn’t really stand a chance. So, do we want to fight for a mere token female representation and thereby help the male powers that be to pay lip service to the requirements of the law? Or do we, rather, choose to stay outside the process, thereby perpetuating the present dismal situation?

The Most Right-Wing Government Ever

Israel’s current leadership is the most right-wing government ever in its history. This government has joined with anti-democratic forces in Israel, and together they have orchestrated a planned, carefully designed and very sophisticated multi-angled campaign against human rights activists and peace activists and organizations. There was a wave of attacks targeting the universities in Israel that dared present courses with critical views on the state. Subsequently, there was an attack on theater actors who declared they would refuse to come and play in a theater in Ariel, one of the largest settlements in the occupied West Bank. This was followed by the “boycott bill,” which makes one liable to be sued if he or she advocates a boycott on products produced in the settlements, and the attempt to establish a parliamentary commission of inquiry about the funding sources of human rights and peace groups.

It is clear that in Israel today a human rights advocate or activist equals a leftist, and a leftist equals a traitor. So here I am, a believer in peace and an activist, and I am considered a traitor in my own country because I still believe in an end to the occupation and in a just and sustainable peace with the Palestinian people, based on a two-state solution. The fact that we are women and feminists only compounds the challenges that we face.

This article is based on a presentation at the Kreisky Forum in Vienna.

Anat Saragusti

Download Israel and UNSCR 1325 by Anat Saragusti as pdf-file (4 pages, 190 KB)

**************************************************************************************************************

The Power of Encounter

How many of us have planned our lives to take a specific direction, only to find ourselves 10 years later in a totally different place? Seven years ago, a friend of mine introduced me to a group of people who were studying abroad and came to Jerusalem wanting to do something about the conflict. One of those people was a student at MIT who had taught computer science in an MIT program in Africa. He thought we might be able to do something similar for Israeli and Palestinian youths. As we all believed in education as a powerful tool to mobilize positive change, during the summer of 2004 we started the Middle East Education for Technology program, or MEET, based in Jerusalem.

Partnering with the Computer Science Artificial Intelligence Laboratory at MIT, we recruited three instructors and were provided with facilities by the Hebrew University. In our first class, 30 students, half Palestinians and half Israelis, took an intensive five-week course in computer science, teamwork and leadership. The students and their parents loved it. On the last day they all parted in tears and some gave emotional interviews to the press. During the next few years, driven by this success and our willingness to create something unique and to have a real impact, we worked very hard and with few resources to expand the program and bring in new students. We extended the duration of the program, created a yearlong component and added a business curriculum, outdoor training and entrepreneurial competitions. I believe that what really shaped the future of MEET was the fact that we were aware that when you work with social change of any sort, you need to question yourself all the time whether or not you are doing the right thing.

Creating Deeper Understanding

We developed a great educational model and wanted to stay away from the monster called “politics” so as never to cause any distress to our students. Through continuous dialogue with students we realized something was wrong. One Israeli student asked me why the bus from Bethlehem was always late, and it struck me that he had no idea what a Palestinian student had to go through to be in the program. I realized that we were missing out on an opportunity to connect these talented students to reality and to break through the separation. We are separated not only physically but also virtually by the information we receive and perceive which is mostly selective, outdated and superficial. As a result, our societies live in a closed system, and history has proven that closed systems do not survive. If we really wanted to develop proper leaders, we had to have the understanding that the goal of exercising leadership is to engage with reality, with what will affect our lives whether we like it or not.

We realized the need for a new component, which we called “deeper understanding,” allowing students the space and time to talk about culture, identity, their fears and the conflict itself. Even harder questions emerged, especially with the occurrence of difficult political situations. One example is how two years ago, during difficult events in Gaza, I was visiting one of the MEET school founders. Sitting in a mall, I noticed a group of children playing with a clown. I had just been watching images in the media of children in Gaza being killed, and I asked myself if it was legitimate to hold such meetings when there is such imbalance and suffering. Then I thought that if MEET ceased to exist there might not be individuals who would have the understanding and capabilities to change this reality. We concluded that we could not achieve this level of understanding if we only worked with students for a few weeks. We needed to work with students over a long period of time to allow them the chance to formulate their own questions, to recognize their responsibility and to develop the confidence to do something about it.

A Big Part of Learning Is Unlearning

Many other questions came up as we moved forward. We understood that a big part of learning is actually unlearning. We needed to be brave enough to differentiate between the perceived success of the initial period and what real success actually meant. This has become a real value in the way we look at the program. Today MEET is a successful not-for-profit organization based in Jerusalem that focuses on trying to identify potential young leaders from both sides of the divide and bring them together for a three-year, top-level educational program in computer science, business skills, entrepreneurial skills and leadership.

The model is based on providing those students with the skills and tools for the 21st century through a professional and challenging platform of interaction and empowerment that is trying to break the closed system we live in. We are trying to develop a network of future leaders who are connected to the reality of the region within the perspective of today’s global environment and who are able to think critically, question the status quo, and deal with, manage and influence change.

MEET Grows and Changes My Life

From working with just a few schools in Jerusalem, MEET has grown to work with 35 high schools in five Israeli-Palestinian cities, with 100 students and 15 MIT instructors each year. One of our major achievements is the high demand for the program; we receive 500 applicants competing for forty spaces each year. Interestingly, the biggest component is Palestinian girls. The retention rates have been incredibly high, reaching up to 85 percent from start to finish, which is quite a commitment for youth at age 15 to 17. Our alumni’s achievements later in life and their willingness to come back and offer help is what is driving the future growth of MEET, along with our attempt to create a different type of platform to allow alumni to come back to their communities and be the drivers of change and prosperity.

Seven years ago, I was a chemistry graduate thinking of becoming a scientist, and that encounter with the group of people that founded MEET – and all the challenges that we faced along the way – changed my life. The commitment and the dedication of each and every member of the MEET family have been inspirational and have helped me realize my true potential. The experience has also made me understand and appreciate the power of those special encounters we have in our lives.

A Profound Educational Experience

I wanted to show pictures of students working in the lab or building a raft together or giving a presentation, but I have a different kind of picture in my mind’s eye. I have pictures of concrete walls dividing neighborhoods, of checkpoints creating suffocating traffic and humiliating experiences, and an ugly metal gate closing an opening in the wall on the way to Bethlehem, preventing me from entering my home town. So I decided to wait maybe five or 10 years to show pictures of MEET alumni actually taking action in their communities and helping improve lives and bringing dignity and real justice. True success will only occur when these alumni take this special and profound educational experience and make this region a far better place.

This article is based on a presentation made at TEDxHolyLand.

Abeer Hazboun

Download The Power of Encounter by Abeer Hazboun as pdf-file (3 pages, 198 KB)

**************************************************************************************************************

The Multiple Identities of Arab Women in Israel

I would like to open with the question: “history” or “her story?” This is the question that has been debated since the 20th century among different groups of women in developed societies. Those women have really moved along the continuum from “history” into “her story,” though they are in different stages and are still moving. Yet, women in “developing societies” are not there yet. I would like to preface this with a note on the function of English grammar here. There is nothing developing in “developing” societies. The “ing” is a grammatical technique to perpetuate our static condition. Women in developing societies are still asking the question of whether to write the self, the subject that precedes writing history and which should be the narrative voice. They are still asking the question of why politics, ethnicity, religion, economy, and technology are hindering the writing of the self that ought to be writing history and any narrative of the self and society.

The complexity of holding multiple identities, of being a woman who is Arab, Muslim, a member of a minority and Israeli, must be emphasized. This complexity is a dynamic of clashing variables and it is also the status quo. The clashing variables can be described as follows: Arab contradicts Israeli, Israeli contradicts Muslim, Muslim contradicts women, women are being marginalized by Arabs, Arabs marginalize Israel, Israel marginalizes everybody else and the rest of the world marginalizes all of the above. These clashing variables are going nowhere as they love to clash, which is why they are the status quo. Where does this leave the multi-layered identity of women? In an arena of tension between her own two ambivalent attitudes.

Envy and blindness

On the one hand, she wants to belong to her own society, her own tradition, to be the mother, the daughter and the partner. She is also aware, however, that this indigenous culture, with its heavily suffocating tradition, places variable rings around her neck, her mind, her body and her future. She is ambivalent. On the other hand, we look to the other side, to Israeli society and admire its liberal lifestyle. We envy our Jewish sisters who are in an advanced position toward liberalism and self- fulfilment. Yet we are aware that this society is the same one that hinders our integration into the liberal community; it visibly and invisibly places obstacles in the way of our acceptance. There is blindness on the Israeli side, and I have a personal story to illustrate it. A few months ago I met a Jewish professor in my college, Cosimi College, which is an Arab education college in an Arab Muslim town. He said to me, “You’re married to an Arab and you work in an Arab college. I admire you.” I admit it took me a while to realize that he assumed I was not Arab, an example of how strong the stereotype really is.

In this tense space between ambivalent attitudes, I have to tell you that this leaves the community of Arab-Israeli Muslim women in a situation of total poverty and ignorance. Only 22% of them are in the workforce while 80% never pursue higher education. This is due to something called the “disguise of the good Arab woman.” This disguise promotes the adage, “Keep the homes shining and the husband will be smiling,” which is the model of the good Arab woman. This proverbial shining of the windows of the home and of the husband’s smile leaves no time for a career, selffulfilment or self-expression. This is the question I started debating with my husband 10 years ago, when I went from home oriented to career-oriented. He said, “I’m very supportive of your career, but the home needs to be clean and the kids need a hot meal.” This is the paradox: The new Arab man supports his wife to be ambitious in an international career but asks her first to clean the bathroom.

