ArticlePDF Available

The Military, Militarism, and the Militarization of Domestic Violence

September 2003
Violence Against Women 9(9):1118-1152

DOI:10.1177/1077801203255292

Authors:

Arizona State University

This article moves beyond the discussion of domestic violence in the military to a broader accounting of the militarization of domestic violence in Israel. In contrast to the dominant civilian-military paradigm, which assumes a limit on an army's effect on society, in Israel, boundaries between the military and society are highly permeable, even ambiguous. The civilianization of the army and the militarization of society in Israel render incomplete the research model of domestic violence in the military. Thus, the article explores how the centrality of the military, a pervasive ideology of militarism, and the militarization of society shape perpetration, understandings, and experiences of and responses to domestic violence in Israel. Specifically, four components of the militarization of domestic violence are discussed: causality, competition, critique, and context. The article closes by reflecting on what is gained by shifting the analytical perspective from domestic violence in the military to the militarization of domestic violence.

Content uploaded by Madelaine Adelman

Content may be subject to copyright.

10.1177/1077801203255292ARTICLEVIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN / September 2003Adelman / MILITARIZATION OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

The Military, Militarism, and the

Militarization of Domestic Violence

MADELAINE ADELMAN

Arizona State University

This article moves beyond the discussion of domestic violence in the military to a broader

accounting of the militarization of domestic violence in Israel. In contrast to the domi

nant civilian-military paradigm, which assumes a limit on an army’s effect on society, in

Israel, boundaries between the military and society are highly permeable, even ambigu

ous. The civilianization of the army and the militarization of society in Israel render

incomplete the research model of domestic violence in the military. Thus, the article

explores how the centrality of the military, a pervasive ideology of militarism, and the

militarization of society shape perpetration, understandings, and experiences of and

responses to domestic violence in Israel. Specifically, four components of the

militarization of domestic violence are discussed: causality, competition, critique, and

context. The article closes by reflecting on what is gained by shifting the analytical per-

spective from domesticviolencein the military to the militarization of domestic violence.

Keywords: domestic violence; Israel; militarism; militarization; military

Gender-based violence, such as sexual harassment, rape, and domes-

tic violence, is a global phenomenon that occurs among military

families and within military communities, during “peace time”

and in time of war. A number of researchers and activists have

argued that military culture—shared norms, for example, regard

ing masculinity, sexuality, violence, and women—is “conducive

to rape” and sexual harassment, as well as domestic violence

(Morris, 1996, pp. 655, 720). In the United States, however, it was

1118

AUTHOR’S NOTE: Research for this project was generously supported by the Lady

David Foundation Graduate Fellowship, Hebrew University; International Rotary Foun

dation Graduate Fellowship; Duke University Women’s Studies Program, Department of

Cultural Anthropology, and Graduate School; Arizona State University Faculty Grant-in-

Aid, College of Public Program Dean’s Incentive Grants; and Arizona State University

School of Justice Studies Research Development. Ethnographic fieldwork took place in

Israel during Summer 1990, Summer 1992, June 1993 to June 1994, November 1994 to June

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN, Vol. 9 No. 9, September 2003 1118-1152

DOI: 10.1177/1077801203255292

not until the mid- to late 1990s that advocates and activists, work

ing both within and outside of the military, were able to persuade

policy makers that domestic violence constituted a social problem

specifically for the military (Darcy & Summers, 2002; Enloe, 2000;

Hansen, 2001; Korbin, 2000). Widespread media coverage of

military-generated sexual harassment and sexual assault scan

dals as well as reporting of high rates of domestic violence in the

U.S. military in Time magazine’s “The Living Room War”

(Thompson, 1994) and 60 Minutes’s “The War at Home” (Radut

zky & Nelson, 1999, 2002) motivated the Department of Defense

to address domestic violence in the military.

Civilian advocates for battered women as well as military per

sonnel warn that domestic violence harms servicewomen and

civilian women (and their children) who are married to military

servicemen. It also has been argued that domestic violence goes

against the “institutional values of the military” and negatively

affects military readiness (Department of Defense Task Force on

Domestic Violence [DDTFDV], 2001). U.S. congressional man-

dates have spurred the collection of data on domestic violence in

the military as well as the development of policies and support

services for families within the military. These include creation of

a task force, strengthening of reporting protocols, enhancement of

the Family Advocacy Program, and encouragement to create local

memoranda of understanding between civilian and military author-

ities (e.g., Army Family Advocacy Program, 1995; Department of

Defense, 1992; National Defense Authorization Act, 2000, section

591; see also DDTFDV, 2001, 2002). Military policies regarding

domestic violence diverge from civilian approaches in several sig

nificant ways. What constitutes a criminal violation, for example,

and who substantiates a complaint of domestic violence conform

Adelman / MILITARIZATION OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE 1119

1995, and Summer 1999. Supplemental data were collected using public literature and

Internet sources. Earlier versions of this article were presented and constructive feedback

was obtained from participants at the 1996 Annual Meeting of the Law and Society Associ

ation, Glasgow, Scotland; the 1997 Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological As

sociation, Washington, D.C.; the 2000 Arizona State University Department of Women’s

Studies Lecture Series; and the 2000 Arizona State University Department of Anthropol

ogy Sociocultural Lecture Series. The author would like to recognize the significant input

of the special issue guest editors and reviewers. Thanks as well goes to Shoshana Ben-Yoar,

Elizabeth Faier, Lauren Kotkin, and Rebecca Torstrick for their substantive insights into Is

raeli society at critical points in the research process. The author also expresses apprecia

tion to those in Israel who generously and patiently shared their time, experience, and

knowledge during the fieldwork periods of the study.

to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Privacy and confidential

ity are not guaranteed within the military system, which man

dates the reporting to unit commanders of suspected cases of

domestic violence regarding personnel under their supervision.

Military responses to domestic violence differ most clearly from

civilian, state-based responses in that the social control mecha

nism doubles as the offender’s employer.

In the United States, the military or the military base constitutes

a relatively isolated and autonomous social and legal entity that

produces and is governed by its own language, norms, and laws.

This reflects the idealized distance and legal division between

military and civilian life in the United States, and as a result, studies

of domestic violence in the U.S. military are based on a separation

between the civil and the military, making it difficult to conduct

comprehensive or comparative research. Orders of protection

obtained in a civilian court, for example, may not be enforced

within the federal jurisdiction of a military base and vice versa.

Much of the concern with and research on military culture and

relationships between military culture and domestic violence

have been generated in the United States or in countries that host

U.S. military bases, due to a number of high-profile cases of sexual

harassment, rape, and domestic homicide in the U.S. military. A

growing emphasis has been placed on possible connections between

militarized masculinity, wartime conditions, and gendered vio-

lence in nation-states other than the United States (e.g., Cooke &

Woollacott, 1993; Enloe, 1990, 2000; Lorentzen & Turpin, 1998).

What remains relatively unexplored, however, is research that

focuses directly on domestic violence beyond the military base

within societies that experience pervasive or permeating military

culture and militarism, that is, a broader analysis of domestic vio

lence within militarized societies and the resultant militarization

of domestic violence discourse.

This article builds on extant studies of domestic violence and

military culture and moves beyond the discussion of domestic

violence associated with the military to a broader accounting of

domestic violence through an examination of the case of Israeli

militarism and the militarization of Israeli society. In stark con

trast to the dominant civilian-military paradigm that assumes a

limit on an army’s effect on society, Israel is a country where

boundaries between the military and society are highly permeable,

1120 VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN / September 2003

even ambiguous. It is commonplace to hear Israel referred to as a

“nation of soldiers” or a “people in uniform,” where “everybody

serves in the army.” Near universal military conscription, including

conscription of women, marks Israel as an unusually militarized

nation-state. According to some, during routine times, when the

Israeli army performs “nonmilitary” work, it constitutes a civil

institution (Kimmerling, 1985). Others have noted the partial

(Horowitz & Lissak, 1989) or total militarization of Israeli society

(Lomsky-Feder & Ben-Ari, 1999). The civilianization of the army

and the militarization of society in Israel render incomplete the

conventional research model of domestic violence in the military.

This article explores how militarism shapes perpetration,

understandings, and experiences of and responses to domestic

violence. First, militarism is defined. Second, Israeli militarism

and the subsequent militarization of Israeli society are docu-

mented and analyzed. Third, the problem of domestic violence in

Israel is briefly outlined. Fourth, the militarization of domestic

violence is discussed as comprising four components: causality,

competition, critique, and context. Causality refers to Israelis’ use

of militarism to explain the phenomenon of domestic violence,

including its prevalence and incidence. Competition deals with

how militarism and militarization prioritize or accentuate some

forms of suffering and victimization over others, with the result

that victims of domestic violence compete with victims of politi-

cal violence for resources and/or legitimacy. Critique involves a

consideration of how militarism fashions rather narrow opportu

nities for activists to resist domestic violence and deals with the

extent to which militarism has become part of feminist and

mainstream critiques of domestic violence. Context addresses

how militarism constitutes one set of conditions that shapes vic

tims’ experiences of and responses to domestic violence. Finally,

the analytical and methodological shift from thinking about domes

tic violence in the military to the militarization of domestic vio

lence is highlighted along with reflecting on what researchers

may gain from this new approach.

DEFINITION OF MILITARISM AND MILITARIZATION

Military scholars have begun to ask questions about how the

military is part and parcel of nation-state building, the construction

Adelman / MILITARIZATION OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE 1121

of scientific knowledge, and the political economy of gender and

race. Enloe (2000), for example, suggested that rather than focus

attention exclusively on militaries, researchers should also con

sider the ways in which societies become militarized:

Militarization is a step-by-step process by which a person or a

thing gradually comes to be controlled by the military or comes to

depend for its well-being on militaristic ideas. The more

militarization transforms an individual or a society, the more that

individual or society comes to imagine military needs and milita

ristic presumptions to be not only valuable but also normal. (p. 3)

Building on Enloe’s framework, Lutz (2002) argued that

militarization is simultaneously a discursive process, involving a

shift in general societal beliefs and values in ways necessary to

legitimate the use of force, the organization of large standing

armies and their leaders, and the higher taxes or tribute used to pay

for them. Militarization is intimately connected not only to the

obvious increase in the size of armies and resurgence of militant

nationalisms and militant fundamentalisms but also the less visi-

ble deformation of human potentials into the hierarchies of race,

class, gender, and sexuality. (p. 723)

The militarization of society is achieved through the natural-

ization of militarism. Ben-Eliezer (1998) referred to militarism as a

complex of relations among the army, politics, and society. The

complex of relations may range from a military regime (i.e.,

praetorianism) to the institutionalized expression of military traits

(e.g., order, discipline, and hierarchy) and values (e.g., use of

force, courage, and self-sacrifice) throughout society that leads to

militaristic political decision making (i.e., cultural militarism)

(Ben-Eliezer, 1998). Given the multifaceted nature of the concept,

militarisms have specific histories and trajectories. Although mil

itarized societies may share some attributes, all militarized societ

ies do not necessarily exhibit isomorphic complexes of relations

among the army, politics, and society. Furthermore, members of a

militarized society may not all contribute to or experience milita

rism similarly.

