In spite of the full application of all the traditional security
measures on the part of Israel in order to achieve security, the
majority of Israelis still live in fear. The majority of
Palestinians live in fear, too, because of the occupation and
Israel's application of these security measures. Thus, neither
Palestinians nor Israelis have any sense of security.
Is the answer, then, an increase in this security apparatus? In the
acquisition of more and better weapons, and in the reinforcement of
personnel and the improvement of their skills? Or does the answer
lie in a new approach to security, which could prove to be both a
way of moving the peace process forward and making the region more
secure?
Within the international community, there is an increasing shift in
focus from a definition of "security" in military terms, such as
defensible borders, numbers of armed forces, etc., to security as
"human security" ¯ the extent to which daily life, in terms of
education, health, recreation, etc., can be lived and enjoyed in
safety and security by each and every individual. This shift in
focus, this reframing, has not yet reached the Middle East; perhaps
it is time it did.
Reframing Security
The basic tenets of human security are freedom from fear and
freedom from want and, as a corollary, the right to personal
dignity. The scope and the emphasis vary from the narrowest
protection of individuals against violence to the broadest
understanding of individual security, which includes protection
against disease and global warming.
State or military security and human security are not contradictory
or mutually exclusive, although military security is closer to war
and human security is closer to peace. If anything, they are
complementary or, at least, should be. Ideally, individuals should
be able to live securely in states with secure borders. Ideally,
state security would deal with external security issues and human
security would be more inward-looking. The question here is whether
in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, where there is
occupation and annexation, where there are no clearly defined
borders, and where the levels of fear are very high, it might not
be helpful to place less emphasis on the issue of borders and more
on the safety and dignity of the individual.
In fact, the reframing of security is particularly appropriate in
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In this situation of occupation,
as the occupying army and the population under occupation are
constantly intermingled, there is, as a result, constant insecurity
that has nothing to do with borders or traditional confrontations
between military forces. On the contrary, the traditional military
security approach leads to a less secure situation, as soldiers
tend to use violent military reactions against a subject
population, thereby creating a spiral of violence of which they are
the center.
Military Force Does Not Provide Security
The system of checkpoints set up by the Israelis could be said to
protect their national security, as it makes it very difficult for
Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza to enter Israel, or to
even move from one part of the occupied territories to another. But
the checkpoints have a strongly adverse effect on Palestinian human
security, as they create fear and humiliation via the treatment
Palestinians receive at these checkpoints. This system also creates
want, as the checkpoints destroy the infrastructure and the
connectivity essential for a functioning, let alone a thriving,
Palestinian economy.
Fear, want and humiliation are integral elements of the occupation.
The Palestinians do not feel secure¯ whether as Jerusalemites,
always concerned (amongst many other issues) about the impermanence
of their residency status; or as West Bankers, subject to control
over their every move and still at risk from Israeli incursions; or
as Gazans, sealed off by Israel from the outside world, frequently
denied the most basic resources, and subject to random bombing and
attacks.
For these same reasons and many others, the vast majority of
Palestinians also feel humiliated. It is no accident that the third
tenet of human security is the right to dignity. Humiliation can be
as devastating as physical violence and can provoke extreme forms
of hatred. Dignity is a core element of humanity and history is
filled with examples of people willing to die for it. When military
superiority is used to humiliate, it is sowing the seeds of war,
not of peace.
The overwhelming military superiority of the Israelis should give
them security. But still most Israelis will say they live in fear,
and that they do not have security. In fact the extreme asymmetry
of the power relations in the conflict exacerbates the situation,
as it is via a highly militarized society that the Israelis impose
their control on the lives of the Palestinians. Israeli fears lead
them to perceive the presence of their army and the system of walls
and checkpoints, for instance, as helping their security. They fail
to see that by denying the Palestinians their basic human rights,
this increases the levels of anger and frustration and, in fact,
makes the situation less secure.
The militarization of any society must imply the heightened
perception of military or violent means as the way to solve
problems. Israeli society is highly militarized, as the majority of
young people are required to undertake military service and then
mostly continue on with reserve duty for many more years. The
demands for progress in the peace process have nearly all tended to
focus on increasing militarization within Palestinian society as
well, via the establishment and reinforcement of armed security
agencies. The influx of arms into the Palestinian territories
(mostly with and since the signing of the Oslo Accords) has
significantly increased the dangers for both Palestinians and
Israelis and decreased the overall level of human security.
The association of power with the power of guns in the minds of
Palestinians who have grown up at the mercy of armed Israeli
soldiers means they are more likely to use guns to express their
power and to overcome their humiliation. Therefore, again, in this
way, too, the general level of human security is reduced by the
overall militarization of the conflict. As more Palestinian men go
without work and without the dignity of being able to provide for
their families, and as the levels of want (which they can do less
and less to alleviate) increase, the frustration and the anger and
the likelihood of violent expression of these also continue to
rise.
So the traditional definition of security and the increased
militarization seem to lead to a number of questions: Does the
focus on the military¯ i.e., traditional, state-based
security¯ provide the individual with security, or does it
actually increase the danger for everyone? What security does
military security provide? Protection against the armies and
missiles of other countries? Perhaps, but in cases where extreme
military imparity exists, how can this kind of security make any
significant difference? The Palestinian resistance has been mostly
popular movements, not pitched battles between equal armies, where
military superiority could make a difference. On the other hand,
the (very brief) period of direct armed confrontation between the
two sides (the Israeli army and armed Palestinians) was also the
time when many suicide bombings were carried out on the part of the
Palestinians, and the Israeli military could not stop them. This
was, therefore, a time of great fear for the Israelis as
well.