Focussing on the text books

I searched for a sector where women are most represented, or rather not represented at all, which is in education. I am not going into politics or economics because there is no data there for my research. In the Arab education system in Israel, 99.99% of teachers and 100% of cleaners and servants are women, while headmasters and vice headmasters are men. Parents’ committees are made up of fathers, the only mothers committees being in kindergartens, because only here can they handle decisions. A further point here concerns the textbooks used in the Arab education system, especially the mother-tongue books used for teaching Arabic to Arab children. These books should be the arena where cultural identity is introduced, developed and evolved, and where a collective memory and identity, a mirror of sorts, manifests itself. The reality is rather different. In 2000 a series of books called The Pioneer was introduced to replace one that included texts translated from Hebrew into Arabic, which had referred to the Israeli flag, the Yarkon River and Independence Day to teach Arabic.

By 2000, the State of Israel had realized that the Israelization of these Arabs was not going to work and they had better give them their own committees for writing books, their own text, heritage and means for identity formation. Most of the texts used are from between the 1920s and 1960s, from Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon, and have nothing to do with the Arab community in Israel. More importantly, none of the texts are written by women from within Israel or in the Arab world, so to find the presence of females I had to look for mothers.

I found that for the fifth grade there are almost 70 texts, out of which only four deal with women. One is called “The Mother,” the second “To My Mother, the third “A Letter to a Mother” and the fourth “Smile,” which is the most intriguing. In this text, a girl is addressed by a poet who advises her to keep her virtue and purity as this is more important than knowledge; this can be read as encouraging nothingness, no life experience, and this is what is expected of our girls. In the third-grade books, two texts struck me: “In the Market” and “Anisa and Her Father.” In the first, the plot involves a mother and daughter shopping in a market, culminating in the search for, and purchase of, the right dress. In “Anisa and Her Father,” Anisa complains to her father that it is too rainy outside for her to play, so he gives a lecture on ecology, science, biology, animals and the environment. The mother from the first story is knowledgeable but in fashion only, while the father is knowledgeable in everything.

Breaking the paradigm

This paradigm has to be broken immediately. Toward this end, I decided to write my own texts, though in English. These texts teach identity through English and vice versa. They lead children from age four, stage after stage, in the formation of self-awareness. They learn about self and other, particular and collective identities, though in a context of contradiction, knowing they are a minority in a state that is ethnically, or politically, Jewish. The protagonists in my texts are equally girls and boys. I needed to regain the respect of my mother tongue, so I started teaching English not from the “ABC” but from the “m,” “n,”, “b,” and “a.” These are the sounds that Arab children learn first and which are thus already cognitively established in their minds. I flipped the paradigm so that once they study “m,” “n,” and “a,” they have to form a word. They start with three letters in a word, then another letter is added to make more words; thus, as a result, they can bridge the gap between sounds and words. At first, people insisted this is not how English is taught, but it turned out to be the fastest way for Arab children to start reading English, by connecting letters to words. In order for these books to be used, there was a need for a framework, an educational institution, so I had to construct one. I called it “Q School,” which is like an alternative “school after school.” It now has more than 400 children and 12 teachers, mostly women. “Q School” offers opportunities for Arab women who need another woman to create opportunities for them.

The Q School solution

I established Q School three years ago, juggling it with an already demanding career. My mother, a very loyal guardian of the tradition like many Arab women from an older generation, told me, “First, take care of your husband. Second, do you need money that much, creating more and more work?” I replied that it was, in fact, necessary as I wanted to buy back my respect, my mind and my future. I needed to be not only an active partner in my family but also a leader in society, and for that I needed a lot of money. As Virginia Woolf said in A Room of Her Own, I think a room is not enough. An institution or a business would be enough for women who are Arab, Muslim, a minority and trying also to be Israeli, to buy back their future. We need to reshape a vision of a self, an “other,” and a direction for the future into something that is hopeful.

This article is based on her presentation at a TEDx conference.

Download The Multiple Identities of Arab Women in Israel by Dalia Fadila as pdf-file (4 pages, 175 KB)

**************************************************************************************************************

Engaging Grandmothers: Israeli and Palestinian Women Share Their Stories

In a small office in the West Bank town of Beit Jallah, just 10 minutes by car from Jerusalem, Tamara Rabinowitz and Siham Abu Awwad sit sipping thick Arabic coffee and finishing each other’s sentences. To many in their communities they would seem a very unlikely pair of friends. Tamara, who immigrated to Israel from London in 1960, lost her son Ido in 1987 when he was serving in the Israel Defense Forces in Lebanon. Siham’s brother Youssef was shot and killed by an IDF soldier at a checkpoint near their village. Her mother was a Palestinian political activist who served time in Israeli prison, along with three of Siham’s brothers.

Tamara and Siham are members of the Parents Circle-Families Forum, a group of 600 bereaved Israeli and Palestinian family members meeting face-to-face and working toward reconciliation and peace since 1995. Through dialogue groups, educational high school programs, public events, media campaigns and more, the organization works to humanize the other side of the conflict, change attitudes and improve each group’s understanding of the other so that a durable peace can ultimately be possible. The Parents Circle-Families Forum was recently commended as a model voice for peace and reconciliation by President Barak Obama in his Middle East speech on May 19, 2011.

The Parents Circle Women’s Group has held three meetings annually since its launch five years ago, creating the space for women to speak candidly with one another about their thoughts and experiences in the conflict. Through facilitated workshops as well as activities such as art, dance and cooking, the women of the forum are able to engage in fruitful dialogue and build bonds of friendship.

Tamara and Siham laughed as they recounted a past meeting of the Parents Circle Women’s Group at Tamara’s home that entailed an exchange of Israeli and Palestinian recipes and a lesson in sushi-making. Siham, who claims to hate the taste of fish, threw up her hands in mock exasperation. “The things I do for peace!” she joked.

Tamara joined the Parents Circle early on. “As soon as my son was killed I knew I wouldn’t allow my children to think every Arab was an enemy,” she said. “The easiest thing is to be angry. It is a harder choice to choose peace. But once you’ve made your choice you can breathe again.”

After the death of Siham’s brother Youssef, Siham’s mother became very active in the group but could never persuade her daughter to join. It was not until Siham met Tamara at her mother’s memorial service and felt what the two describe as an instant chemistry that Siham also made the difficult choice to work toward peace and reconciliation instead of revenge. Siham gave Tamara, who reminded her of her mother, a dress her mother had embroidered during her four years in an Israeli prison.

The Narratives Unfold

The pair jointly facilitated a series of workshops over six months in 2010 between 16 Israeli and 16 Palestinian grandmothers as part of the Parents Circle’s History Through the Human Eye Program. The United States Agency for International Development (USAID)-funded program centers on reconciliation through the use of personal narratives with the aim of building trust, empathy and mutual understanding of each group’s parallel narrative. The grandmothers group is one of 12 different groups, including students, educators, the media, farmers and politicians.

“The basis is storytelling,” Tamara explained. “We wanted to hear the narrative of the other side, which isn’t always easy to listen to since we are so-called enemies. Narratives don’t have to meet though. We don’t have to agree – just to listen and to try to understand.”

Participants in the “Grannies Project”1 included women who were members of the Parents Circle as well as women who had never before come face-to-face with someone from the other side. For some of the Palestinian women the only Israelis they had ever met were soldiers, while for some Israeli women their knowledge of Palestinians came primarily from the media.

Prior to the project, a few of the Israeli participants had spent time monitoring checkpoints with Machsom Watch (Checkpoint Watch), a group of Israeli women peace activists who document the treatment of Palestinians at Israeli checkpoints, yet they had never gotten to know a Palestinian on a personal level.

After decades of segregation, mutual vilification and dehumanization, several participants from both sides were initially reluctant and defensive prior to meeting the other group. “The idea of the other having their own narrative was not acceptable,” Siham said, recounting the tone of the Palestinian group’s first meeting in preparation for the first joint meeting. “For many of them this is the first time you meet someone as a human with a real life. You see they are normal people. They get married, raise children and have a life.”

At one point, Tamara recalled, one of the Israeli women walked out of the session in tears, overwhelmed by the stories of hardship from her Palestinian counterparts, which she had never before heard. Reaching that level of understanding and empathy, however, took time.

The project featured four components in its series of meetings and workshops. In addition to hearing lectures on each group’s collective narrative, participants engaged in personal storytelling, sharing their own individual narratives of pain, hope and the stories of their lives as women. “We can look at each other as humans, as mothers, as grandmothers, as women,” Tamara explained. “It doesn’t matter what our heritage or our narrative is. We have so much in common.”

Despite the physical and psychological walls that initially divided the two groups of women, by relating to one another on a personal level the women of the Grannies Project were able to chip away at those walls until ultimately they came tumbling down.

“Without men around, the women were empowered to tell their story. They didn’t need permission from anyone. This strengthened them as individuals, as a group and as women,” Tamara explained. As the meeting progressed the women developed friendships and empathy for one another. “It is part of our DNA as women to relate to other women and ask what we can do for each other,” she said.

Together the group visited the Holocaust memorial museum Yad Vashem and the Arab village of Ein Karem, abandoned in 1948 when its inhabitants were forced to flee. The family of one of the Palestinian participants was among those who fled the village in 1948. This was the first time she had ever been able to visit. Hearing the stories of the Nakba, Israeli women learned the significance of the old keys to the abandoned or destroyed houses that so many of the Palestinian women still held onto.

At both sites, the women confronted the tragedies that shape each group’s collective narratives. For some, this was their first encounter with these dark events in the other’s history and a pivotal moment of understanding the origin of the other’s fear and pain.