Following Ben-Eliezer (1998), militarism is considered to be a

habituated worldview that legitimates and venerates organized

violence as the means to obtain political goals. Militarism is an

1122 VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN / September 2003

ideology as well as a set of institutional arrangements and every

day practices that centers on the continual mobilization of society

to prepare for, support, and fight wars. Militarism blurs the

boundaries between what can be defined as military and what can

be viewed as part of civilian life. Militarism demands that an

entire society become permeated with and built according to mili

tary values and priorities. Although the military as an institution

and the means of organized violence remains a central part of

militarized societies, it comprises only a portion of an overall

cultural, political, and economic system shaped by militarism.

Although the term militarism is typically used to refer to ideolo

gies and values generated by or for the military, the concept of

“militarization draws attention to the simultaneously material

and discursive nature of military dominance” (Lutz, 2002, p. 725).

In short, living in a militarized society obfuscates any presumed

distinction between being at war and not at war. In a militarized

society, one is always oriented toward war.

ISRAELI MILITARISM AND THE

MILITARIZATION OF ISRAELI SOCIETY

The study of Israeli militarism would be incomplete without

considering modern Jewish European history in which Jews expe-

rienced periods of tolerance and/or protection as well as political

marginalization and/or subjugation. European Jews differed in

their understandings of and responses to the opportunities and

constraints of their sociopolitical lives: Some sought social assimi

lation, for example; others sought religious autonomy; and still

others desired political autonomy. In the 19th and early 20th cen

turies, those who favored the creation of a national polity for Jews

in Palestine encouraged immigration and assembled into various

and sometimes competing political and military organizations

(e.g., Haganah, Irgun) to advance their particular vision of the

Zionist movement. “The origins of Israeli militarism lie in the

methods and practices which developed in the military realm

during the decade leading up to” (Ben-Eliezer, 1998, p. 19) the

establishment in 1948 of the Jewish state of Israel. Ultimately,

Israeli militarism emerged as a means to obtain an independent

Jewish state and to counter Arab opposition to it, to reject or

negate Diasporic Jewish life, and to defiantly respond to the

Adelman / MILITARIZATION OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE 1123

Holocaust and the Nazi attempt to exterminate European Jewry

(Ben-Eliezer, 1998; Shapira, 1992). As such, Israeli militarism

contributed to the conventional functions of a standing army, to

protect state boundaries from any real or perceived threats, the

standard rationale for the development of a state army, and devel

oped a national ethos of power underscored by a willingness to

fight. Israeli militarism erased and replaced the exhilic, ghetto

image of Jews as a feminized and victimized people who, it was

said, had eschewed violence and physicality (Shapira, 1992).

Pragmatically, the militarization of Israeli society from reproduc

tion to burial, achieved in part through near universal conscrip

tion, disciplined, socialized, and unified disparate Jewish resi

dents and waves of immigrants to the new state.

Past history alone has not created contemporary Israeli milita

rism. Ongoing political conflict and terrorism, a near omnipotent

defense industry, military-political alliances with the United States

and other nation-states, and dominant hawkish political ideolo-

gies have forged current Israeli notions of use of force, security,

and defense. At the same time, Israeli society is diverse, and indi-

viduals within it possess a variety of histories of vulnerability and

power. Israeli Jews from Germany and Morocco, for example, and

Palestinians in Israel

draw on common as well as distinct per-

spectives on dominance as well as threats to survival in the Israeli

state.

Early analyses of Israeli militarism and militarization empha-

sized the balance between the military and civil society or Israeli

society’s ability to shift between crisis and “routine time,” albeit

always directed by securitism (Kimmerling, 1985). The Israeli

state of constant readiness is reflected in a phrase coined during

the 1991 Gulf War: “We have become accustomed to the ‘emer

gency routine.’ . . . People are born into it. . . [and] have never

known a routine other than the emergency routine” (Beilin, 1992,

p. 266). Recent critical studies illustrate how militarism is effected

through processes (rather than through isolated events such as

war) and document the cultural work required to constantly

remake the structural as well as cultural components of milita

rism constituting Israel’s militarized society (e.g., Lomsky-Feder

& Ben-Ari, 1999). For example, the Israeli public is educated for

militarism through a variety of rites (e.g., parades) and sites (e.g.,

museums) resulting in the naturalization of militarism. Thus, it is

1124 VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN / September 2003

impossible to assess any cultural (Goodman, 1989, 1998), social

(Weiss, 1997), political (Herzog, 1996; Lissak, 2001), or economic

(Rivlin, 1992) facet of Israeli society without considering the nor

malization of the military, militarism, and militarization.

The army constitutes the core of Israeli collectivity, making

security the “project of all” (Robbins & Ben-Eliezer, 2000). Military

service is not only a pathway to manhood, friendship, employ

ment, and citizenship but also to political power (Ben-Ari, 1998;

Berkovitch, 1997; Hajjar, 1996; Herzog, 1996; Lieblich, 1989; Lomsky-

Feder, 1998; Sharoni, 1995). Jewish, Druze, and Circassian men

serve 3 years in addition to annual reserve duty. Bedouin men

may volunteer for service. An increasing number (into the tens of

thousands) of ultra-Orthodox Jewish men receive continual

deferment from conscription. Muslim and Christian Palestinian

citizens (men and women) are not conscripted by the Israel Defense

Forces (IDF). The construction of masculinities in rejection of or

from the IDF and its relation to the manifestation of domestic vio-

lence per se are beyond the scope of this study.

Jewish women filled positions within prestate militias, includ-

ing combat. On the establishment of the IDF, women were

removed from frontline positions and integrated into the IDF

through noncombat compulsory service that requires Jewish women

when they turn 18 to serve 21 months in the IDF. The IDF exempts

Jewish women from service if or when they are married, preg-

nant, and/or mothers; they also are eligible for an exemption

based on conscience or religiosity. In spite of their numbers within

the IDF, a highly gendered division of labor has endured for

decades. Women primarily perform conventionally feminine and

heterosexual staff support work and military-related instruc

tional training for male recruits (Izraeli, 1997). Jewish feminists in

Israel have fought for and recently secured near equal access to

the IDF (Israel Women’s Network, 1995, 1999). The administrative

segregation of women soldiers under Chen (grace in Hebrew and

an acronym for cheil nashim, referring to the Women’s Corps) was

eliminated in 2002. According to Brigadier General Suzy Yogev,

advisor on women’s affairs to the IDF chief of the general staff,

women soon will be placed in specialized combat units (IDF

Spokesperson’s Unit, 2002). Time will tell if the entry of women

into senior positions and combat may alter the meaning of militarized

gender in the IDF or militarized citizenship within Israeli society.

Adelman / MILITARIZATION OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE 1125

Critics refer to Israel as a “government of generals” and scorn

that the offices of the president and prime minister, cabinet minis

try, and political party leadership are dominated by former chiefs

of staff, generals, and other retired military officers who not only

seek military solutions and “carry out aggression against [the Pal

estinian] people” but also provide military leadership with dis

proportionate access and influence (Benn, 2002; British Broadcast

ing Corporation News, 2001; Broza & Geffen, 1978). Supporters

celebrate the appearance of military heroes in top government

positions, arguing that only generals are capable of obtaining a

secure peace for Israel (e.g., Begin’s return of the Sinai) or are

“strong enough to make decisions” to resolve the Palestinian cri

sis (Lynfield, 1999). Israel does not experience military coups;

Israelis democratically elect their military commanders (Shalvi,

2002). This centrality of the military in Israeli society produces

gendered and nationalized notions of collective identity and citi-

zenship. Eligible men earn citizenship through military service,

while women enact citizenship via the demographic security

strategy of marriage and motherhood by nurturing husband sol-

diers and reproducing soldier children (Yuval-Davis, 1987). For

Palestinian Christian and Muslim women in Israel, who can nei-

ther marry nor birth soldiers for the state, marriage and mother-

ing reproduce a collective Palestinian national identity. Most

Israeli men are constructed as warriors, and women constitute

what is to be protected.

Life in Israel without the military is simply unthinkable for

most Israelis. The military and militarism so pervade Israeli life

that it is difficult to analyze any sector of society without revealing

their impact. The centrality of the military for the Israeli economy

can be revealed by contrasting the economy with the expendi

tures of other countries with active militaries. An analysis by the

Adva Center (2002) notes that in 1997 the IDF captured one fifth of

the central government’s expenditures. During the same period,

the United States spent 16.3%, and the United Kingdom invested

7.1%. In 1998, Israel’s known military expenditure was 8.7% of the

country’s gross domestic product (Adva Center, 2002). During the

same period, the U.S. military expenditure reached 3.2% of U.S.

gross domestic product.

The militarization of the Israeli economy can be documented

further within Israeli society: in the foreign aid accepted by the

1126 VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN / September 2003

state for explicit and implicit military purposes; the defense

industry; changes in the economy due to repeated and lengthy

security-driven closures of the territories, prohibiting Palestin

ians from working within the Green Line, the cease-fire national

boundaries of Israel; the resultant influx of legal and illegal for

eign workers; the exclusion of nonveterans from jobs and careers

earmarked as defense or security sensitive; IDF veteran pension

structures and payouts; and the per capita income of local govern

ments, particularly the contrast between the settlements and gov

ernments within the Green Line (Swirski, Konur-Attias, & Etkin,

2002; Swirski, Konur-Attias, Etkin, & Swirski, 2001). Individual

and family budgets also are shaped partially by housing subsidies

and other income supplements available to military veterans and

their families.

Time and space also are militarized in Israel. The Jewish popu-

lation has been prepared for and continues to anticipate war since

the expiration of the British mandate when Zionist leader David

Ben Gurion proclaimed the independent existence of Medinat

Yisrael, the State of Israel, on May 14, 1948 (Provisional State

Council, 1948). The new state continued to operate under manda-

tory law, including its emergency regulations. The regulations

gave the Israeli successors “very far-reaching powers to restrict

the liberty of the individual, his freedom of movement, expres-

sion, assembly and his property rights. . . without resort to the

courts” (Safran, 1981, p. 134). In other words, the Israeli govern-

ment possessed the authority to change or suspend state law. Rec

ognizing the contradiction between such emergency powers and

the goal of a democratic state, the first Knesset directed the Con

stitution, Law, and Judicial Committee to fashion a proper and

permanent law regarding state security (Safran, 1981, p. 134). The

Knesset has failed to do so, and Israelis have been living under a

declared state of emergency since the founding of the State of

Israel (Btselem, 2003).