The combination of the militarization of Israeli society with the
apparent immunity offered by their military superiority, along with
the high levels of fear, the ensuing demonization of the
Palestinians, and the increasing absence of any kind of normal
social contact between the two sides, all contribute to a situation
where security is considerably diminished for the Israelis. In
other words, Israeli violent actions can only provoke Palestinian
anger and hostility and, in return, encourage Palestinian violent
expressions.
State Security vs. Human Security
In relation to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Mary Kaldor along
with Mient Jan Faber (two of the world's experts on human security)
describe the situation as "a conflict between state security"
(needed by the Israelis) "and human security" (needed by the
Palestinians).1 This encapsulates the problem of the internal
contradiction of militarization versus individual human security
everyone needs. How can one people governed by another people with
guns ever manage to get on with their lives in peace and
dignity?
If both peoples are basically interested in getting on with their
lives in peace and dignity, surely part of the answer has to be to
reduce the guns and the emphasis on military might, and to
eliminate the humiliation. Shifting the focus to human security
instead of military security would encourage the development of
mechanisms for the protection of individuals¯ on both
sides¯ in a way that would not depend on the power of guns but
on the needs of those individuals. As a bottom-up approach, an
emphasis on human security could perhaps enable people to see that
real security for the region will only come through the
dismantlement of walls and checkpoints, the encouragement of
economic and personal growth and, of course, through ending the
occupation.
Benefits of Human Security
The reframing of "security" as "human security" can, therefore,
clear the path for a genuine search for what is actually needed for
peace, where addressing the needs for basic human dignity and
self-respect are fundamental:
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 for 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. To do this, it offers two general
strategies: protection and empowerment.
Traditionally, human security has been concerned with protecting
the state ¯ its boundaries, people, institutions and
values¯ from external attacks. In a world of increasing ethnic
tension, extremism, epidemics, poverty and gender disparity,
however, the goal of human security can no longer be simply the
absence of conflict. It is time to rethink security, shifting from
an exclusive concern with the security of the state to include a
holistic concern with the security of the people.2
This would have many advantages. As long as any peace agreement is
linked to military security or to the ending of 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 the international
community, the daily lives of those suffering in the conflict would
start to improve. In societies that have been breaking down in the
conflict, the appalling pressures that fuel acts of desperation
would be reduced if their urgent needs¯ e.g., economic,
medical and psychological¯ started to be addressed and
remedied. With the reduction in the oppression, constant pain and
fear, the development of human sympathies across the conflict would
become a possibility. It would reverse the methodology of the
conflict. While it would not, of course, offer any alternative to
the many that have vested interests in the continuation of the
conflict, it would provide an opening for those who genuinely want
to solve it.
The Need for Human Security
Of course, there will always be those who want to exploit the fear
and who want to prolong the conflict, etc., and again, the issue of
human security is at the core of the solution to this, especially
in the context of the new wars.
Kaldor addresses the problem of the abuse of human security and the
creation of fear along with the impotence of the military in her
analysis of new wars in an essay written in the aftermath of
9/11:
In the new wars battles are rare and violence is directed against
civilians. Violations of humanitarian and human rights law are not
a side effect of war but the central methodology of new wars. Over
90% of the casualties in the new wars are civilian and the number
of refugees and displaced persons per conflict has risen steadily.
The strategy is to gain political power through sowing fear and
hatred, to create a climate of terror, to eliminate moderate voices
and defeat tolerance. The political ideologies of exclusive
nationalism or religious communalism are generated through
violence. It is generally assumed that extreme ideologies¯
based on exclusive identities ¯ are the cause of war. Rather,
the spread and strengthening of these ideologies are the
consequence of war.3
To shift the focus from military to human security, therefore, is
to work directly to defeat the strategies of sowing fear and hatred
that the new wars feed off. The holistic focus on the security of
the people would allow the moderate voices to continue to be
heard.
The problem of the increasing number of civilians who pay the price
for conflict¯ in wars and in terror attacks¯ requires a
human security rather than a traditional military security approach
as it is civilians who are affected, and the military are not able
to do anything about them, especially as often they are inside the
same borders and it is non-state actors that are the
perpetrators.
Therefore, the process of increasing militarization and increasing
polarization of both populations can and should be reversed by all
those who are interested in a just and lasting solution to the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This should not prove so difficult,
even in this existing situation of a complicated conflict and
pervasive hatred, because there is no long history of hatred; on
the contrary, there is a long history of peaceful coexistence. By
working with humanitarian law and by refusing the polarization of
the climate of fear and hatred, as well as by rejecting those
emotions, their hold can be broken. Consequently, a space can be
created for working for peace.
The Way Forward
The 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. The intermediate goal would be a
shift to a focus on the humanitarian needs of all in the conflict,
such that civilians, Palestinians and Israelis, would be protected
as completely as possible. With this start towards an environment
free from fear, free from want and based on respect for dignity,
each community would feel more secure and, thereby, be better able
to improve their daily realities.
1 Kaldor, Mary and Mient Jan Faber, "Palestine's Human
Insecurity: A Gaza Report," Open Democracy, May 20, 2007.
2 CHS Report Outline; Human Security Unit of OCHA in New York; p.2
(c) 2002-2003 Commission on Human Security http://www.humansecurity-chs.org/finalreport/Outlines/outline.html.
3 Kaldor, Mary. "Beyond Militarism, Arms Races and Arms Control,"
Social Science Research Council, 2001. http://www.ssrc.org/sept11/essays/kaldor.htm.