“You cannot compare between the pains,” said Siham. She recounted the story of one Palestinian woman in particular who left the Yad Vashem museum distraught. Pouring water over her face she kept repeating the words “I did not know. I did not know.” Another Palestinian woman asked for copies of the photographs she had seen in the museum so that she could tell her family about what she had witnessed.

The Ripple Effect: The Impact of Humanizing the Other

Tamara and Siham describe what they call “the ripple effect” of this type of face-to-face encounter with the other and the other’s narrative. This effect is especially powerful in a women’s group since women, and particularly grandmothers, in Palestinian and Israeli society command tremendous respect and influence over their families. These grandmothers return to their communities and recount what they have experienced and people listen. The Grannies Project paints a whole new picture of who the other side truly is and empowers them to refute the idea that everyone from the other side is the enemy.

During the last session of the Grannies Project participants were divided into small groups of Israeli and Palestinian women together. They were handed a large piece of paper with the outline of a house sketched on it and nothing but a roof filled in. The groups were told to draw their dream house, one that would accommodate all of them, regardless of their nationality. The women drew vibrant pictures and symbols of their lives – children, olive trees, and water wells and, notably, not one symbol of hatred or violence.

Although the Grannies Project has formally ended, the women have been paired up across groups and will carry their friendships and dialogue well beyond the project. Their stories, along with the other narratives collected through the History Through the Human Eye Program, will be transformed into a book and a film, extending the impact of the project far beyond its participants.

Meanwhile, through the Parents Circle Women’s Group, Tamara and Siham continue to work tirelessly for peace and reconciliation between their societies, supporting each other as colleagues and friends and proving that the psychological barriers constructed between Israelis and Palestinians can in fact be overcome.

“There are two types of people you cannot stop,” Siham explained. “The suicide bomber and the peacemaker…. They can talk about a two-state solution, a one-state solution, a thousand-state solution. I say I don’t care about states. I do not want a state for graves. I want a state for my kids. I don’t want to be the mother of a dead body.”

Tamara nodded in agreement. “Some things are right and some things are wrong,” she added. “You just have to be human to know that.”

Jillian Slutzker

Download Engaging Grandmothers: Israeli and Palestinian Women Share Their Stories by Jillian Slutzker as pdf-file (5 pages, 270 KB)

**************************************************************************************************************

Women and Power in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Women need to take their power, reconnect on issues of real concern about the future of the region, for both men and women, and take the lead in reframing the approach to security.

The situation here is undeniably stuck. It is also unsustainable, and a secure, peaceful and prosperous future for Palestinians and Israelis seems not only highly improbable but also a vision that eludes the imagination. What is more, women seem to be becoming less rather than more visible in the search for this future.

Wars begin in the minds of men – so therefore does peace, and so do all our possible futures, stable or unstable, violent or without violence. Peace and wars also therefore begin in the minds of women, so, as women, we need to start to think about the future we would like, and about what power we have to actually make a difference, and how we are going to use that power to bring about a sustainable and prosperous peace.

There is clearly a need for new mindsets, for more ideas and creativity. The involvement of women in both formal and informal peace discussion is one of the few ways that traditional mindsets, such as those focused on fear and military security, that are such a major part of the problem, can be transformed. If women are included at all levels of peace talks, and there is a truly gendered approach – with equal representation and respect for the concerns of all members of society – perhaps we could at least be on our way to a sustainable future. We need to start by working with our minds and our creativity and from our perspective as women. We need to imagine and consider the different options for the future, even if these are all difficult and no longer very desirable, given the compromises that must be involved, and we must insist that our points of view and ideas be heard and acted upon.

A Mindset of Militarization

Too many Israelis and Palestinians, both men and women, place their faith in military security as the only way to keep the peace between the two peoples; they have a mindset of militarization.

This mindset is reflected in common understandings, or more precisely, “misunderstandings,” such as that maintaining a strong army and increasing the numbers of weapons, and therefore the level of militarization, will increase the overall level of security. Or that imposed separation/segregation of populations brings increased security. Or that the use of violence, or at any rate the sufficient use of violence (including institutional violence), will bring security. Or that some people are more human than others, love their children more, etc. Even that some people are all good and others are all bad. And with this, that some people are always victims and others always perpetrators, and that there is no middle ground between the two, and that we are either one or the other, never both. These understandings imprison the mind with their focus on fear, both in relation to the present and in relation to the future. They lead people to feel that they must always be afraid, because even if the circumstances change, the (inhuman and evil) character of their enemy, will surely stay the same, and will therefore always be a threat and will always need to be constrained by violence or threats of violence (as the only way to be safe from them). Whatever the potential political parameters, the insecurity that arises out of these mindsets will continue as long as the mindsets themselves continue, and will make it much harder to imagine peace.

Militarization, with its emphasis on violent, military solutions, tends to preclude the possibility of exploring other options, such as nonviolent ones, while at the same time increasing the probability that people will use the weapons that they have at their disposal simply because they are there and they have been trained to use them. As the violence is constantly present in the ever-present military, so is the fear that accompanies both violence (whether explicit or only implicit) and the constant emphasis on security. But this all too often creates a vicious cycle, as fear typically paralyzes the mind and often leads to violent reactions (which can then be justified as “defensive”). This excess of fear increases the polarization that is inevitably part of the conflict. But separation and polarization feed into the fantasies and allow for thoughts and fears and actions that again become part of a vicious cycle and create further reasons for people to have no contact and to refuse even intercultural dialogue – for why should anyone talk with non-humans?

The belief that the imposed separation of the Palestinians from the Israelis via the separation wall/barrier enhances security is another mistaken corollary of the military mindset –mistaken in so far as it ignores the long-term effects of denying basic rights and destroying social cohesion. Ultimately frustration will find a way to claim those rights. When people are held in a certain situation by force, there is always the risk that as soon as the restraint is removed, they will act to take revenge, so there can never be real security. There is in this situation of forced accommodation an illusion of security, but it is only an illusion.

Women get sucked into these mindsets and thereby shut out the potential for shared feminine concerns. In so far as women still see themselves and are still perceived as dependent on men for their protection, under the traditional view of security, these fears are perhaps even more deeply entrenched in relation to women. “Weak women” traditionally put their faith in men and their military might.

Women are sometimes credited with being more peaceful than men, but women have in fact traditionally supported this same military belief/ mindset and have encouraged their men to go off to war to protect them. Perhaps this made sense in a different world when the fighting could be far away and the women and children in a safe space where they would not be attacked, raped, sold into slavery, etc. But it cannot make sense in the profoundly intermingled space of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which shifts from house to house and street to street and field to field, village boundary to settlement. The occupation is the epitome of the “new wars” in which the focus is precisely on aggression against the civilian population and in which human rights abuses are a key strategy to foment fear and hatred. However, these “new wars” have also given rise to a new approach to security, the beginnings of the transformation of the military mindset, and one in which women can be key. What is more, despite not being inherently “more peaceful,” as women we can start by looking with fresh eyes, and through different prisms.

Women’s Perspective

A group of women at a workshop organized by Inclusive Security in November 2010 identified the following among the reasons why women must fully participate in peace negotiations: “Women have different priorities for public policy, which include the welfare of society as a whole.” “Women are more connected to the grassroots and therefore bring a perspective to policymaking that is more representative of society as a whole; they don’t lose this perspective when they achieve high-level leadership positions.” “Women have a critical role in family decision-making and managing household finances. They are, therefore, more aware of the basic needs of the community and have expertise in managing budgets to meet those needs.”

These all give hope that women can in fact bring a new nonmilitary and human-focused approach to security, based on realities and a more holistic view of society than that focused on security as defined by militarized national borders. A mindset that can also allow for, even encourage, connections across the conflict.

Therefore, one of the things that women can do is bring a change in emphasis and reframing of the concept of security. Women can start by simply calling attention to the fact that there is no security for women where weapons are involved. In the face of increasing international focus on “security” as military security, women can promote the broader definition of security based on the ability to live in dignity and peace. According to the 2003 Report of the UN Commission on Human Security, “Human security means protecting vital freedoms. It means protecting people from critical and pervasive threats and situations, building on their strengths and aspirations. It also means creating systems that give people the building blocks of survival, dignity and livelihood. Human security connects different types of freedoms – freedom from want, freedom from fear and freedom to take action on one’s own behalf.” This reframing of security as “human security” can help lead the way to seeking what is actually needed for peace, whereby addressing the need for basic human dignity and self-respect are fundamental.

Women can draw attention to these needs and potentials by simply drawing attention to their daily lives. This would have many advantages. As long as any peace agreement is linked to military security or ending any form of violence, the extremists can hold it hostage simply by engaging in acts of violence, thereby effectively nullifying the agreement or significantly impeding its progress. With a “holistic concern with the security of the people” on the part of those responsible for working toward peace, the daily lives of those suffering in the conflict would start to become the focus of attention and would highlight the urgency of addressing the many critical human rights needs. If these urgent needs – economic, medical and psychological – of the societies that have been breaking down in the conflict were to be addressed and remedied, the appalling pressures that fuel acts of desperation would be reduced. With the reduction of constant pain and fear, the possibility of human sympathies across the conflict would also be given space. It would reverse the methodology of the conflict. It could provide an opening for those who genuinely want to solve it.

Women as Victims, Women as Activists

One crucial point is that women in the peace process should not be seen only in the context of women as “victims of war and conflict” or as needing “protection and empowerment” but as women playing a proactive role in the process of peace negotiations and long-term peace-building. Women are agents and can have power; in fact they simply need to assert that power to really start to make change toward peace.

There have always been powerful Palestinian women since the beginning of the last century, especially in the 1920s and 30s, setting up the women’s union (General Union of Palestinian Women) and going on delegations to England to protest the policies of the British Mandate; holding their families together during and after the catastrophe of 1948; and organizing and leading demonstrations after 1967 and throughout the 1970s and 80s through the end of the intifada of 1987. It was only with the intifada of 2000 and the increasing militarization that came with the peace process (with the influx of small arms and, again, the emphasis on military security and violence) that women became less visible.