The sense of crisis and the logic of security and defense are not

limited to bureaucratic declarations; they affect the daily opera

tion of the state, from censorship of the media to the rights of those

administratively detained by the Israeli government (Btselem,

2003). Ownership of property within and the location of Israel’s

national borders remain contested. Israeli Jewish citizens are

encouraged to live on, near, or across borders, and Palestinian

Adelman / MILITARIZATION OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE 1127

Israelis are prevented from doing so; thus, one’s home and family

life become militarized. Time periods in Israel are marked and

events accounted for according to when they occurred in relation

to wars. The rhythms of family life are balanced against the needs

of the military and its compulsory and reserve military service.

The somatic and psychic effects of military experience and terror

ism are visible as well as invisible. Discourse has developed

recently that centers on post-traumatic stress disorder on both

sides of the Green Line and its relationship to the Occupation,

referred to by Israelis as “the situation” (Farrell & Cobain, 2002;

Kezwer, 2002; Rabinovich, 2002).

Palestinian citizens of Israel and Palestinians living in the

Occupied Territories experience Israeli militarism and the

militarization of daily life from distinct vantage points, ranging

from being citizens yet lacking full civil rights to being stateless

and direct targets of the Israeli military. The Israeli state has been

and continues to be a primary source of structural, symbolic, and

physical forms of nationalist and militaristic violence for Palestin-

ians. The creation of the State of Israel was effected through the

military occupation and dispossession of Palestinian life and

land; Palestinians refer to the creation of Israel as an independent

Jewish state as al-Nakba, the catastrophe. From the creation of the

Israeli state in 1948 until 1966, Palestinians living within the Green

Line were regulated under the jurisdiction of a military adminis-

tration (Kretzmer, 1990). This limited their physical mobility, eco-

nomic viability, and legal rights, as well as their ability to negoti

ate with the Israeli state regarding the management of Islamic

institutions and holy sites (Ghanem, 2001; Lustick, 1980; Peled,

2001). After 1966, Palestinian citizens in Israel were governed

exclusively by Israeli laws, although Palestinians in the Occupied

Territories (i.e., the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Golan Heights, and

East Jerusalem), who may maintain social and economic ties to

family members and friends who are Israeli citizens, came under

Israeli military rule as a result of the 1967 war (Kretzmer, 1990).

Jewish Israelis tend to be suspicious of the Arab sector’s loyalty to

the state: Arabs cannot be trusted, it is said, to look out for the best

interests of Jews. This is based, in part, on Arabs’ familial, social,

economic, and political links with Palestinians in the Occupied

Territories and fear that Palestinians in Israel will turn on the state

by enacting or facilitating terrorism. The resulting political and

1128 VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN / September 2003

economic marginalization of Palestinians within the Israeli state

as well as their discriminatory treatment by central institutions

continue to be critiqued; it has been argued that Palestinians in

Israel experience “citizenship lite” (Sikkuy, 2002; see also al-Haj,

1995; Ghanem, 2001; Reiss, 1991; Zureik, 1979).

This brief overview of the militarization of Israeli society is

intended to demonstrate that the military, security, and defense

are understood as foundational to and integrated into every

aspect of life in Israel. Whether this arrangement is desired,

defended, or derided, Israeli society can be considered milita

rized. The discursive and material consequences of militarism for

residents of the Israeli state have begun to be analyzed by schol

ars. These consequences include the construction of gender, the

makeup of political leadership, the politics of schooling, the

meaning of leisure activities including tiyulim (hiking, traveling),

and the militarization of public culture such as museums and hol-

iday celebrations. Regardless of the ethics, legitimacy, or necessity

of Israeli militarism, living in a militarized society may have con-

sequences on domestic violence.

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN ISRAEL

Ashort profile of the emergence of domestic violence as a social

problem in Israel and the resources and systems that have been

developed over the past 25 years in response to it is provided for

readers less familiar with the Israeli case. Measurements drawn

from shelter usage, hotline calls, and police reports indicate that

domestic violence is a pervasive problem in Israel. Police have

tracked domestic violence reports only since 1995. Conservative

estimates suggest that 1 out of every 10 married women in Israel is

battered by her husband (State of Israel, 1997, p. 55). This estimate

excludes nonmarried couples and is based primarily on indica

tors drawn from social service agencies, thus excluding those who

do not have access to and/or do not seek assistance from such

organizations. Statistics on domestic violence were not available

in the 1950s and 1960s when individual women leaders attempted

to create public awareness of men’s victimization of women (e.g.,

wife beating and rape). This was a difficult task given the primacy

of nation building, the overarching myth of sexual equality, and

racialized ideologies of violence that displaced wife beating onto

Adelman / MILITARIZATION OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE 1129

primitive others (Adelman, 1997; Freedman, 1990; Swirski & Safir,

1991). Through the 1970s, it remained difficult to get the public’s

attention: “On July 14, 1976, member of Knesset Marcia Freedman

requested a full parliamentary discussion on the topic of domestic

violence. In response, her fellow parliamentarians laughed and

jeered” (Adelman, 2000, p. 1232).

Freedman and other feminist activists in Israel began organiz

ing collectively against rape and domestic violence. The first shel

ter for battered women was established in Haifa in 1977 by a

handful of women who recognized the great need for women and

their children to have a safe, if only temporary, place of refuge

from violent and controlling men. The recognition of battered

women’s needs has grown over the years. Today, a variety of

women’s nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), ranging from

Isha L’Isha, comprising Palestinian and Jewish citizens in the

political left, to Labor’s Na’amat family violence treatment cen-

ters, to the Women’s International Zionist Organization, include

raising awareness of and/or intervention into domestic violence.

By 1995, there were six shelters in Israel supported in part by gov-

ernmental and NGO-based funding as well as through donations

from abroad and local volunteers. Today, the number of shelters

for women and their children has doubled, with plans to establish

additional shelters. A small but growing number of NGOs and

social service agencies also are staffed (separately) by and for reli-

gious Jewish women and Palestinian women citizens who are vic-

tims of men’s violence. In addition, a mix of private and public

monies support Beit Noam, an innovative residential treatment

program for men who batter.

State funding for organizations that serve victims of violence

against women also has increased over the past decade. In 1990,

shelters and domestic violence prevention centers were allocated

New Israel Shekel (NIS) 575,000 from local municipalities and the

Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs. By 2000, just more than NIS

12 million was allocated by the state to support shelters for bat

tered women and their children, with another nearly NIS 9 mil

lion invested in treatment centers (Konur, 2000). However, these

increases have failed to match annual inflation rates, resulting for

the first time in 2000 in an 11% decrease in actual monetary value

(Konur, 2000). State funds also have not matched the increased

usage of such services.

1130 VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN / September 2003

The law enforcement response to domestic violence in Israel

has been limited, based on the ideological veil of familial privacy

and the resultant “hands off” or family reconciliation policy. Since

the passage of the Law for the Prevention of Violence in the Fam

ily in 1991 (Lev-Ari, 1991), the police hierarchy has conducted

inquiries, published reports, and established policies directing

police officers to take domestic violence more seriously. By 2001,

the Israeli police opened more than 22,000 cases involving domes

tic violence (Sinai, 2002). The number of arrests for domestic vio

lence has also increased. In 1995, 1,679 men were arrested; this

number nearly doubled by 1998, when 3,026 were arrested (Konur,

2000). This explosion in reporting notwithstanding, the difficul

ties, dangers, and disappointments inherent in calling the police

remain, particularly for Palestinian citizens in Israel (Adelman,

Erez, & Shalhoub-Kevorkian, 2003; Shoham, 2000). Shelters and

other agencies provide services to only a small percentage of

domestic violence victims in Israel.

The globalization of domestic violence discourse (Adelman, in

press; Bunch, 1994; Merry, 2001) has recently resulted in activists

considering domestic violence as a violation of women’s human

rights. For example, Israel’s periodic reports to the United Nations

committee that monitors the Convention on the Elimination of All

Forms of Discrimination Against Women reflect this globaliza-

tion. Activists and policy makers have moved woman battering

from a personalized harm to a widespread social problem. How a

nation defines its meaning, causes, and solutions results from a

combination of local and global conditions and forces.

THE MILITARIZATION OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

Feminists across the globe have posited a relationship between

militarism and violence against women, equating militarism and

its gender hierarchies and inequalities with men’s violence against

women. Lucille Mair, the United Nations secretary general for the

Women’s Conference held in Copenhagen in 1980, noted that eco

nomic distress and political instability in the third world exist

in a climate of mounting violence and militarism. . . . Violence fol

lows an ideological continuum, starting from the domestic sphere

where it is tolerated, if not positively accepted. It then moves to the

public, political arena where it is glamorized and even cele-

Adelman / MILITARIZATION OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE 1131

brated....Women and children are the prime victims of this cult of

aggression. (Moghadam 2001, p. 60, cited in Bunch & Carillo, 1992)

Violence begins in the home and then is replicated in wider and

wider social circles, adopted and adapted as the means by which

power is achieved. Analyzing the relationship from the perspec

tive of a later time period and a different cultural space,

Rabrenovic and Roskos (2001) argued that the “culture of violence

that developed during the period of open, armed conflict can con

tinue to make women likely targets of rape and domestic vio

lence” (p. 50). As such, wartime ethnic-nationalist dominance

achieved by soldiers is domesticated and translated into ethnic-

gender dominance achieved by husbands. Proponents and critics

of the link between political conflict and domestic violence begin

at opposite starting points, although critics agree that militarism

is linked to fundamental hierarchies of gender, sexuality, and

nation, based in part on men’s entitlement to control women.

Central to an understanding of militarism and domestic vio-

lence is the concept of militarized masculinity (Cohn, 1993; Cooke &

Woollacott, 1993; Grossman, 1995; Maass, 2002). McBride (1995),

for example, has made visible the camouflaged pattern of manli-

ness and masculinity constructed through military and military-

like training and has connected the construction of militarized

masculinity with woman battering. Overall, this literature dem-

onstrates how biological males become successful social men

through accumulation of knowledge about, participation in, and

conformity to a constellation of behaviors, attitudes, and bodily

comportment associated with culturally valued forms of mascu

linity. Militarized masculinity is characterized by a focus on dom

inance, violence, and control that sustains a “myth of manly pro

tection” and that obscures and legitimates “warlike abuse” of

women (Ruddick, 1993, pp. 111-113; see also Rosen, Kaminski,

Fancher, Knudson, & Moore Parmley, 2003 [this issue]). Central to

militarized masculinity are the putative absence of women and

men’s distance from or rejection of anything or anybody deemed

feminine (Faludi, 2000; Stiehm, 1989). When women do enter the

military as soldiers, gender boundaries are policed, and women’s

performances of gender are highly regulated (Herbert, 1998).

