The Palestine-Israel Journal is a quarterly of MIDDLE EAST PUBLICATIONS, a registered non-profit organization (No. 58-023862-4).
Bookmark and Share















Editorial Board

Adnan Abdelrazek

Danny Rubinstein

Sam'an Khoury

Daniel Bar-Tal

Walid Salem

Galia Golan

Gershon Baskin

Hind Khoury

Edy Kaufman

Ata Qaymari

Benjamin Pogrund

Nafez Nazzal

Dan Jacobson

Jumana Jaouni

Moshe Maoz

Munther Dajani

Khuloud Khayyat Dajani

Izhak Schnell

Lucy Nusseibah

Meir Margalit

Menachem Klein

Ali Abu Shahla

Ilan Baruch

Hanna Siniora

Yehudit Oppenheimer

Mossi Raz

Susie Becher

Frances Raday




Vol.11 No.2 2004 / The International Community and the Conflict

Viewpoint

Women and Conflict Resolution

Women can make a unique contribution to peace

     by Galia Golan

In October 2000 the UN Security Council passed resolution 1325 calling for increased participation of women in peacemaking, peace-keeping and peace negotiations. This was the result of many statements, charters and declarations on the basic principle of equal rights for women, the right to self-determination, to nondiscrimination and to political participation. These are universal rights that stand for equality in matters affecting women’s lives.

The right to be part of peacemaking and peace negotiations is also based on women’s rights simply as people affected by the existence of war and armed conflict. Women are not peripheral to conflict. Particularly in the conflicts of today, civilians - mainly women and children - are the major victims. The majority of refugees are women; the majority of displaced persons are women. In World War I, the percentage of civilian victims was 5 percent; in World War II, 48 percent; today, 90 percent. Women are especially vulnerable in war and conflict – without weapons, without training in warfare. They are vulnerable physically, emotionally, mentally and in every way possible.

Women are Devalued in Societies at War

Women also suffer in another way in a conflict situation, particularly in a situation of prolonged, armed conflict. Women are on the disadvantaged side of militarized society. Clearly gender relations are affected by the militarization of a society. In militarized society you have the elevation, adulation and privilege of the male protector. The male is seen to play an essential role for the society, for the nation, leaving the women in a subordinate, auxiliary position, at best a helper. In a society at war, male qualities are those that are most respected: strength, power, aggressiveness. These qualities are deemed more important than the soft qualities associated with women. Further, in a society involved in armed conflict, men have an advantaged position by virtue of their expertise or experience in the one area most important or most highly valued and needed: the area of security, of warfare. Almost by definition, this is an area in which women will have far less if any expertise or experience, an area far less available or open to women or associated with women.

Add to this still another aspect of societies engaged in conflict: increased violence. Societies engaged in conflict have increased rates of family violence, of honor killings, of murders of wives. There is an established connection between societal violence and domestic violence. And, finally, in conflict situations women not only sacrifice their sons and loved ones, but often, they are called upon to sustain society, to sustain daily life, providing daily needs in the face of the hardships of war and conflict.

But aside from the demand for rights and equality, and the argument that women are far from peripheral to conflict and therefore should be part of peacemaking, there is also the added value or simple good sense of having women involved, as agents of change, providing something different. It is not just the right to be at the negotiating table but the positive – or at least different - element that women may bring to the table, by virtue of their experience.

Women Bring a Different Perspective

Women may have a different perspective connected with individual well-being. Given the role of women regarding the very basic, personal needs of the family, they may be more sensitive to such issues. It is known that women perceive “security” differently from men, viewing it in terms of shelter, food and health, while men tend to perceive security in terms of weapons systems and arms. It is possible that women would tend to approach peace from a human rights perspective, which would emphasize fairness, tolerance, respect for difference, for minorities, for “the other,” because women live as “the other,” as a minority – not in numbers but in the attitude toward them in society. Thus, they may place a greater emphasis on the protection of personal rights, fairness and respect for difference; these are the key elements to peacemaking and conflict resolution.

In this connection, we might also mention the ideas of inclusiveness and transparency. It has been found that when women are involved in peace negotiations, in Northern Ireland for example, what women brought to the table was greater concern for inclusiveness and transparency, perhaps because women experience exclusion, having been shut off from information and decision-making.

It is not a matter of innate qualities that can be found in all cases or all women, but it has been observed that women tend to operate on a win-win basis. It is possible that this is due to a background of avoiding conflict, avoiding confrontation – perhaps as peacemakers in the home, between children or similar situations. Perhaps this is a result of socialization. But it is apparent even in the games children play: boys displaying distinctly competitive, win-lose attitudes, as distinct from girls.