Palestinian women’s role as peacemakers has been essentially in demonstrations to start with and then to some extent reaching out as sisters across the conflict. This was going well until the collapse of the Oslo process and the outbreak of the second intifada in September 2000, which affected women’s peace activism deeply. This was partly because this intifada brought a considerable element of shock, and with the shock came a sense of betrayal despite all the strength of earlier connections. What was more, when Palestinian children threw stones as in the intifada of 1987, they were portrayed as abused children whose parents put them on the front lines of the conflict because they, the parents, and especially the mothers, “didn’t love their children.” Thus, regardless of the fact that this was untrue, a huge gulf was created at the most basic level of possible shared concern – that of mothers for their children.

In summary, the militarization of society, coupled with the use of violence, and the increase in demonization drove women out of the public sphere.

Palestinian women are sometimes described as double victims, due to the two-fold forms of oppression. There is indeed a similarity between the situations of the Palestinians vis-à-vis the Israelis and that of many women vis-à-vis men, especially in relationships where there is an emphasis on force or violence. There is a sense in which the conflict is similar to any other unequal power situation – not even necessarily a conflict, such as the one that still all too often exists between a man and a woman or more generally between men and women. But the Israeli women still share much of this with Palestinian women, and there is a possibility for them to identify with them in many ways and on many levels. There is therefore also the potential for women to overcome the military mindsets, to refuse to be dragged, as they were during the second intifada, into representing these beliefs. Together, women can, and therefore must, transform the paradigm from military to human security and from victimhood to inclusive humanity.

Dr. Amalia Saar, who specializes in gender and feminist theory as well as Palestinian citizens of Israel, talks of “intersecting identities” with “mixed loyalties” – “the simultaneous belonging to multiple self-defining groups that are all hierarchical and gendered” and work in favour of the patriarchal system. She says that “[g]endering the discourse about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict means uncovering this complication. It means showing how this complication keeps men and women trapped in situations in which they are obliged to oppress.” She believes that “[i]n terms of strategy, making UN Resolution 1325 relevant for women means working with peace organizations and women’s organizations in order to convince them to take an extra step towards radicalism, to look inward in order to uncover oppression and to face it squarely.”

Let us go back to the earlier question of weakness and of being victims – and why women have not sufficiently made use of their potential power in regard to this conflict, despite the fact that there are many dynamic and powerful women (both Palestinian and Israeli) in government and in civil society who could take the lead and who can (and do, of course, to some extent, but not enough) serve as role models. And now we have the examples of the revolutions taking place in the surrounding Arab countries, revolutions that are a powerful assertion of the need for reciprocal recognition of dignity and that, apart from Libya (which proves the point), the emphasis has been on nonviolence and on shifting the power from that of military violent domination to that of sharing – an approach that also implies gender equality, even though it has a long way to go. These revolutions of the underdogs, of the weak, the victims of the abuse of power, have been an inspiration to others in the same situation. They can also be an example to women – not to the extent of taking to the streets and making revolutions, but to the extent of seizing the power to make change. This is something that can be done as much by the powerless as by the powerful (in fact, it has to be like this), and this is perhaps one of the major lessons of the so-called Arab Spring and one that can be learned and applied across other situations, including the situation of women in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Women can use the fact of their being weak or victims or on the receiving end of oppression in effecting change – both as the reason to insist on inclusion and as the way to unite and gain traction toward inclusion.

Asserting Power to Create Change

The Arab Spring has given birth to a new excitement and a sense of pride and a renewed sense of interconnectedness throughout the Arab world, with sparks that catch and inspire and ignite, in a galvanizing awakening toward the restoration of dignity. This also has produced the awareness that however demoralized and downtrodden and poverty stricken and hopeless, people will rise up and demand their dignity, that there are limits on what people will endure in silence. This interconnectedness can exist among women. It even does at one level; that is why there continue to be initiatives solely among women, including creative ones such as the Israeli women taking Palestinian women to the seaside, and always the bonds that can be formed by women as women. But there are too few initiatives of this kind.

Here also is the distinction between “empowerment,” with its implication of someone helping the other toward power, and “power,” which is there for the taking and can theoretically be taken by any who are interested and determined enough. While empowerment is a way to help, that means there is still someone that is doing the helping and therefore there is still some element of dependence. “Power” on the other hand, as in “women and power,” has the implication of equality: that the women are there and so is the power, and that women can do what they like with it (rather than being helped toward it). While perhaps the “empowerment” is a necessary and even an excellent stage, it is less appropriate for real gender equality and for the involvement of women on an equal basis as leaders, especially in regard to leading the various processes toward a real and lasting solution to the current conflict.

Women can be learning about the power and the need and the driving force of dignity. As we assert our power, we are transforming our own mindsets and moving away from the stereotypical mindsets of the conflict. By shifting ourselves, we can also help to shift the entire conflict, because we will have created a change. Men will not do this and they are too heavily invested in the traditional mentality, but we as women can, especially if we can provide role models and can educate women to take up their power and not allow others to take it over and use it “for their protection.”

When a situation between two parties is stuck, one of them has to move, and that will generally be the one that has most to gain by change. It does not work simply to blame and require the other to make changes; it is only by actually changing and thereby creating a shift in the relationship that both can begin to change. Perhaps we also as women may have a preference for stability over change, even when the situation is not in fact stable, let alone sustainable. But stability means no change, especially in a conflict. Many of us are seduced by the desire for stability, but change is essential if we are ever to achieve real peace.

In the case of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, since the Israelis, despite their lack of security, are generally less in need of change than the Palestinians, it is really up to the Palestinians to start the process of change. As men are still so stuck in their own increasingly militaristic attitudes, it is up to the women to create the shift that can give some new momentum.

Women are essential in the efforts to create a just and lasting peace in Israel/Palestine by reframing of the language of military security into human security and in reaching out and across at the grassroots and mid levels in addition to the leadership levels. The overall goal would no longer be “security for Israel and a state for the Palestinians,” in accordance with the current political wisdom, but security for both Palestinians and Israelis, and a state for Israel and a state for Palestine (as long as this involves an end to occupation, this could be taken to mean one or two states). The intermediate goal would be a shift to a focus on the humanitarian needs of all in the conflict, such that civilians, especially children, would be protected as completely as possible.

Palestinian and Israeli women should ideally be working with UN Security Council Resolution 1325, both separately and together, and exploring ways to transform the conflict at every level (from official governmental to the various forms of public opinion). Their resourcefulness, their tenacity and their resilience from the very beginning of the conflict are testimony to how much they/we could contribute to this process, especially with clear international official support.

The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is constantly in the public eye, influencing and being influenced by international, and especially American, public opinion. As women start to find their voices around the world, the voices of women peacemakers among Palestinians and Israelis can carry more weight as they resonate with all those, women and men, who sincerely want lasting peace for the region. Many of the battles are fought via the media or in the halls of Congress, and this is where new initiatives can be effective against the old hardliners. Peace needs to be worked toward at many different levels and on many different tracks – what is most important at the present time is not to allow the stagnation of the status quo to stymie the progress toward a real and lasting peace. If women leaders, especially from the mid- and grassroots levels, can be engaged by the leadership so that the gap between young and old, social and political, as well as Palestinian and Israeli, starts to be bridged, they can help bring peacemaking back to the streets. There are young women involved in the Palestinian youth movements for change; perhaps the need for communication across generations is as urgent as the communication across borders.

The communication has therefore to be reopened and as much as possible, to allow for visibility and audibility, so that there can be resonances among all those who share views on oppression generally and share their desire for a just and lasting peace.

How we live our days is, of course, how we live our lives… Perhaps one day we will reach the stage when Israeli and Palestinian women will pull down all barriers between them and say in agreement with Virginia Woolf: “As a woman I have no country. As a woman my country is the whole world.” (1)

Footnotes
(1) Virginia Woolf, 1938. Three Guineas. (San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1966) p. 80.

Lucy Nusseibeh

Download Women and Power in the Isreaeli-Palestinian Conflict by Lucy Nusseibeh as pdf-file (9 pages, 278 KB)

**************************************************************************************************************

It Is Time to Walk the Talk and Fulfill the Promise of UNSCR 1325

For advocates of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 on women, peace and security, the 10th anniversary of the resolution in October 2010 2011was no longer an occasion to sing praises to the resolution. We all know that UNSCR 1325 is important. We all know that it is groundbreaking and game-changing. We have heard all of that from the UN, from member states and even from our fellow civil society actors year in and year out in the last 10 years.

What many of us have decided to do was to take stock of where the world is in terms of the actual implementation of the resolution and the push for real commitments and concrete actions – commitments that would not be long on promise but short on implementation. So where are we in terms of actual implementation 10 years on? Members and partners of the Global Network of Women Peacebuilders (GNWP) conducted in-country monitoring of UNSCR 1325’s implementation in Afghanistan, Burundi, Canada, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Fiji, Nepal, the Netherlands, the Philippines, Rwanda, Sierra Leone and Uganda, using a set of common indicators they selected and developed. The general findings were as follows:

1. There is in general a limited understanding of the gender dimensions of conflict and of the need for a gender perspective in peace and security processes.

2. Despite impressive progress in some cases, women are still struggling to participate in conflict prevention, peace-building and governance processes, particularly at formal and official levels.

3. While the development of gender-sensitive policies – especially national action plans (NAPs) on UNSCR 1325 and legislation – constitute a major achievement, their implementation remains a significant challenge.