The “war story,” the near universal narrative of military con

flict or war, fixes men as warriors and women as peacemakers and

1132 VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN / September 2003

often frames the enemy as inferior or unsavory, both in terms of

race and gender (Cooke, 1996). As a result, warrior men are associ

ated with and trained to perform masculinity through military

sacrifice for the nation, while women embody their citizenship

through supportive feminine identity and labor, such as mother

hood (El Or & Atran, 1997; Koonz, 1987). Specifically, in the

“national security state” women and women’s citizenship

are militarized and arranged in a hierarchy through their work

as prostitutes, wives, or mothers, as they perform services for

and/or reproduce men for the nation (Enloe, 2000; Ferguson &

Turnbull, 1999). Yuval-Davis (1987) referred to this gendered

distinction as both an ideological and spatial division of labor:

Womenandchildren occupy the home front and constitute the ratio

nale for men who literally “man” the warfront. Similarly, in his

study of the construction of masculinity and soldiering, Ben-Ari

(1998) argued that this “combat schema,” in combination with

near universal military conscription, ensures the development of

hegemonic, militarized masculinity in Israel (p. 112).

In analyzing the relationship of militarism to domestic violence

in Israeli society, four themes will be addressed: (a) how milita-

rism has been used in Israel to explain the phenomenon of domes-

tic violence, (b) how the militarization of society creates hierar-

chies of victims and victimization, (c) how militarism has entered

the lexicon of Israelis or influenced how they organize against

domestic violence, and (d) how militarism constitutes a context

for victims’ experiences of domestic violence.

CAUSALITY

During the past decade, Israelis have explained domestic vio

lence in a variety of patterned ways. One typical approach has

been to culturalize the violence (Adelman et al., 2003) and dis

place the phenomenon onto racialized populations perceived as

“primitive” and/or naturally more violent. Domestic violence is

understood as a naturally occurring phenomenon or a cultural

attribute of the uncivilized. Various groups in Israel have

consecutively and/or simultaneously qualified as uncivilized

(e.g., Arabs, Sephardim, and Russians); other groups have been

patently labeled as passive, childlike, and nonviolent (e.g.,

Adelman / MILITARIZATION OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE 1133

Ethiopians) or Western, Jewish, and modern (e.g., Ashkenazim),

thus incapable of domestic violence.

The linkage between domestic violence and militarism was

noted in the 1990s when Israelis began to talk about military ser

vice and the Occupation as causal factors contributing to the prev

alence of domestic violence. Several important cultural changes

converged at this historical moment. Israelis were talking about

domestic violence in public, on the radio and on television shows,

and Israeli politicians were debating how to address domestic

violence legislatively. Culturalization of violence and mental ill

ness constituted powerful explanatory frameworks; groups of

feminists and antimilitarists continued to advocate a link between

domestic violence (or the overall level of violence in Israeli soci

ety) and militarism. During the Intifada I (1987 to 1993), the link

garnered supporters among those who critiqued the increase in

days men spent in miluim, annual reserve duty, and the shift in ori-

entation from soldier to police officer required by the Occupation.

The promises of the peace dividend following the now infamous

handshake between Arafat and Rabin also encouraged Israelis to

consider the negative effects of Occupation on civil life in Israel.

Still others argued more specifically that men’s military service

in the Occupied Territories during the Intifada had normalized

violence to the point that violence crossed the Green Line and

infiltrated domestic life within Israel. Erella Shadmi, for example,

a former senior police officer who spoke at the 1993 Conference on

Women and Peace, explained domestic violence in Israel in this

way:

Occupation is, first of all, the symptom of a sick society; a society in

which violence is legitimate and accepted from the social stand

point as a mechanism for personal expression and for solving con

flict situations as well as for gaining rights and benefits. (Deutsch,

1994, p. 95)

According to this explanation, Jewish and Druze men who per

form military service in the Occupied Territories and along the

border not only learn how to behave violently but also are encour

aged to do so to solve problems, suppress emotions, and demand

compliance to their desires. Soldiers are trained to deploy vio

lence against individuals and groups to maintain order and to

control the integrity of the nation’s borders. Militarized men,

1134 VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN / September 2003

unable to contain their soldiering, unable to become civilianized,

bring home military norms of domination and violence to enforce

compliance with, protect the integrity of, and quash women’s

resistance to their regime of domestic power.

The range of explanations as to causal factors has given rise to

the debate in Israel over whether and how military service, milita

rism, and domestic violence may be linked and what to recom

mend to address the linkages. Anthropologist Sered (2000)

acknowledged that although violence against women is “not

unique to Israel. . . Israel does have the special problem of IDF

weapons” (p. 98). Soldiers carry their IDF-issued weapons

around the clock, whether on duty or not, to and from the army

base. Access to weapons was officially noted in a special report on

family violence submitted in 1998 to then minister of public secu

rity, Avigdor Kahalani (Shapiro, 1998). Further analysis indicates

that in Israel between 1990 and 1999, 139 women were killed by

former or current husbands or boyfriends. Of these 139 women,

50 (35.9%) were shot to death; 46 (33.0%) were stabbed; 28 (20.1%)

were strangled or beaten; 9 (6.4%) were killed by other means,

such as poison or burning; and 7 (5.0%) were killed by unknown

causes. These numbers parallel closely the statistics relative to

female homicide in the U.S. military. Researchers found that

between 1980 and 1992, 35% of the deaths were caused by fire-

arms, and 28% of murdered women were strangled or beaten

(Helmkamp, 1995). The number of service-issued weapons used

in these homicides is unknown. However, access to, knowledge

of, and comfort with deadly force are taught and practiced in the

IDF as well as the U.S. Armed Forces.

During the summer of 1999, I met with Palestinian women

activists who were members of the Women’s Centre for Legal Aid

and Counseling. In our preliminary conversation, they explained

that limited research exists on domestic violence in the Occupied

Territories and why they support a causal relationship between

militarism, military occupation, and domestic violence. Over the

past decade, they explained, awareness of domestic violence

among Palestinians has steadily increased, and the number of

women seeking assistance through newly established organiza

tions has also grown. Women seek safety and support due to the

stress of increased family interaction caused by Occupation-

induced unemployment, curfews, border closures, popular

Adelman / MILITARIZATION OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE 1135

strikes, and school closures (Goldenberg, 2001). In spite of the

explanatory power of the effects of consciousness raising and the

institutionalization of domestic violence as a social problem,

along with increased resources and access to services for victims

of domestic violence, both Israeli and Palestinian activists have

argued that militarism and the Occupation cause elevated rates of

domestic violence, or at least increased numbers of women seek

ing assistance. Researchers support this explanatory framework

(Winfield, 2002).

The Gulf War also has been cited by academics, activists, and

the general public as potential evidence of a link between

militarization of society and domestic violence. The Gulf War

began on August 2, 1990, when Iraq invaded Kuwait. Nearly 6

months later, on January 18, 1991, the first of 39 scud missiles was

fired at Israel, who, in a coalition with the United States, agreed to

stand down in spite of these attacks. It was unusual that the IDF

had not been fully mobilized to preempt or respond to the attack.

During and following this and subsequent scud missile attacks,

the reported rate of domestic homicide rose. In 1990, it was

reported that 27 women were murdered by their former or current

husbands or boyfriends. In 1991, the year of the Gulf War, 42

women were murdered. In 1992, the year following the war, the

number dropped to 18.

Epidemiologist and trauma studies researcher, Solomon (1995)

noted that there are “few [systematic] studies of the impact of war

itself on the family unit” (p. 59) in Israel or elsewhere. Solomon

has attempted to describe in her own work the impact on Israeli

Jewish responses to the Gulf War: The “forced intimacy” of the

sealed room used by Israelis in response to Iraq’s potential

deployment of chemical and/or biological weaponry during the

Gulf War had differential effects on Israeli families depending on

the “family’s prewar interactions” (p. 67). During the Gulf War,

calls to hotlines increased, with areas of concern centered on the

abuse of children, elderly parents, and spouses (Solomon, 1995).

However, one large emergency room in the central area saw a

radical decrease in the number of women presenting domestic

violence–related injuries (5.7% down from 60.0%) (Solomon,

1995). Possible explanations for this decrease include the follow

ing: Men injured women in this region at a lower rate during the

Gulf War, women in this region sought help for injuries at a lower

1136 VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN / September 2003

rate during the war, accessibility to services was limited; or fear of

biological or chemical attacks overrode concerns about battery.

The sharp increase in domestic homicides, calls to victim hot

lines, and overall domestic violence during and subsequent to the

Gulf War was explained by various activists and scholars as a

direct result of militarized masculinity. Specifically, the atypical

circumstance of Israeli inactivity during the Gulf War resulted in

the feminization of Jewish men who were unable to embody mili

tarized notions of masculinity. In response, individual men often

sought to reassert their manhood by taking control, being domi

nant, and when necessary, perpetrating violence. Ruth Resnic, the

founder and director of one of the first battered women’s shelters

in Israel, suggested that “there was an emasculation of the Israeli

[Jewish] male. They felt fear and helplessness. Their anger built

up” (Greenberg & Stanger, 1991, p. 15).

The link between domestic homicide and the Gulf War follows

a narrative: The default mode for Israeli Jewish men during war-

time is to be away from the home, to be in charge, to be active, and

to be empowered to use violence to fight for the survival of the

women and children back home. During wartime, already exist-

ing distinctions between women and men are sharpened, legiti-

mated, and socially revalued. The stand down agreement with

the United States barred Jewish men’s access to or performance of

militarized masculinity. Jewish men became alienated from them-

selves, unable to cope with their domestication. In an effort to

reestablish dominance, they killed their intimate partners and

other family members.

Israeli leaders, notable for their military experience and vet

eran status, posited no explicit connection between militarism

and domestic violence. Rather, it was domestic violence that

tainted society with violence. During a visit to a battered women’s

shelter in Haifa in July, 1999, then Prime Minister Ehud Barak told

reporters that “the government views violence in the schools, the

streets and in homes as a central threat to Israeli society....Wewill

do everything possible to uproot this scourge” (Rudge, 1999, p. 2).

During the same shelter visit, Minister of Police Shlomo Ben-Ami

commented that “he believes that violence begins at home and

spreads onto the streets and to society in general” (Rudge, 1999, p. 2).

In the 1990s, theories competed as to the link between domestic

Adelman / MILITARIZATION OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE 1137

and political violence and the ultimate cause of domestic violence

in Israel.