Women Hear What Others Say

Moreover, for whatever reason, women tend to listen, rather than engage in monologues. They both listen and often are more willing than men to reveal emotions, fears or concerns, as well as to hear what others are saying. This is not just a pleasant phenomenon; it is communication, including emotions, listening, hearing – all of which can provide eye-openers, information, a “reality check” for matters that may be essential or advisable for sustainable peace. Thus they may build into a treaty or agreement other considerations, previously unnoticed or ignored. For example, it has been said that the Oslo Accord division of the Occupied Territories of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip into areas A, B, and C might have been different had the negotiators realized what it might mean to break up communities; today's security fence/wall might be conceived differently if one considered the fact that a children’s school would be on the other side of the wall from the children’s homes. Palestinian feminist Maha Abu Dayyeh Shamas has said that the Geneva Accord would have had some discussion of human rights protection and greater emphasis on reconciliation had women been negotiating.

Education and Civil Society

The matter of sustainable peace and reconciliation is another point in question. There is a tendency to think that an agreement will be reached – and there will be separation, with each side going its separate way. But in today’s conflicts, this is rarely the case. Sustainable peace is not simply the absence of war. There is a need to create, in agreements, the conditions that will provide for a decent society, equality, the possibility for human fulfillment. There is a need also to create peace between the peoples involved. This is not just a truism. In order to last, especially when dealing with long, entrenched conflicts, there is a need to build from the bottom up, there is a need for the restructuring of conflictual relationships. This is done through education and civil society – the two areas where women are the most active and have the most experience.

Civil society is where we have seen women involved in peacemaking today. While still demanding to be at the negotiating table, women are already active in peacemaking as members of civil society. This is being done primarily through dialogues, crossing the divide, bridge-building. It is being done in Cyprus, Somalia, Sudan and Palestine/Israel. Women meeting and mediating. For example, in Sudan they have actually achieved something between warring tribes in what had appeared to be an intractable civil war.

Women may be More Open to Bridging

It is more difficult for men to cross the divide. Men tend to be the ones in official positions, unable to cross lines, leaving the task to civil society, NGOs. Men have more to lose. Women are perhaps more open to bridging, less stigmatized as the oppressor. The women may not be seen as the soldier, the combatant – the enemy, yes, but not the oppressor. At the very least, the starting point among women is slightly less hostile because of the element of shared experience – even if this shared experience is their very exclusion from the negotiating table.

So we see Iraqi women demanding a seat at the table, such as the group that went recently to the Woodrow Wilson Center; we see Women Waging Peace at Harvard, where Arab and Mediterranean women, North African, Iranian, Saudi and Israeli women meet; Cypriot women – Greek and Turkish meeting in no-man’s land in Nicosia, arguing but trying to break down barriers; Suzanne Mubarak’s Women for Peace – Call for Action in September 2002. These encounters are not easy; no one gives up her national identity or her national interests. But they are attempts to find areas of cooperation. In many ways these are efforts born of frustration – frustration over the continued warfare that officials, leaders, the military –without women - are not solving. But these same efforts by women can not only prepare societies for an end to conflict, they could, if women were allowed, change negotiations from a discourse of stopping the war to one of creating the conditions for sustainable peace and reconciliation.

New Women's Initiative in the Middle East

For this reason the women of the Jerusalem Link - Palestinian and Israeli women who have been meeting for more than 15 years, recently launched the creation of an International Women's Commission for Just Peace in the Middle East. Designed as a consultative and advocacy body, this commission will comprise 20 outstanding women from the international community, and 20 women each from Palestine and Israel. Based on a set of agreed-upon principles, coupled with the reputations and abilities of the female "commissioners" and regularly informed by grass-roots meetings that have already begun, the commission will seek entry into negotiating processes and discussions of the Arab-Israeli conflict, whether at the local or international level. Ongoing contact with organizations such as the EU, the UN, and the Quartet will be of particular importance. The purpose is, finally, to bring women's voices to the negotiating table, as demanded by UN resolution 1325, for the achievement of peace.








 © 2012 Palestine-Israel Journal. All Rights Reserved. Articles, excerpts, and translations may not be reproduced in any form without written permission.
The Palestine-Israel Journal gratefully acknowledges the support of UNESCO for the initial development of the website.
The Palestine-Israel Journal gratefully acknowledges the support of the European Union for the maintenance and development
of the website.