4. Rates of sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) are often extremely high both during and after conflict, and impunity remains.

5. Major data gaps on women and peace and security (WPS) issues persist across all areas, especially with regards to SGBV.

6. There is a lack of adequate funding for the implementation of UNSCR 1325 by governments and especially by civil society organizations (CSOs).

7. Women’s civil society organizations play a key role in virtually every aspect of the implementation of UNSCR 1325, often through informal channels.

The civil society in-country monitoring initiative highlights the accountability gap that is manifested in the lack of leadership, lack of systematic approaches to implementation and the absence of concrete and effective monitoring mechanisms to measure progress as the key challenges. It also sends a strong message to governments, the UN and other multilateral institutions: “We will be watching you and we will continue to hold you accountable.”

Another report, “What the Women Say: Participation and UNSCR 1325 by the International Civil Society Action Network (ICAN) and the MIT Center for International Studies, highlighted some critical points 10 years after the adoption of the resolution:

* Many governments, UN personnel and CSOs are still unaware of or misunderstand UNSCR 1325.
Beyond the United Nations Development Fund for Women’s (UNIFEM) initial efforts, the adoption of UNSCR 1325 did not prompt a serious public education campaign in any country explaining the origins, rationale and substance of the mandate. The UN leadership did not properly champion the resolution nor support its implementation.

* Governments and international mediators are not doing their jobs.
Outreach to, consultation with, and inclusion of women’s voices are not part of the standard operating procedures of governments or mediators involved in peace processes.

* Opposition and non-state actors can provide an important entry point for ensuring attention to gender issues and women’s inclusion.

* Non-state and opposition movements have been more amenable to addressing issues of gender inequality in peace processes than governments.

* The UN does many things but it is weak on peace.

“Which UN agency is responsible for peace?” This was a question raised by a Colombian peace activist. For good reason: There are 23 UN agencies active in the country. For NGOs and other organizations working at national or grassroots levels, the multiple points of UN responsibility remain overwhelming and confusing.

* Women’s peace activism predates UNSCR 1325, but the resolution has helped leverage their efforts.
In Colombia, Liberia and Israel, for example, UNSCR 1325 was at the foundation of groundbreaking legislation.

The studies from GNWP and ICAN-MIT capture the gains, gaps and glitches in the implementation of UNSCR 1325 in the last 10 years. They also offer practical recommendations on how governments, civil society, the UN and other stakeholders can work together towards the full and effective implementation. The bottom line is: There are some accomplishments but there is much more to be done on actual implementation.

National Action Plans

There are so far 25 NAPs on UNSCR 1325 and 1820 that have been officially adopted, from the following countries: Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canada, Chile, Côte d’Ivoire, Denmark, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Estonia, Finland, France, Iceland, Liberia, Nepal, the Netherlands, Norway, the Philippines, Portugal, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Uganda, and the United Kingdom. A number of countries, including Australia, Burundi and Indonesia have draft NAPs that are expected to be adopted soon. The United States is currently drafting its NAP.

We applaud the efforts of governments that have adopted NAPs. However, 25 NAPs out of 193 UN member states is not great news. This is a mere 13%. If this is one of the indicators of progress in implementation after 10 years, we have failed miserably.

Having said that, I would like to discuss how some of these NAPs came about. All of the NAPs that were developed in the first six years after the resolution were from European countries. As none of these are conflict-affected countries, their NAPs were developed as part of their foreign policy, development and/or defense agenda rather than as part of a national peace-building and reconstruction agenda. However, the role of such European countries is critical as a number of them support peace processes in developing and the least developed countries either by providing official development assistance to national action planning processes, peace initiatives, actual reconstruction projects and/or by serving as mediators in peace negotiations between governments and rebel groups.

Most of the earlier NAPS did not have dedicated budgets or indicators to track progress in implementation. Nor did they have clear targets and benchmarks. However, some of these concerns have been addressed recently as a number of countries such as Norway, Switzerland and the UK have revised their NAPs.

Cognizant of the weaknesses of earlier NAPs, countries that developed their NAPs later, such as Liberia, Sierra Leone, the Philippines, Rwanda, Burundi and Nepal have built-in indicators. This consciousness to develop indicators was also a result of the adoption of UNSCR 1889, which called for the development of a set of global indicators to track the implementation of UNSCR 1325. The work of GNWP and other civil society organizations like Gender Action for Peace and Security (GAPS)-UK on indicators development and monitoring also contributed to the awareness of the need for indicators.

The NAP Process in Nepal

Nepal’s national action planning process is a best practice example in policy-making at the national level. It demonstrated a very strong cross-sectoral collaboration and broad-based consultation – the most important components of policy-making that guarantees ownership and participation by the people who will be directly impacted by a specific policy. The Peace Support Working Group (PSWG) on UNSCR 1325, which is a consortium of foreign embassies, bilateral agencies and UN bodies established in 2007, supported this collaborative and consultative process and served as an advisory and oversight committee. Some members of the PSWG such as the Norwegian Embassy, the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) and UNIFEM provided funds for district and regional-level consultations while some others provided in-kind support such as printing and translation. A special Technical Working Group (TWG) consisting of NGOs, national government actors and independent consultants was also formed. The TWG conducted the field and national consultations and drafted the NAP.

The field consultations were conducted in all five development regions and 40 districts of the country (Nepal has 75 districts). The participants in the consultations included members of local peace committees, women’s groups, children from families affected by armed conflicts, local district officials and representatives of national NGOs and UN entities. The consultations generated over 1,500 action points. The action points reflected the broad range of concerns of families and communities in conflict-affected areas. They included requests for livelihood projects, psycho-social and medical services for survivors and the establishment of memorial grounds to remember and honor the victims of the armed conflict, among others. Some of the action points identified by local communities were not even directly related to 1325 – such as the setting up of homes for the elderly and the provision of longer maternity leave. The consultation series enabled local people to pour their hearts out. It empowered them to speak to their government officials in their own authentic voices. At the consultation in Surkhet, a district in mid-western Nepal heavily affected by armed conflict, one of the participants told the state minister: “We’ve listened to you…now you listen to us.”

Nepal’s national action planning process was also enhanced by global-local and local-global sharing of experiences and strategies among civil society groups. This was made possible through the active links of Nepali NGOs such as Saathi, SAMANATA Institute for Social and Gender Equality, Sancharika Samuha and the Institute of Human Rights Communication Nepal with international networks like GNWP and the Global Action to Prevent War.

Nepal’s political situation remains very volatile despite several peace agreements between the government and the opposing parties. The immense divisions among political parties, compounded by class and caste issues, poverty and easy access to guns, continue to threaten Nepal’s political stability. The fact that the working committee under the High Level Steering Committee with its secretariat at the Ministry of Peace and Reconstruction, the Peace Support Working Group and women’s groups were able to navigate this difficult situation and generate support for the NAP is very impressive.

Local communities are part of the actual development of policies themselves; they are not just recipients of the policies. National and local government actors bring in the overall policy perspective to ensure that new policies are founded on existing ones and policy and implementation coherence is guaranteed. Civil society organizations bring in the independent voice that is not beholden to partisan politics or self-serving interests of individual politicians. They facilitate dialogues and the critical examination of issues and policies that affect the lives of populations. Multilateral institutions such as the UN play a role in setting the international normative standards for peace and security, human rights and development, as well as in catalyzing policy-making and implementation processes. In Nepal’s planning process, each sector’s roles, functions and mandates were clear and each one respected the boundaries set by those.

These are some of the lessons highlighted in Nepal’s national action planning process on UNSCR 1325 and 1820, which confronts sexual violence in conflict areas. If adopted and applied widely, they could guarantee policy ownership, participation and effective implementation. This interactive, inclusive, consultative and participatory approach to policy- making could potentially change policy culture. This also demonstrates that the process is just as important as the outcome.

Budgets, Costing and Financing

One of the major challenges in implementing UNSCR 1325 has to do with funding – not only the lack of funds per se but also the absence of clear earmarking of financial resources dedicated to implementation, as well as the lack of coordination among government agencies, CSOs and UN agencies working on women and peace and security issues. The lack of transparency in resource generation, usage and management is another issue. These were some of the findings of the study “Costing and Financing 1325: Examining the Resources Needed to Implement Women, Peace and Security Resolutions at the National Level,” jointly commissioned by Cordaid (Catholic Organisation for Relief and Development Aid) and GNWP.

The study also found that almost all of the NAPs from developing and the least developed countries are funded by external donors, many from official development assistance. While it is good to bankroll these processes, it would be much more sustainable if the funding were integrated into the national budget. Furthermore, this would also promote ownership among national government actors. “Making 1325 part of national budget discussions puts it at the heart of the policy agenda. Links become clearer… economic security and empowerment are essential to make women less vulnerable,” notes Maresa Oosterman, first secretary for the Economic and Social Affairs Section of the Permanent Mission of the Netherlands, at the presentation of the costing and financing study during the 10th anniversary of UNSCR 1325 in New York in October 2010.

It is also important to stress that while funding is important for setting the national action planning process in motion, it is much more critical for ensuring resources during implementation. At the same presentation of the costing and financing study, Nana Pratt, representative of the National Organization of Women and the Mano River Women’s Peace Network in Sierra Leone, emphasized that “in situations of post-conflict, there are many competing priorities. Special attention has to be paid not only to financing the development of a national action plan but also to funding for its implementation. …We need to tap both internal and external sources and look at innovative sources including private enterprises.”

The need to enhance NGO capacity to facilitate and manage funds for the development and implementation of NAPs as well as women and peace and security advocacy and programming also needs to be emphasized. Partnership with the private sector is likewise worth exploring. In this context, a comprehensive corporate social responsibility framework that integrates a commitment to advance the women and peace and security agenda must be developed. After all, societies where there is sustainable peace and development make for a good business environment.