COMPETING VICTIMS

Militarized societies such as Israel develop specialized lan

guage, complex rituals, and social institutions to prepare individ

uals for physical sacrifice to the collective nation. National sacri

fice refers to violent deaths, injuries, and suffering, typically as a

result of political violence, such as war, but may include victims of

soldiering accidents. In Israel, victims of political violence are

inscribed and memorialized in public rituals (e.g., the military

funeral) and public spaces, such as military sections of cemeteries

or military cemeteries (e.g., Mount Herzl) and commemorative

military sites, museums, and local memorials (e.g., Ammunition

Hill) (Azaryahu, 1992; Ben-Ze’ev & Ben-Ari, 1999; Handelman &

Shamgar-Handelman, 1997). Israelis also have developed social

spaces and cultural norms for those left behind, such as war wid-

ows (Shamgar-Handelman, 1986). These national memory pro-

jects establish the presence of victims’ absence caused by death

(Handelman & Shamgar-Handelman, 1997). Political victimiza-

tion and victims of political violence are public objects: visible,

accessible, and valued.

The centrality of political victimization in Israel helps to main-

tain the privatization of and to render marginal the victimization

and victims of other types of violence, such as domestic violence.

Tensions between political violence and domestic violence are

shaped by nationalist collectivism that demands attention to the

body politic as a whole and its vulnerability to external sources of

victimization, rather than attention to the health and welfare of

individuals comprising the body politic who may be vulnerable

to internal or domestic victimization. The hierarchy is supported

by the devotion of the state agenda primarily to militaristic con

cerns deemed to be of national import, the allocation of material

resources according to militaristic logic, and the hierarchical

arrangement of the meaning and symbolic value of victimization

and suffering. Battered women and other victims of domestic vio

lence may compete, at times directly, with victims of political vio

lence for meaning, legitimacy, and support, as evidenced by the

difficulties in transforming domestic violence from an individual

1138 VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN / September 2003

harm to a social problem. Gail HarEven, a journalist, lamented

that “if an Arab hits a Jew, it’s a political event, but if a husband

hits a wife, people don’t want to think about it” (Greenberg &

Stanger, 1991, p. 15).

The primacy of political violence over domestic violence in

Israeli society helps to produce the meaning of victimization and

institutional responses to victims. Activists argue that Israel has

had its share of investigatory committees and fact-finding com

missions on domestic violence. The problem, they submit, is that

police officers “still look at it as a ‘family conflict’ that is not nice to

get involved in. They prefer to. . . arrest Arabs. There it is clear

who is the good one and who is the evil one” (Shohat, 1995, p. B1).

Amira Shavtai, then division head of police investigations,

argued that “if the statistics [on women killed by their partners]

were referring to terrorist attacks, all of the state would be up in a

storm” (Yediot Ahronot, 1994).

National security needs are invoked over possible concerns

with domestic safety. Deputy Police Commander Ido Gutman

commented,

Everyone is very sensitive about this issue. It isn’t just the women’s

groups who are concerned. But there are limitations regarding

restrictions. Let’s assume that some 20 women are killed each year

by people who hold gun permits. What are we going to do? Stop

giving permits? When we’d have an absurd situation where you’d

have unarmed guards at schools and a terrorist could come in and

kill a whole classroom. Then what would Ms. [Ofra] Friedman

[chairwoman of Na’amat, the women’s branch of the Histradrut

Labor Organization, and high-profile advocate for battered

women] say? (Sered, 2000, p. 99)

In the United States, the Department of Defense and police orga

nizations, such as the Fraternal Order of Police, have responded

similarly to gun control policies that would disarm security per

sonnel convicted of domestic violence (Hansen, 1997, 1998; Mor

gan, Adelman, & Soli, n.d.; Thompson, 1997).

Freedman (1990), member of Knesset and among the founders

of the first shelter for battered women, recalled in her autobiogra

phy that she discovered the phenomenon of woman battering in

Israel during the 1970s in the letters she received from individual

women seeking assistance. Rather than ignore their requests or

send a standard form letter akin to other legislators, Freedman

Adelman / MILITARIZATION OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE 1139

began to make a series of inquires to learn more about domestic

violence:

“Arabs beat their wives, not Jews,” I was told by Haifa’s Chief of

Police. “They say that even if they don’t know what she’s done

wrong, she’ll know, he finished,” smiling at me from across his

desk, inviting me to share the joke. No, I was told, the police keep

no statistics on complaints of domestic violence. They’re lumped

together with the rest of the battery complaints. “Do you ever

investigate such complaints?” I asked. “Only when there’s blood

or broken bones,” he said. “Then it’s a matter for the police. Other

wise, we consider it to be a private family affair. We can’t get

involved in every argument between a husband and a wife.”

(p. 102)

Freedman’s (1990) recollection of the Israeli municipal police

chief’s perspective on domestic violence illuminates three inter-

connected components of the competition and hierarchy among

victims: the privatization of domestic violence, the politicized dis-

placement of violence exclusively onto Arabs, and how police

draw a direct line between the perpetration of domestic violence

and the militarized political conflict between Arabs and Israelis

by removing Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel from the protec-

tive purview of the state. Arabs, he argues, are violent, and Arab

women are not considered legitimate or deserving victims. The

argument, observed in both Israel and the United States, ascribes

the violence to a cultural and national group, thus dismissing the

criminal nature of the violence as well as victims’ complaints

(Adelman et al., 2003; Smith & Bowen, 2003).

CRITIQUING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

IN A MILITARIZED SOCIETY

The ongoing militarized political crisis in Israel provides advo

cates for battered women a rather narrow public space in which to

organize against domestic violence. The growing recognition of

domestic violence as a social problem in Israel may be observed.

Yet the emerging institutionalization of domestic violence is pos

sible by neutralizing the issue of domestic violence and severing it

from any political critique of Israeli society or the militarism

therein that sustains hierarchies of militarized citizenship.

1140 VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN / September 2003

Antimilitarist feminists who link the phenomenon of domestic

violence in Israel with critiques of Israeli militarism risk political

marginalization of themselves and their agenda within the Israeli

polity, within feminist circles, and within organizations that sup

port victims of domestic violence. Similarly, advocates for bat

tered women and women’s rights in the United States, such as the

Miles Foundation staff, have had their patriotism or nationalism

questioned (Enloe, 2000).

In general, militarized citizenship in Israel translates into the

marginalization and/or exclusion of “women’s issues,” such as

domestic violence, from full political consideration (Herzog,

1996). Women who successfully enter the national political

scene—no more than 11 out of 120 Knesset seats have ever been

filled by women in Israel—are relegated to “feminine” commit

tees, such as education and culture and immigrant absorption,

whereas men are assigned to foreign affairs, security, and finance

committees (Herzog, 1996). The primacy of national security on

the state agenda and an emphasis on military combat experience

as a qualifying factor for political life, in combination with basic

differences in political ideology, have shaped domestic violence

discourse.

Militarism and the militarization of society have always been

defining components of Israeli Jewish and Palestinian feminisms.

Israeli women have upheld either an implicit militarist or explic-

itly antimilitarist orientation expressed by their agenda, member-

ship, and funding. Mainstream feminists have tended to reject or

ignore militarism and the Occupation as problematic for women’s

safety at home, perceiving them as irrelevant, not feminist issues,

or too divisive for their organization or funding sources. The third

annual feminist conference came to a quick close when a resolu

tion was forwarded by a group of “radical leftists” that the

women discuss the “liberation of Palestine, prior to joint action by

Palestinian and Jewish women for the liberation of women”

(Israel Israeli Feminist Conference, 1980, pp. 54-55). A resolution

was articulated in response that declared that the issue of Pales

tine had nothing to do with feminism (Israeli Feminist Confer

ence, 1980, pp. 54-55). Based on fieldwork, women who provision

social services to battered women and children have maintained

political neutrality by framing their labor as social welfare work

or as assistance to all women, regardless of nationality or political

Adelman / MILITARIZATION OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE 1141

orientation. As well, within mainstream peace organizations,

activists have declared women’s status, not to mention domestic

violence, as a matter best explored in postpeace society.

The complexity and polarization of Israeli politics centered on

the Occupation and the role of the military in society dictate that

advocates for change align themselves carefully with competing

claims of varying social legitimacy. Israeli feminist peace activists,

Jewish and Palestinian, have claimed a connection between mili

tarism and women’s rights as well as the militarization of society

and violence against women. Women in Black, for example,

makes the end of the Occupation and pursuit of the peace process

central to women’s liberation struggle. Furthermore, peace means

equality between men and women, but internal equality will not

be obtained until external peace is achieved. For their social and

political transgressions, participants in weekly Women in Black

silent demonstrations have been targets of sexualized, gendered,

and nationalistic insults as well as rotten vegetables. Jerusalem

Post editors have condemned Women in Black for hijacking the

women’s movement in Israel as “super-dovish, ultra-leftist activ-

ists on behalf of Israeli withdrawal and a PLO [Palestine Libera-

tion Organization] state” (“Killing Women’s Liberation,” 1995,

p. 4). The Coalition of Women for Peace sponsored a mass Women

in Black vigil on December 27, 2002, whose theme was “The Occu-

pation is killing all of us. Women say: Enough!” The flyer adver-

tising the vigil and other organizational materials emphasized

that their opposition to Occupation, all forms of racism and

oppression, and the “militarism that permeates Israeli society” is

linked to their daily experience of “discrimination and violence

against women” (http://www.coalitionofwomen4peace.org/).

New Profile, an anti- militarist organization dedicated to develop

ing civil society, and Black Laundry, a group of lesbian feminists

and gay men who coined the slogan “no pride in Occupation,”

also have identified the convergence of structural oppressions

and forms of violence in Israel. This integrated stance against mil

itarism and domestic forms of violence has resulted in the severe

political marginalization of these groups, particularly during

periods of national crisis when external threats forge relative

unity of the body politic and censor internal criticisms and differ

ences (Weiss, 1997).

1142 VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN / September 2003

Politicians who advocate against domestic violence also have

made links to militarism. Yael Dayan, a left-wing female member

of Knesset and an early and ardent supporter of the peace process,

reminded a crowd gathered to commemorate International Day

Against Violence Against Women that

the current political turmoil and terror attacks are no reason to

abandon the efforts to prevent violence against women....Murder

is murder and violence is violence....Wewillnothaltthewar

against the terror against us. (Gleit, 2000, p. 2)

Limor Livnat, a right-wing female Likud member of Knesset who

supports the notion of a Greater Israel, has insisted that the peace

process has drained resources away from domestic violence and

matters pertaining to the development of civil society. However,

Dayan and Livnat joined forces in 1995 to 1996 to cochair the

Knesset Committee of Inquiry for the Investigation of the Murder

of Women by their Husbands.

CONTEXTUALIZING THE

MILITARIZATION OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

Strategies of and responses to battering may be shaped by

militarization. Militarism is one of the contexts in which men

adopt and adapt strategies to coerce and control their intimate

partners. Battering strategies or tactics may be locally specific,

such as relying on military-based knowledge or authority to dom

inate intimate partners, using military-issued weapons to intimi

date or harm, calling on women to honor political heroes and not

expose them as “domestic terrorists,” mobilizing women to stay

with men as part of their national duty and shaming those who try

to leave, or exploiting militarized political, social, and economic

conditions that sustain the entrapment of battered women

(McWilliams, 1998).