Another Resolution, “Resolution Fatigue”?

On Dec.16, 2010, the UN Security Council adopted UNSCR 1960, a new resolution on sexual violence in conflict that aims to further strengthen political will and commitment to prevent sexual violence, combat impunity and enforce accountability. It requests the UN secretary-general to establish monitoring, analysis and reporting arrangements on conflict-related sexual violence, including the yearly publication of a list of armed groups that target women for sexual abuse. Moreover, UNSCR 1960 anticipates the appointment of more women protection advisors to peacekeeping missions; as well as the elaboration of scenario-based training materials on combating sexual violence. It also encourages member states to use those as a reference, as part of enhanced peacekeeper training and to deploy more female military and police personnel.

The adoption of UNSCR 1960, was preceded by three supporting resolutions, namely UNSCR 1820 (adopted on June 19, 2008), which responds to the issue of sexual violence in conflict; UNSCR 1888 (adopted on Sept. 30, 2009), which identifies specific actions against sexual violence in conflict – including the appointment of a special representative of the secretary-general to lead efforts to end conflict-related sexual violence; and UNSCR 1889 (adopted on Oct. 5, 2009), which seeks to strengthen the UN’s commitment to engaging women in peace negotiations, in governance and the financing of post-conflict recovery, and in peace-building initiatives and calls for the development of a set of global indicators to track the implementation of UNSCR 1325.

There are now four supporting resolutions that have reinforced the normative standards for the protection of women’s rights during and after conflict and for addressing their specific needs in the recovery and peace-building period. The passing of these resolutions shows the rapid development in international laws that address women, peace and security issues. However, given the glaring reality that UNSCR 1325, the resolution that is the foundation of them all, has not been fully implemented, some women peace activists cannot help but express “resolution fatigue.”

There is also a concern that there has been too much emphasis on sexual violence prevention and not enough on the prevention of armed conflict itself. Another concern is the lack of emphasis on women’s participation in decision-making, despite the fact that sexual violence stems from the lack of women’s participation in decision-making, even as it is also one of the key factors that prevent women from fully participating in decision-making. In other words, sexual violence is both the cause and the consequence of women’s absence from decision-making, and women’s full and equal participation at all levels will reduce their vulnerability to rape and other forms of sexual violence.

It must also be noted that the strong ownership and active participation of civil society that characterized the drafting and adoption of UNSCR 1325 has never been replicated in the subsequent resolutions. It is due to this sense of ownership and active participation that UNSCR 1325 has become an organizing and mobilizing instrument for women’s organizations worldwide. I still recall one GNWP member from the conflict-affected Mount Elgon district in Kenya who said to me: “The first time I read Resolution 1325, I held it close to my chest. This is ours; this belongs to us.”

We need renewed commitment to fully and effectively implement UNSCR 1325, the foundational document on women and peace and security. We need to look at the issues and the Security Council resolutions that address them as components that constitute a whole. We need these international laws not just to prevent sexual violence in conflict but to prevent conflict itself. We need such policies not just to be able to say that women are represented — but that peace and justice are more sustainable if women who represent women’s interests are at the decision-making tables. It is time to walk the talk.

Mavic Cabrera-Balleza

Download It Is Time to Walk the Talk and Fulfill the Promise of UNSCR 1325 by Mavic Cabrera-Balleza as pdf-file (9 pages, 256 KB)

**************************************************************************************************************

A Year of Saying No

It was a note in the Israeli daily Haaretz informing readers that the State Attorney’s Office had asked the police to start an investigation against author and editor Ilana Hammerman which outraged some of us. Hammerman attracted attention when in May 2010 she bravely published a detailed magazine article describing a trip to an Israeli beach in the company of three Palestinian girls.

According to Israeli law and Israeli military regulations, no resident of the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT) is allowed into “Israel proper” without a special permit. Since 2000, permits are rarely issued and so Palestinians are kept out of Israeli view and space. They also have an extremely hard time just moving within the West Bank between villages and towns. Israeli Jews, by contrast, are free to travel in and out of most of the West Bank and are waved politely through the checkpoints by the friendly (to them) guards.

Hammerman decided she would have no more of this. Having heard that her young Palestinian acquaintances had never had a chance to see the sea – just 30 miles west of their village – she promptly invited them to disguise themselves as Israelis (namely, to drop the traditional mandil headscarf and dress casually) and get into her small car. They joyfully cooperated, knowing full well that any suspicion at the checkpoint would land them and their families in trouble. Their reward was a happy day of fun and recreation.

The published story touched many Israelis and aroused some heated discussions. An Israeli nationalist organization pompously urged the State Attorney’s Office to start a criminal investigation against the law-breaking writer. Many in the Zionist left and the peace movement expressed sympathy with Ilana but were quick to register their reservations on this “boundary crossing” of civil disobedience.

Doing an Ilana

To some of us, however, it seemed that “doing an Ilana” was exactly what we were longing to do for a while. The action fully reflected our long felt disgust with the Israeli legal system that discriminates against people according to their ethnic origins and religion.

“Preserving a Jewish State with a Jewish majority” has become axiomatic in Israel and abroad. An absolute majority of Israeli Jews feel it is a “must” to turn a blind eye to all evil “necessary” to facilitate it. For too long we have been demonstrating, writing and complaining about the sorry state of mind Israelis have locked themselves into. Now we saw a chance to actively break away from all this, as Hammerman had done.

Motivated by the urgency of the direct threat to Hammerman – her action could potentially lead to up to two years in prison – we decided to join her and follow her example. A group of 12 women (11 plus Ilana) quickly organized. We soon found counterparts: courageous Palestinian women willing to make a political statement and interested in a day trip outside their harsh reality. They all knew the risk they were taking in the event their identities should be revealed, but could not care less. On the appointed day last July [2010], we set off in six cars with 12 Israeli drivers and escorts, 12 Palestinian women, four children and one baby.

A Beautiful Adventure

It was a beautiful adventure. The day started with much tension. There was always the chance that an overzealous checkpoint guard would ask for paperwork and spoil the plan. Fortunately this did not happen. Less than half an hour after we set off, we were able to assemble in a state of euphoric joy – we had made it. The unlawful laws were broken, and from then on it was just a question of finding a good beach and nice cafés and restaurants. Israeli cities have plenty of those.

The recreational aspect was indeed rewarding, but it was merely a by-product. Our purpose was and still is to make a political point. We aimed to go public and force a public debate.

It soon became clear that the Israeli media would not take too much notice without further prompting, and we opted to place an advertisement titled: “We Do Not Obey: Women in the Footsteps of Ilana Hammerman.”

Reactions came this time. Israeli TV covered the story on prime time and our action became the center of a heated public debate. As we had hoped, more women joined our group and hundreds signed petitions supporting our acts. We made more trips, and with generous donations managed to publish more advertisements, clearly and openly describing our determination to challenge the Israeli legal system.

Summoned by the Police

Law enforcement made its move in October 2010, after the second advertisement and the TV prime time exposure. Thirty women, who until then had identified themselves with the simple act of driving Palestinians to the beach or the zoo, were summoned for a criminal investigation by the Jerusalem police. We were interrogated individually, photographed for the criminal records and our fingerprints were taken for the criminal database. Every one of us signed self-bail; only Hammerman was interrogated twice. The inconvenience was trivial compared with what a Palestinian has to put up with under similar circumstances. We have no idea whether the state will take this action any further and actually prosecute us, thus giving us a perfect platform to publicly denounce the despicable status of non-Israeli, non-Jewish residents of this land. A trial against us is bound to become a perfect platform to speak against the military occupation of Palestine, against the settlement policy and the militarized, discriminatory nature of our society.

A Call to Fellow Israelis

While Israeli officials, diplomats, academics, spin doctors and Jewish communities all over the world raise alarms through the media in the face of a so-called “global delegitimization campaign against Israel,” we call on fellow Israelis to start cleaning up our act back home. We ask good, honest, liberal democratic Israelis to join us in refusing to comply with laws and regulations that deny basic human rights to fellow humans. It is as simple as it sounds and is long overdue.

Ofra Yeshua-Lyth

Download A Year of Saying No by Ofra Yeshua-Lyth as pdf-file (3 pages, 192 KB)

**************************************************************************************************************

Out of History: A Journey to Identity through the Silenced Voices of Bedouin Women

My father is a Bedouin Arab who lived unquestioned on his historical tribal lands until 1948, after which the village was termed “unrecognized” and “illegal.” My mother is an Arab Muslim from Nazareth. Even though she comes from one of the strongest Arab cities in northern Israel, she never identifies herself as such, choosing instead to be identified as hailing from her family’s uprooted village that existed before 1948. My name is Safa Abu Rabia. I am a Bedouin, an Arab, a Muslim, a Palestinian and also an Israeli. I am all of these things together, but, at the same time, I am none of them.

Similar yet Different

It was not always like this, however. It all began when my very educated parents decided to move me and my three sisters from our Arab school to a Jewish school. My elementary education was in a Bedouin Arab town near Beer Sheva. There my parents resolved to educate us about our heritage in order to give us a better sense of identity. We learned about Islamic practices, how to speak the Arabic language and about our past.

My parents then decided that since the level of academic performance is higher in Jewish schools than in their Arabic counterparts, we ought to be educated in the former and thus have a better chance in life. Until that point, I was assured of my identity and place as a Bedouin Arab living in Beer Sheva. Being in a Jewish school did not affect me initially. In all outer appearances I was the same as everyone else. I looked like them, dressed like them and spoke like them. Despite this, I felt different, especially in history class, where I was either invisible or the enemy. We studied the Israeli narrative, which explained how the empty land of Israel was waiting for hundreds of years to be redeemed by the Jewish people, causing me to question where I came from and who I was.