The militarization of society may also affect women’s help-

seeking strategies. In 1998, a time period when Israelis feared mis

sile attacks, Neta Yitzhaki, coordinator of the Women’s Interna

tional Zionist Organization’s national hotline for women,

reported that

Adelman / MILITARIZATION OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE 1143

women have been calling to say their husbands are tense, and they

fear this will lead to an outbreak of violence. Some have expressed

apprehension at being in the sealed room with their husbands....

They do not want to leave their homes in this time of national ten

sion or to complain to police, so instead they call the helplines in

order to discharge their anxieties. (Shevi, 1998)

As noted earlier, for Palestinian citizens of Israel, the Israeli

state has been and continues to be a primary source of structural,

symbolic, and physical violence. From the creation of the Israeli

state in 1948 until 1966, Palestinian citizens of Israel were regu

lated under a military administration. Israeli Palestinian feminist

activist Espanioly (1994) suggested that living in a state of siege

within a militarized society creates silences around the domestic

victimization of women in contrast to women’s high level of

awareness of state-based militaristic oppression and discrimina-

tion. She argued that it is more difficult for Palestinian women to

confront their victimization at the hands of intimates than to artic-

ulate a critique of the victimization perpetrated at the hands of an

external enemy. Thus, the very meaning and naming of a set of

behaviors as domestic violence develop within specific historical

and social contexts. During fieldwork in the mid- and late 1990s,

Palestinian women activists in Israel articulated that the

criminalization of domestic violence presents dilemmas for many

Palestinian citizens who already were averse to inviting the state

to regulate their family and nation (see also Shalhoub-Kevorkian,

1999). The tension between the desire to rely on Palestinian modes

of justice and the limited protection these approaches offered

women was noted. Militarism shapes the deployment of batter

ing mechanisms, the meaning of the violence, and women’s

responses to it.

FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN THE

MILITARY TO THE MILITARIZATION

OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

Researchers and advocates in the United States have accumu

lated data and submitted reports regarding domestic violence

perpetrated by or on military personnel, within military families,

and within military communities (Hansen, 2001; Heyman & Neidig,

1144 VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN / September 2003

1999; Rosen et al., 2003 [this issue]). The area of inquiry may pro

vide answers to whether rates of domestic violence on military

bases are higher than in the civilian population, how effective mil

itary regulations are in addressing domestic violence, and if ele

ments of military life encourage domestic violence. The potential

benefits of moving beyond the confines of the military installation

to consider the pervasive nature of militarism and the effects of

living in a militarized society on domestic violence discourse are

outlined in this article. The shift from studies of domestic violence

in or associated with the military to the militarization of domestic

violence may help to answer questions about rates, effectiveness,

and military culture and create new questions and new ways of

investigating the meaning, manifestation, and management of

domestic violence in militarized societies.

The Israeli case presented here may constitute a rather extreme

example of the militarization of society and domestic violence. It

is nearly impossible to analyze any aspect of Israeli life without

noticing the effects of militarism. However, the Israeli case repre-

sents a point on a map of varying militarisms, invites researchers

to document how militarism operates in other societies, and ana-

lyzes how components of militarized societies, such as universal

or voluntary conscription, militarized masculinity, political vio-

lence, and cultural militarism or praetorianism, may shape

domestic violence discourse. The militarization of domestic vio-

lence in Israel may also provide direction to those who conduct

research in locales that currently experience or have experienced

protracted military conflicts in the past but who have not fully

considered their effect on domestic violence (Cooke, 1996; Enloe,

2000; Lorentzen & Turpin, 1998). The application of the militarization

framework to the study of domestic violence in nations in which

the military, militarism, and the militarization of society play a

relatively more subdued role in the culture and economy should

be considered. Additional studies of locally specific militarisms

may contribute to comparative insights as to the militarization of

domestic violence.

Domestic violence discourse is fashioned by cultural actors

drawing on available frames, such as militarism, to make sense of

everyday reality and social phenomena. The primacy of milita

rism and its recent denaturalization by members of Israeli society

have resulted in public debates as to the links between domestic

Adelman / MILITARIZATION OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE 1145

violence and military service, militarized masculinity, normaliza

tion of violence, stress of political violence on the body politic, and

economic and social costs of maintaining a militarized society.

Anti-domestic violence advocates have led some of these debates,

pointing to how the Israeli state has contributed to the moral

devaluation and relative delegitimation of victims of domestic

violence. Politicians and activists alike have struggled to trans

form domestic violence from a personal harm to a social problem,

carefully negotiating the political minefield that neutralizes any

relationship between militarism and domestic violence. Studies

of the militarization of domestic violence may render visible the

structural forces that produce, encourage, and reward the same

ideals, identities, and social relations that foster domestic violence.

At the same time, studies of the militarization of domestic vio

lence may provide a methodological exemplar or corrective to

extant research that is based on an overly narrow conceptualiza-

tion of domestic violence. Due to epistemological and method-

ological constraints, quantitative studies of domestic violence

and/or analyses of domestic violence–related data generated by

criminal justice institutions have a tendency to isolate domestic

violence from the context of its production. Furthermore, relying

on institutional data leads investigators to depend on statutory

language, official reports, and those “incidents” of domestic vio-

lence brought to the attention of the state. The ethnographic study

of the militarization of Israeli society constitutes one of many soci-

etal conditions that shape domination, abuse, and victimization.

Ethnographic or other forms of qualitative research conducted in

situ may lead to a greater understanding of how cultural distinc

tions, such as militarism, may configure the way a society experi

ences or witnesses, explains or denies, and reinforces or chal

lenges domestic violence.

NOTES

1. To distinguish between these two populations, the phrase Palestinian citizens in Israel

or Israeli Arabs is used to refer to those who are non-Jewish Israeli citizens and who live

within the Green Line. Palestinians refers to those noncitizens who live beyond the Green

Line and within the Occupied Territories. According to Israel’s Central Bureau of Statistics

(2002), 6.5 million people live in Israel, of which just fewer than 5 million are Jewish Israelis

and 1.2 million Palestinian Israelis, that is, citizens. The Palestinian Israeli population

1146 VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN / September 2003

comprises just less than 1 million Muslims, about 135,000 Christians, and approximately

105,000 Druze; an additional 200,000 persons are not classified by religion.

2. The data do not reflect official numbers. The data are derived from public literature,

newspaper articles, Na’amat Division for the Prevention of Family Violence, Israel

Women’s Network, and Haifa Feminist Center Courtwatch Program, in addition to police

records. Discrepancies in the numbers illustrate differences in reporting, differing defini

tions of domestic violence homicide, the variety of relationships between victims and

offenders, and the inclusion or exclusion of children of the women killed. The Na’amat

numbers represent the ceiling. The groups generally agree that the number of women

killed by intimate partners increased during the Gulf War and subsequently decreased.

Additional research is needed to determine the individual histories of these homicides.

Landau and Rolef (2001) included immigration and the Gulf War in their analysis of

femicide in Israel. However, they did not consider military training, experience, weapons,

or culture.

REFERENCES

Adelman, M. (1997). Gender, law, and nation: The politics of domestic violence in Israel. Unpub

lished doctoral dissertation, Duke University, Durham, NC.

Adelman, M. (2000). No way out: Divorce-related domestic violence in Israel. Violence

Against Women, 6, 1223-1254.

Adelman, M. (in press). Gender neutralization and accentuation in domestic violence dis-

course. In P. Essed, A. Kobayashi, & D. T. Goldberg (Eds.), Gender companion. Oxford,

UK: Blackwell.

Adelman, M., Erez, E., & Shalhoub-Kevorkian, N. (2003). Policing violence against minor-

ity women in multicultural societies: “Community” and the politics of exclusion. Police

and Society, 7, 103-131.

Adva Center. (2002). Military expenditure as a percentage of central government expenditure,

1997 and as a percentage of GDP, 1998. Retrieved from http://www.adva.org/ivrit/

military.htm

al-Haj, M. (1995). Education, empowerment and control: The case of the Arabs in Israel. Albany:

State University of New York Press.

The Army Family Advocacy Program. Army Regulation Number 608-18 (1995, September

1).

Azaryahu, M. (1992). War memorials and the commemoration of the Israeli War of Inde

pendence, 1948-1956. Studies in Zionism, 13, 57-77.

Beilin, Y. (1992). Israel: A concise history. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Ben-Ari, E. (1998). Mastering soldiers: Conflict, emotions, and the enemy in an Israeli military

unit. New York: Berghahn Books.

Ben-Eliezer, U. (1998). The making of Israeli militarism. Bloomington: Indiana University

Press.

Benn, A. (2002, August 18). In Israel, too much to leave to the generals. Washington Post.

Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com

Ben-Ze’ev, E., & Ben-Ari, E. (1999). War, heroism, and public representations: The case of a

museum of “coexistence” in Jerusalem. In E. Lomsky-Feder & E. Ben-Ari (Eds.), The

military and militarism in Israeli society (pp. 117-138). Albany: State University of New

York Press.

Berkovitch, N. (1997). Motherhood as a national mission: The construction of womanhood

in the legal discourse in Israel. Women’s Studies International Forum, 20, 605-619.

Adelman / MILITARIZATION OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE 1147

British Broadcasting Corporation News. (2001, February 16). Israel moves towards unity

deal. BBC News Online. Retrieved from http://www.news.bbc.co.uk

Broza, D., & Geffen, Y. (1978). Yiyeh tov [Things will get better] [D. Broza]. On David Broza

[Record]. Jerusalem, Israel: NMC.

Btselem. (2003). Israeli law on administrative detention. Retrieved from http://www.

btselem.org

Bunch, C. (1994). Demanding accountability: The global campaign and Vienna tribunal for

women’s human rights. New York: United Nations Development Fund for Women.

Bunch, C., & Carillo, R. (1992). Gender violence: A development and human rights issue. New

Brunswick, NJ: Center for Women’s Global Leadership.

Central Bureau of Statistics (2002). Statistical abstract of Israel, No. 53. Jerusalem, Israel:

Author.

Cohn, C. (1993). Wars, wimps, and women: Talking gender and thinking war. In M. Cooke

& A. Woollacott (Eds.), Gendering war talk (pp. 227-246). Princeton, NJ: Princeton Uni

versity Press.

Cooke, M. (1996). Women and the war story. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Cooke, M., & Woollacott, A. (Eds.). (1993). Gendering war talk. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Uni

versity Press.

Darcy, E., & Summers, K. (2002). Red, white, black and blue. Domestic Violence Report, 7(5),

65, 75-78.

Department of Defense. (1992, June 23). Department of Defense Directive Number 6400.1,

Family Advocacy Program (FAP).