My Journey of Self-Discovery

This uncertainty as to where it was that I belonged started me on a journey of self-discovery. This journey took me to the university, where, in the Middle Eastern Department, I started to feel that I did have a place. I started speaking Arabic with my Arab friends and studying Islam, which allowed me to feel a sense of past and belonging. However, I could not find evidence of the Bedouin community, either in the Israeli or Palestinian formal narratives. This prompted me to attempt to unravel the question of their obscurity by searching for and documenting these silent voices. I used anthropology as an avenue of research and as part of my Master’s dissertation. I interviewed Bedouin men from the 1948 generation about their past. I became privy to a very rich historical discourse, detailing the old ways of life, their expulsion from their homes in 1948 and how they yearned for this old life.

Looking for Bedouin Women’s Voices

When I looked for the voices of Bedouin women, I could find nothing. Consequently, I decided to dedicate my PhD thesis to the task of finding a “her story” in Bedouin society. Every Bedouin man I spoke with insisted that women cannot communicate history. There are lots of Bedouin men who can tell you about 1948, they averred, but you will not find your answers by talking to women. This only stoked my curiosity further, but the women I met from the 1948 generation reacted in the same way, with avowals of ignorance as this was a man’s job. “We did not participate in the 1948 war,” they declared. “We were at home with the children…but my husband can tell you the history, as can my brother and my uncle.”

I was not satisfied with this and, with some effort, managed to gain entry into the separate gender space, or “safe space,” occupied by women, in which they share their stories with younger generations. I joined several family gatherings and listened to the stories, but I felt disappointed. There was no history there, only fragmented ideas, broken language and gaps between sentences. Absent was the logical, chronological frame of events such as I experienced with the men I had interviewed.

A Non-Western Perspective for an Oral Society

I returned to my supervisor full of despair, maintaining that the Bedouin women could not tell history and believing this meant the end of my research and thus my PhD. He responded that I reminded him of his Western academic students as I was thinking in terms of a very specific logic, which was scientific and Western in nature. “You are trying to impose this way of thinking upon these women,” he told me, “when this is a fragmented society, symbolized by survival. This is an oral society that does not necessarily permit immediate entry into internal tribal history.”

I was shocked by the extent to which I had internalized the Western perspective, but I had been educated to do so. Thus I had to alter my outlook and way of thinking before returning to these women with an open mind. At the family gatherings, I attempted to discern what was said and what was not said, to establish the subtext of their discussion. I was rewarded with a very rich and empowering historical discourse. They spoke of how land defined their gender identity and the way they had an active role in the running of the household; they spoke of how they were expelled from their lands, the resultant emptiness they experienced and the way they are yearning for their old life. They told me of how they took their children, especially their daughters, to their old tribal lands to show them where they lived and the remains of their houses. They would walk barefoot in order to feel the soil and know that they belonged to this land and that it belonged to them, to know that this was their home and they wanted to return.

The Real Meaning of History

I learned that history is not about linear, chronological events; history is about people talking about their lives and their feelings. The goal of my journey had been to find a definite answer to the question of which narrative and which history I belonged to, so that I could know where I came from and where I am going. I did not find any definite answers, however, and emerged very confused. Though I was looking for boundaries, I realize today that I am sitting on the boundaries and that I belong to more than one place and more than one history. Knowing that there is no definite answer, nor truth, nor justice has actually released me from my internal struggle.

This article is based on her presentation at a TEDx conference.

Download Out of History: A Journey to Identity through the Silenced Voices of Bedouin Women by Safa Abu Rabia as pdf-file (3 pages, 162 KB) 

**************************************************************************************************************

Women’s Empowerment and Peace-Building under Occupation?

Introduction

As a contribution to the discussion on women’s empowerment in the Palestine-Israel Journal, this article reflects on the possibilities for women’s empowerment and peace-building under a condition of prolonged occupation. Specifically, it focuses on the near-impossibility of the manifestation of empowerment and peace for those who have been disenfranchised under a paradigm of extreme oppression in the context of Occupied Palestine. If one uses Eileen Kuttab’s contextualization of Palestinian empowerment as historically being embodied in practices of mobilization and resistance, then being allowed neither mobility nor the right to organize resistance to Israeli military violence makes it clear that the prospects for successful peace-building and the realization of Palestinian women’s empowerment face significant obstacles (1). This is a result of the autocratic imbalance of power that has seeped from external into internal dynamics. The external factors are the architects and participants of the occupation comprised of an illegal Israeli military occupation force of women and men, abetted by an international community that does not adhere to its mandates to the fullest extent and follows an aid praxis that further serves to annihilate mobilization and resistance. The internal obstacles to women’s empowerment are an extension of the external, that is, elements of the Palestinian local governing structure that was meant to be temporary in nature.

Different Manifestations of the Basis of Supremacy

To understand this analysis, it is imperative to pay attention to the overall environment and the multiplicity of factors within it. The existence of an Occupied Palestine is made possible through applying the concept of the “other,” which Edward Said eloquently elaborates in his book Orientalism. Said’s work on Orientalism is related to the notion of the subaltern as he explains the way in which Orientalism produced the silence of the Orientals. The term “subaltern” generally refers to marginalized groups rendered without agency (2). Thus, European colonialists defined themselves by defining and presenting the differences of the “other” (3) as a guise for colonial exploitation. The shift from standard European colonialism toward a policy-oriented neo-colonialism under various U.S. administrations driven by the military industrial complex has led to different manifestations of this basis of supremacy, which in recent times has been accompanied by the rhetoric of the right to development under occupation (4).

Annihilation of the “Other’s” Identity and Aspirations

Through the State of Israel, a regime of militarized, patriarchal colonialism has been executed by implementing extreme measures in order to alter, if not eradicate, the sociality of the “other” or the Palestinian (5). Colonialism in Occupied Palestine lies in the practice of habituating the population to defeat and constructing normalcy out of that very subjugation. Continuous movement and encroachment on space accompanies this stillness of subjugation, which is necessary to achieve the annihilation of the other’s identity and aspirations. The self of the Palestinian is replaced through the establishment of an ethnocentric state and the deconstruction and construction that the project necessarily entails. This includes building colonial infrastructure such as settlements and settler (Jewish-only) roads and severely restricting mobility and accessibility through checkpoints, soldiers, machine guns and an impenetrable bureaucracy of control that administers every aspect of Palestinians’ lives (6). The most visible structure to date has been the Separation Wall, which may be perceived as the attempt to slice the Palestinians’ location and memory from their homeland. Correspondingly, destroying homes and creating a complex network of checkpoint passages which dictate where Palestinians can go, when and for how long, and ensuing expulsion engenders perpetual states of dislocation, insecurity and domination (7).

Some activists have suggested that a solution for empowerment and peace amidst the mentioned context should emanate from collective initiatives by Israeli and Palestinian women. However, it should be considered that the occupation – its imposition of immobility and the breakdown of Palestinian society that this produces – is sustained by an occupation army formed by forced conscription that also includes Israeli women (8) Israeli women may be exempt from serving in the army due to religious, marital or other factors; however, as Rela Mazali has noted, their socialization within a culture of war renders it difficult to break out of a militarized construct.9 Militarization has been described by Cynthia Enloe as “the step-by-step process by which something becomes controlled by, dependent on, or derives its value from the military as an institution or militaristic criteria.”10 This transpires through a subtle process, which includes maneuvering women of diverse groups against one another (11). Being conditioned within a militarized framework affects and incarcerates perceptions, thoughts and behavior within militarized societies. Israeli women’s role in an illegal military apparatus may skew their comprehension of peace-building and empowerment as it relates to the cases of Palestinian women. A high probability exists that they will not have Palestinian national resistance or aspirations of self-determination as primary objectives on their agendas. Moreover, Palestinian women under occupation and the ensuing annexation of East Jerusalem have been excluded from the democratic privileges that Israeli women have enjoyed, further separating these communities (12). Despite years of the international community’s support for Palestinian/Israeli women’s dialogues for peace, these conditions should be seen to render any such conversations difficult.

Israeli Women Have More Access to Institutions That Can Implement Change

Moreover, it seems delusional to presume that simply being women, due to physiological commonalities, is sufficient to erase differences such as socioeconomic status, freedom and the carte blanche afforded to participants in an illegal occupation to negate and relinquish others’ rights. Simply being a woman does not inherently engender compassion or enable true entry into a struggle for emancipation by a female in her position of a colonizer with regard to her subjects. Nonetheless, forms of peace-building and empowerment have generally taken guidance from those that have the resources to be in a position of greater might. In the context of Israeli and Palestinian women, these have predominantly been the Israeli women. While they are also constrained by a male-dominated environment, Israeli women have more access to institutions that can implement change than Palestinian women and therefore have the ability to wield stronger impacts. It is dubious that genuine empowerment and peace-building between women can transpire amidst such asymmetrical power relations. This is not to deny that empathy and benevolent intentions exist within attempts to reach peace. Rather, the location of Israeli women outside an imposed occupation and the mundane realities that accompany that level of existence removes them from that plight. Thus, we need to understand to what extent peace-building between women can be possible when one party comprises soldiers in an illegal occupation army, actors in the quelling of a civilian population, and the other forms part of a population under occupation (13).

Nevertheless, initiatives between women seem to proceed regardless of Israel’s on-going violations of international law and have proven insufficient in changing patterns of behavior. Israel continues to consistently violate the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, UN Security Council and General Assembly resolutions, customary international law as reflected in the UN Charter, the Hague Convention, the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; the Convention for the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination, the Convention for the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The overarching frame of legal violations coupled with initiatives towards empowerment and peace building raises the question of these endeavors as mere attempts of “normalization” (14) under occupation, which appear to form part of the development and peace trajectory. The latter falls into the development modus operandi of the international community. Instead of enforcing international law, which would end the occupation, the international community generally has maintained the status quo and cemented power relations with the participation of some of the dispossessed.

Militarized Behavior Seeps into the Psyche and Behavior of Some of the Colonized

If peace-building and empowerment are confronted with obstacles vis-à-vis those who engage as oppressors and a population under that oppression, empowerment between the female segment of a population under occupation also has its fair share of divisions. In the past, diverse discourses and actions were deployed by Palestinian women’s autonomous movements. During the first intifada (1987-1993) – the popular civilian struggle against the Israeli occupation – a significant number of women were activists and leaders of civilian resistance (15). Women’s committees were established and affiliated with national liberation organizations in towns, villages and refugee camps.  Grandmothers and young girls alike were in the protests, constructed barricades and used their own bodies to shield their men from soldiers. Further, they contributed to the reduction of their community’s economic reliance on Israel (16). Neighborhood committees were established along with home schooling, demonstrating the resilience of the Palestinian community under occupation (17). Yet women’s extraordinary capacity and contributions to the survival of Palestinian society have been marginalized.

Instead of women being enabled to contribute to new forms of peacemaking, what has ensued has been the extensive militarization of Palestinian society, which is apparent through the vehicle of local governing structures that were intended to be temporary. This has been a result of the occupation as well as the infiltration and purchase of an international development paradigm based on unequal yet intersectional relations of power. In the case of Occupied Palestine militarization may be perceived as being derived from a hegemonic interest, coupled with the practices of the colonial power, which seeps into the psyche and behavior of some of those who are colonized, pitting them against one another, dividing them and ultimately, conquering them.

For example, a local governing women’s entity was established in November 2003 “as a response to the Palestinian women’s struggle to achieve their national political and socio-economic rights.” (18) A glaring issue of contention was Hamas’ landslide elections victory in 2006. Although Hamas overwhelmingly won the democratic parliamentary elections in Occupied Palestine with 76 seats of the 132-member parliament, it was prevented from governing by the international community (19). Following the insistence that democratic elections be held, the United States and donor countries either discontinued or severely curtailed assistance to any entity that was associated with Hamas. This was significant as the Palestinians were the most foreign-aid dependent nation at the time.

Domination and Submission

If one reviews women’s empowerment through a postcolonial lens, several immediate questions arise connected to processes of domination and submission. How can women’s empowerment be achieved within Palestinian society when Hamas’ electoral victory – according to the Carter Center, in free and fair elections – was immediately nullified (20)? Such nullification negated those who supported Hamas, which constituted the majority in Gaza, one of the most densely populated areas in the world. That population, which includes women, was denied any form of participation, decision-making or even presence (21). One may assume that the women envisioned to benefit from plans for women’s empowerment were not supporters, voters or members of Hamas and were not married to men who were associated with Hamas. The women in Gaza were in fact quintessential subalterns due to their absolute erasure by the governing structures that were deemed appropriate by the international community. Indeed, the lives of many women in Gaza were either extinguished or placed under severe hardship with the massacre of people during Operation Cast Lead in 2008-09 (22). The latter is a somber reminder of the difficulties of empowerment and peace-building under the onslaught of occupation, although the ones in power and their supporters may pretend that women’s empowerment and peace can transpire under such conditions.

The local governing structure’s empowerment or gender equality route fits into a model of development that has followed the political sentiment of the international community. The development trajectory of the international community upheld the external suppression of the Palestinian democratic structure and referred to those that were deemed favorable to their interests rather than those who were democratically elected. Emphasis was not placed on addressing and including the entire Palestinian population inside Occupied Palestine. Instead, the focus was on the language of gender, the third Millennium Development Goal, which aims at promoting gender equality and empowering women as well as UNSC Resolution 1325 on women, peace and security, again regardless of the possibilities of implementation under occupation. This is not to underestimate the relevance of these concepts and initiatives. However, it is worth analyzing the local context of struggle, its indigenous characteristics and the rights of the entire Palestinian population. This was replaced with the use of a certain discourse by local governing structures, which at times permitted dominance over the “other” by entering into processes of negotiation that included not only the loss of voice but the acquiescence and adoption of a donor-driven discourse that was once alien (23).  Subsequently, various categories of subalternity were created, which entailed the complete exclusion of segments of the population that local governing structures were intended to serve.

Conclusions

To conclude, peace building and empowerment among women cannot take place in the absence of liberation. Asymmetrical power relations where a civilian population is continuously occupied under a colonial state-building process does not lend itself to empowerment or peace for any member of humanity. Instead, the militarization of the societies involved takes hold which confines perception circumscribes thought and, in turn, determines actions both externally and internally. An ongoing occupation which is a constant condition of violence by Israel renders it challenging for Israeli women to engage in empowerment or peace with the Palestinian women whom they occupy. Indeed, it is patronizing that women who served as conscripts in an occupation army, or are part of a country that engages in an illegal occupation and annexation, should form a partnership of empowerment with those who live under the oppression of colonization.

A more realistic option is to seek a new path which facilitates localized empowerment and peace initiatives on the ground, as well as general nonviolent resistance against the occupation by both Israeli and Palestinian women, separately; until the gap in power is minimized An in-depth understanding of civil society on the ground may result in more authentic processes of empowerment and peace based on how the people define themselves, their situation and their needs. On the other hand, due to the continuously changing nature of a prolonged occupation and ensuing annexation, Palestinian entities and their plans should serve to facilitate the strengthening of all people and sectors of Palestinian society regardless of political affiliation. This entails the active participation of the people in their self-determination while demanding that the international community and the Palestinian “representatives” comply with their mandates. The fragmentation of the Palestinian nation under occupation renders these initiatives difficult; however, they are not impossible. Fostering belief and cohesion like that which took place in South Africa among anti-Apartheid activists, instead of local divisions, should be a constant objective (24). The only type of empowerment, peace and development that should take place in Occupied Palestine is that which builds on the people’s resilience, sumud (steadfastness) (25) and resistance, which challenges the situation of colonialism through occupation. A course of “development” which ignores these elements will only serve to mitigate, rather than eliminate, the root cause that does not allow peace and empowerment to take hold, which is the occupation and current annexation.

Footnotes

1. Kuttab, Eileen, “Empowerment as Resistance: Conceptualizing Palestinian Women’s Empowerment,”Development, Vol.53 No.2 (2010), pp.247-253.

2. Spivak, G. C., “Can the Subaltern Speak?” in Nelson C. and Grossberg, L. (eds) Marxism and Interpretation of Culture, (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1988), pp.271-313.

3. Said, Edward W., Orientalism (New York: Pantheon Books, 1978).

4. Ibid.

5. Butler, Judith, “Cosmopolitanism, Peace and Conflict” lectures, as part of the Centre for the Humanities Intensive Programme (February 2010):

6. Eyal Weizman, “The Politics of Verticality,” openDemocracy  (Web publication at their website), April 25, 2002.

7. Ibid.

8. “Israeli women” refers to Israeli women of Jewish descent, as opposed to Palestinian women (commonly referred to as Arab citizens of Israel) who have Israeli citizenship.

9. Mazali, Rela, “’And What About the Girls?’ What a Culture of War Genders Out of View,” Nashim:A Journal of Jewish Women’s Studies & Gender Issues 6 (2003), pp.39-50.

10. Enloe, Cynthia, Maneuvers: The International Politics of Militarizing Women’s Lives. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000), p.292

11. Ibid.

12. Israeli Jewish women are differentiated under a paradigm of democracy from Palestinians who are Israeli citizens due to the differences in legislation. Please refer to Ilan Pappé, The Forgotten Palestinians: A History of the Palestinians in Israel (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2011).

13. Not all women, at all times, are soldiers. There is a feminist anti-conscription movement in Israel that works precisely to overcome this problem and faces great challenges.

14. “Normalization — Tatbiyeh, in Arabic — means collaboration with Israeli institutions aimed at creating the impression of normality, while the context remains one of Israeli military occupation and the depriving of fundamental rights for the Palestinian people.” The Alternative Information Center, “The Case against Palestinian Normalization with Israel” (September 2007).

15. Daniel, Naila, “Palestinian Women in the Intifada,” Peace Magazine (July-August 1997).

16. Ibid.

17. Ibid.

18. Ministry of Women’s Affairs (MoWA) brochure released to the public July 2008.

19. BBC News, January 26, 2006. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4650788.stm

20. http://www.cartercenter.org/peace/conflict_resolution/middle-east/index.html

21. Conclusion derived from research through consultancy at the Central Elections
Commission, Palestine, through UNDP 2006.23. Approximately 1,400 Palestinians and 13 Israelis were killed resulting in conclusions of war crimes as detailed in the Goldstone report. See Shamir, Shlomo, “UN Human Rights Chief Endorses Goldstone Gaza Report.” Haaretz, Feb. 11,2009: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1121045.html 

22. Bhabha, Homi K, “Of mimicry and man: The ambivalence of colonial discourse,” The Location of Culture (London and New York: Routledge, 1994), pp.85-92.

23. Interview with Sedjwick Jane, London School of Economics and Political Science, psychologist and South African activist, London, March 2010.

24. Bethlehem University Former Dean of Arts, Waleed Mustafa, Talking About the Concept of Sumud to Palestine-Family. March 5, 2010. http://www.bethlehem.edu/archives/2010/2010_024.shtml

Sonia Najjar

Download Women’s Empowerment and Peace-Building under Occupation? by Sonia Najjar as pdf-file (8 pages, 264 KB)

**************************************************************************************************************