Department of Defense Task Force on Domestic Violence. (2001). Initial report. Arlington,

VA: U.S. Department of Defense.

Department of Defense Task Force on Domestic Violence. (2002). Second annual report.

Arlington, VA: U.S. Department of Defense.

Deutsch, Y. (1994). Israeli women against the Occupation: Political growth and the persis-

tence of ideology. In T. Mayer (Ed.), Women and the Israeli Occupation: The politics of

change (pp. 88-105). New York: Routledge.

El Or, T., & Atran, G. (1997). Giving birth to a settlement: Maternal thinking and political

action of Jewish women on the West Bank. In J. Brink & J. Mencher (Eds.), Mixed bless-

ings: Gender and religious fundamentalism cross culturally (pp. 159-178). New York:

Routledge.

Enloe, C. (1990). Bananas, beaches & bases: Making feminist sense of international politics. Berke

ley: University of California Press.

Enloe, C. (2000). Maneuvers: The international politics of militarizing women’s lives. Berkeley:

University of California Press.

Espanioly, N. (1994). Palestinian women in Israel: Identity in light of the Occupation. In T.

Mayer (Ed.), Women and the Israeli Occupation: The politics of change (pp. 106-120). New

York: Routledge.

Faludi, S. (2000). Stiffed: The betrayal of the American man. New York: Harper.

Farrell, S., & Cobain, I. (2002, May 18). Images of war force children to confront their night

mares. The Times. Retrieved from http://www.timesonline.co.uk/

Ferguson, K. E., & Turnbull, P. (1999). Oh, say, can you see? The semiotics of the military in

Hawai’i. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Freedman, M. (1990). Exile in the promised land, A memoir. Ithaca, NY: Firebrand Books.

Ghanem, A. (2001). The Palestinian Arab minority In Israel, 1948-2000. Albany: State Univer

sity of New York Press.

Gleit, H. (2000, November 26). Dayan: Current unrest no reason to excuse violence against

women. Jerusalem Post, p. 2.

Goldenberg, S. (2001, March 9). International Woman’s Day: Perilous time in Palestinian

families as siege adds pressure to old injustices. The Guardian, p. 15.

1148 VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN / September 2003

Goodman, S. T. (1989). In the shadow of the conflict: Israeli art 1980-1989. New York: The Jew

ish Museum.

Goodman, S. T. (1998). After Rabin: New art from Israel. New York: The Jewish Museum.

Greenberg,S., & Stanger, T. (1991, August 19). Israel’s men on the verge. Newsweek,p.15.

Grossman, D. (1995). On killing: The psychological cost of learning to kill in war and society.

Boston: Little, Brown.

Hajjar, L. (1996). Israel’s interventions among the Druze. Middle East Report, 26, 2-6, 10.

Handelman, D., & Shamgar-Handelman, L. (1997). The presence of absence: The

memorialism of national death in Israel. In E. Ben-Ari & Y. Bilu (Eds.), Grasping land:

Space and place in contemporary Israeli discourse and experience (pp. 85-128). Albany: State

University of New York Press.

Hansen, C. (1997). Domestic violence offender gun ban and U.S. Armed Forces. Newtown, CT:

The Miles Foundation.

Hansen, C. (1998). Domestic violence offender gun ban and U.S. Armed Forces. Newtown, CT:

The Miles Foundation.

Hansen, C. (2001). Aconsiderable service: An advocate’s introduction to domestic violence

and the military. Domestic Violence Report, 6(4). Retrieved from http://www.

civicresearchinstitute.com/vi2.html

Helmkamp, J. C. (1995). Homicide victims in the military: 1980-1992. Military Medicine, 160,

51-56.

Herbert, M. (1998). Camouflage isn’t only for combat: Gender, sexuality and women in the mili

tary. New York: New York University Press.

Herzog, H. (1996). Why so few? The political culture of gender in Israel. International

Review of Women and Leadership, 2, 1-18.

Heyman, R., & Neidig, P. (1999). A comparison of spousal aggression prevalence rates in

U.S. Army and civilian representative samples. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psy-

chology, 67, 239-242.

Horowitz, D., & Lissak, M. (1989). Democracy and national security in a protracted con-

flict. In D. Horowitz & M. Lissak (Eds.), Trouble in utopia: The overburdened polity of Israel

(pp. 195-230). Albany: State University of New York Press.

Israel Defense Forces Spokesperson’s Unit. (2002, December 15). New opportunities for

women: Will soon serve in special combat units. Retrieved from http://www.idf.il

Israel Women’s Network. (1995). Women and military service: Reality and desires [in Hebrew].

Jerusalem, Israel: Author.

Israel Women’s Network. (1999). The status of women in Israel: A proposed platform for the 15th

Knesset [in Hebrew]. Jerusalem, Israel: Author.

Israeli Feminist Conference. (1980). A decade of feminism in Israel: The Third Annual National

Conference, 20-21 May, 1980, Jerusalem [pamphlet]. Haifa, Israel: Author.

Izraeli, D. (1997). Gendering military service in the Israel Defense Forces. Israel Social Sci

ence Research, 12, 129-166.

Kezwer, G. (2002, February 25). I’m not even sure if they’re treatable. Jerusalem Report,p.21.

Killing women’s liberation [Editorial]. (1995, March 10). Jerusalem Post, p. 4.

Kimmerling, B. (1985). The interrupted system: Israeli civilians in war and routine times. New

Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishing.

Konur, E. (2000). State funding for organizations that serve victims of violence against women.Tel

Aviv, Israel: Adva Center. Retrieved from http://www.adva.org/violence1999.html

Koonz, C. (1987). Mothers in the fatherland: Women, the family, and Nazi politics. New York: St.

Martin’s Press.

Korbin, L. (2000). When war becomes domestic: An examination of spouse abuse within the United

States military. Unpublished master’s thesis, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ.

Kretzmer, D. (1990). The legal status of the Arabs in Israel. Boulder, CO: Westview.

Adelman / MILITARIZATION OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE 1149

Landau, S., & Rolef, S. (2001). Intimate femicide in Israel: Temporal, social and motiva

tional patterns. In D. Russell & R. Harmes (Eds.), Femicide in global perspective (pp. 115-

127). New York: Teachers College Press.

Lev-Ari, R. (1991). After the beating [in Hebrew]. Tel Aviv, Israel: Na’amat.

Lieblich, A. (1989). Transitions to adulthood during military service: The Israeli case. Albany:

State University of New York Press.

Lissak, M. (2001). Epilogue: Uniqueness and normalization in military-government rela

tions in Israel. In D. Maman, E. Ben-Ari, & Z. Rosenhek (Eds.), Military, state, and society

in Israel: Theoretical and comparative perspectives (pp. 395-422). Albany: State University

of New York Press.

Lomsky-Feder, E. (1998). As if there was no war: Life stories of Israeli men [in Hebrew]. Jerusa

lem, Israel: Magnes Press.

Lomsky-Feder, E., & Ben-Ari, E. (Eds.). (1999). The military and militarism in Israeli society.

Albany: State University of New York Press.

Lorentzen, L. A., & Turpin, J. (Eds.). (1998). The women & war reader. New York: New York

University Press.

Lustick, I. (1980). Arabs in the Jewish state: Israel’s control of a national minority. Austin: Uni

versity of Texas Press.

Lutz, C. (2002). Making war at home in the United States: Militarization and the current cri

sis. American Anthropologist, 104, 723-735.

Lynfield, B. (1999, July 6). Palestinians brace for tough talks with new government. Jerusa

lem Post. Retrieved from http://www.jpost.com

Maass, P. (2002, November 10). A bulletproof mind. The New York Times, section 6, p. 52.

McBride, J. (1995). War, battering, and other sports: The gulf between American men and women.

Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.

McWilliams, M. (1998). Violence against women in societies under stress. In R. E. Dobash &

R. Dobash (Eds.), Rethinking violence against women (pp. 111-140). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Merry, S. E. (2001). Rights, religion and community: Approaches to violence against

women in the context of globalization. Law and Society Review, 35, 39-88.

Moghadam, V. (2001). Globalization, militarism and women’s collective action. National

Women’s Studies Association Journal, 13, 60-67.

Morgan, P., Adelman, M., & Soli, S. (n.d.). Can law enforcement claim victimization? A case

study in claims making failure. Unpublished manuscript.

Morris, M. (1996). By force of arms: Rape, war and military culture. Duke Law Journal, 45,

651-781.

National Defense Authorization Act. Public Law 106-65, section 591, Division A, Depart

ment of Defense Authorizations: Title V, Military Personnel Policy: Subtitle K, Domes

tic Violence (2000).

Peled, A. R. (2001). Debating Islam in the Jewish state: The development of policy toward Islamic

institutions in Israel. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Provisional State Council. (1948). State of Israel proclamation of independence. In W.

Laquer & B. Rubin (Eds.), The Israel-Arab reader: A documentary history of the Middle East

conflict (Rev. ed., pp. 124-128). New York: Penguin.

Rabinovich, A. (2002, July 10). Many Mideast teens found traumatized. Washington Times,

p. A13.

Rabrenovic, G., & Roskos, L. (2001). Introduction: Civil society, feminism, and the gendered

politics of war and peace. National Women’s Studies Association Journal, 13, 40-54.

Radutzky, M., & Nelson, T. (Producers). (1999, January 17). The war at home [Television

broadcast]. In D. Hewitt (Executive Producer), Sixty minutes. New York: Columbia

Broadcasting System.

1150 VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN / September 2003

Radutzky, M., & Nelson, T. (Producers). (2002, September 1). The war at home [Television

broadcast]. In D. Hewitt (Executive Producer), Sixty minutes. New York: Columbia

Broadcasting System.

Reiss, N. (1991). The health care of the Arabs in Israel. Boulder, CO: Westview.

Rivlin, P. (1992). The Israeli economy. Boulder, CO: Westview.

Robbins, J., & Ben-Eliezer, U. (2000). New roles or new times? Gender inequality and mili

tarism in Israel’s nation-in-arms. Social Politics, 7, 309-342.

Rosen, L., Kaminski, R., Fancher, P., Knudson, K., & Moore Parmley, A. (2003). The effects

of peer group climate on intimate partner violence among married male U.S. Army sol

diers. Violence Against Women, 9, 1045-1071.

Ruddick, S. (1993). Notes toward a feminist peace politics. In M. Cooke & A. Woollacott

(Eds.), Gendering war talk (pp. 109-127). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Rudge, D. (1999, July 28). Barak: Violence is a central threat. Jerusalem Post, p. 2.

Safran, N. (1981). Israel: The embattled ally. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Sered, S. (2000). What makes women sick? Maternity, modesty, and militarism in Israeli society.

London: Brandeis University Press/University Press of New England.

Shalhoub-Kevorkian, N. (1999). Law, politics, and violence against women: A case study of

Palestinians in Israel. Law & Policy, 21, 189-211.

Shalvi, A. (2002, June 24). Fear and fury: Personal perspectives on the Middle East [Radio

broadcast]. In D. Gordon (Host), The connection. Boston: WBUR/National Public Radio.

Shamgar-Handelman, L. (1986). Israeli war widows: Beyond the glory of heroism. South

Hadley, MA: Bergin and Garvey.

Shapira, A. (1992). Land and power: The Zionist resort to force, 1881-1948. Stanford, CA: Stan-

ford University Press.

Shapiro, R. (1998, June 16). The gruesome details on women killed by their husbands.

HaAretz English Edition Online. Retrieved from http://www.haaretzdaily.com

Sharoni, S. (1995). Gender and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse Univer-

sity Press.

Shevi, M. (1998, February 19). Calls to family violence hotline on the rise. HaAretz English

Edition Online. Retrieved from http://www.haaretzdaily.com

Shoham, E. (2000). The battered wife’s perception of the characteristics of her encounter

with the police. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 44,

242-257.

Shohat, O. (1995, January 11). To call the bluff [in Hebrew]. HaAretz, p. B1.

Sikkuy. (2002). The Sikkuy report: Monitoring civic equality between Arab and Jewish citizens of

Israel. Retrieved from http://www.sikkuy.org.il

Sinai, R. (2002, March 21). Police opened 22,000 cases of domestic violence. HaAretz English

Edition Online. Retrieved from http://www.haaretzdaily.com

Smith, L., & Bowen, M. (2003). Beneath the camouflage. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Solomon, Z. (1995). Coping with war-induced stress: The Gulf War and the Israeli response. New

York: Plenum.

State of Israel. (1997). Combined initial and second report of the State of Israel concerning the

implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimi

nation Against Women (CEDAW). Jerusalem, Israel: Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Min

istry of Justice.

State of Israel is born: Proclamation by head of government. (1948, May 16). Palestine Post,

p. 1. Retrieved from http://info.jpost.com/1998/Supplements/1948/original.html

Stiehm, J. (1989). Arms and the enlisted woman. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Swirski, S., Konur-Attias, E., & Etkin, A. (2002). Government funding of the Israeli settlements

in the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and Golan Heights in the 1990s of local governments, home con

struction, and road building: Executive summary. Tel Aviv, Israel: Adva Center. Retrieved

from http://adva.org/settele/settel.htm

Adelman / MILITARIZATION OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE 1151

Swirski, S., Konur-Attias, E., Etkin, A., & Swirski, B. (2001). Looking at the budget of the State

of Israel, 2002. Tel Aviv, Israel: Adva Center. Retrieved from http://adva.org/bud2002/

Budget2002English.html

Swirski, B., & Safir, M. (Eds.). (1991). Calling the equality bluff: Women in Israel. New York:

Pergamon.

Thompson, M. (1994, May 23). The living room war. Time, pp. 48-51.

Thompson, M. (1997, October 6). A farewell to arms. Time, p. 46.

Weiss, M. (1997). War bodies, hedonist bodies: Dialectics of the collective and the individ

ual in Israeli society. American Ethnologist, 24, 813-832.

Winfield, N. (2002, August 17). Beyond the hundreds dead, many survivors of Israel-

Palestinian conflict are in trauma. Associated Press.

Yediot Ahronot [newspaper]. (1994, December 21).

Yuval-Davis, N. (1987). Front and rear: Sexual division of labor in the Israeli army. Feminist

Studies, 11, 649-675.

Zureik, E. (1979). The Palestinians in Israel: A study of internal colonialism. London: Routledge

and Kegan Paul.

Madelaine Adelman is assistant professor in the School of Justice Studies at Ari

zona State University. An anthropologist and activist, her scholarship centers on

sociolegal, comparative, and global perspectives of gender, violence, law, and cul-

ture, connecting local concerns about domestic violence with questions about the

gendered nature of family, law, and national identities. A secondary area of

inquiry addresses the meaning, manifestation, and management of youth conflict

in the United States. Her work has been published in Political and Legal

Anthropology Review, Violence Against Women, Law & Society Review,

and Police & Society. She is currently working on a book about the politics of

domestic violence in Israel.

1152 VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN / September 2003

Causas de la militarización de las emergencias civilesCauses of the militarization of civil emergencies

Article

Full-text available

Dec 2024

La implicación de las fuerzas armadas en la respuesta a emergencias civiles se ha normalizado en todo el mundo, tanto en Estados democráticos como autoritarios. Son misiones que se alejan de las responsabilidades clásicas de disuasión y defensa debido a: la redefinición de funciones de los ejércitos, el pragmatismo de las políticas de seguridad, la reevaluación de riegos y amenazas, así como a dinámicas de securitización. Todo ello ha supuesto la creación o expansión de marcos legales y doctrinas militares, o el establecimiento de unidades especializadas. Pese a su relevancia, ha sido un fenómeno poco estudiado y teorizado desde las relaciones civiles-militares. Por ello, este artículo asume una perspectiva teórica y, a partir de un enfoque de investigación inductivo, propone cuatro causas que explican la militarización de las emergencias civiles.

La producción del espacio logístico global: flujos comerciales, seguridad y militarización

Article

Full-text available

May 2024

Alan Montes Santoyo

El presente trabajo tiene como objetivo partir de consideraciones teórico conceptuales de la geografía política y económica que buscan dar una explicación otra a la disciplina y práctica de la logística en el ámbito comercial internacional. A través de una revisión histórico-documental, la discusión trata de resaltar el papel de un proceso conocido como "revolución logística", surgido tras la segunda posguerra y que empujó una serie de transformaciones que coadyuvaron a la producción de una espacialidad integrada bajo una razón logística en diferentes escalas geográficas. Además, busca dar cuenta del nexo existente entre el proceso de militarización global que se ha intensificado en los últimos años a partir de la reestructuración de la geografía del capitalismo neoliberal, conduciendo a la reconceptualización de la seguridad y a su ejercicio. Citar como: Montes, A. (2023). La producción del espacio logístico global: flujos comerciales, seguridad y militarización. Espiral, revista de geografías y ciencias sociales, 5(9), 41-49. https://doi.

LIBRO POLITICA INTERNACIONAL Y AGENDA GLOBAL

Chapter

Full-text available

Apr 2024

La crisis global y el modelo de desarrollo actual presentan una situación de riesgo para el futuro de la humanidad, tanto desde una concepción tradicional como desde nuevos enfoques. El fortalecimiento de las capacidades estatales resulta no sólo imperativo, sino urgente ante los pocos resultados obtenidos en las últimas décadas, sobre todo en regiones como América Latina, la región más desigual del mundo. Una revisión de las metas e indicadores planteados en la agenda 2030 de Naciones Unidas nos permiten evaluar de manera concreta qué tanto hemos logrado avanzar en el alcance de estas y nos permite también reflexionar sobre cómo debemos de entender la construcción de capacidades estatales de la región.

POLÍTICA INTERNACIONAL Y AGENDA GLOBAL

Book

Full-text available

Apr 2024

Politica internacional y agenda global

Development Of Terrorism In The Asia Region Post The Marawi Rebellion

Article

Full-text available

May 2023

Acts of terrorism carried out by the Abu Sayyaf Insurgent Group and the Maute Clan in the Marawi region which was later called the Battle of Marawi which involved the IS (Islamic State) terrorist organization occupying the Marawi region, the capital of Lanao del Sur Province on South Mindanao Island, Philippines. The fighting quickly spread to various parts of the city and then showed the presence of an increasing threat of extremism that occurred in Southeast Asia. ASEAN as a regional organization is needed to provide a significant role in preventing and fighting transnational terrorism. This research then explores ASEAN's response to the issue of terrorism after the Battle of Marawi. Barriers to ASEAN regional organizations in conducting cooperation influenced ASEAN's response regarding counterinsurgency and counterterrorism strategies after the Battle of Marawi. Furthermore, to explain this, this study uses a qualitative research method with a literature approach.

Entrenched maltreatment in sport: Unintended consequences of the mix of practices and narratives

Article

Jul 2024

The concern for athlete maltreatment in elite sport emerged in response to a wide range of high-profile cases. While diverse theories and concepts have been used to explore the subject, there is a need for non-Western analyses that can attend to the cultures, practices and narratives of Asian states. Drawing on the case of South Korea's elite sport system, this paper scrutinises the mix of institutional practices and narratives that may variously converge to enable maltreatment or diverge, to prompt calls for systemic change. Grounded in ‘new institutionalism’ and a qualitative approach that incorporates document analysis and semi-structured interviews, this research examines maltreatment within a unique Korean Confucian hierarchical socio-cultural context. The results indicate that complementary practices and narratives enable maltreatment and facilitate the continuation of the system. Conversely, this study also investigated instances of divergence highlighting the impetus for change. However, there is some evidence to suggest that accommodating reforms, which remain essentially shaped by existing practices and narratives, often lead to resistance against substantial change. In sum, the combination of convergent and divergent practices and narratives, within the complex and unique cultural and structural context of Korea, signals that while policy changes to address athlete maltreatment are emerging, barriers to fundamental, sustained change remain.

Introduction to the gender violence, emotion, and the state symposium

Article

Apr 2024

Beyond peace: Media encounters between Israeli Jews and Palestinians as a new potential for connection in the face of violent conflict

Article

Aug 2023
Int J Cult Stud

Yuval Katz

Peace is usually studied by looking at nation-states. Recently, peace scholars have become interested in peace found in the everyday lives of ordinary people. Focusing on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I argue that media scholars can contribute to this effort because they are well-equipped to capture fleeting manifestations of everyday peace. However, the problematic legacy of peace in Israel/Palestine necessitates a different conceptual framework. I highlight encounters in and through media between Israeli Jews and Palestinians and contend that they present opportunities for constructive dialogue. I demonstrate this point by analyzing the Israeli television show Arab Labor, focusing on its production process, and the plight of Jewish and Palestinian characters on the show. By fusing text and context, I suggest that media do not persuade people to believe in peace; instead, media encounters, both on and off the screen, function as cultural forums for discussing complex issues undergirding violent conflicts.

Militarised Masculinities: Analysis of Hegemonic Azerbaijani Masculinities During the II Nagorno Karabakh War

Chapter

Full-text available

Jul 2023

Ramil Zamanov

Memory of Central and Eastern Europe Past Traumas, Present Challenges, Future Horizons

Book

Full-text available

Jul 2023

The collective monograph Memory of Central and Eastern Europe: Past Traumas, Present Challenges, Future Horizons provides a unique platform for collaboration of different theoretical and conceptual approaches to memory and related studies. The first part of the book focuses on the issues related to the problematic aspects of memory in the context of urban and media space. The second part deals with the interaction between nation, national history and memory. The third part is devoted to the representation of memory and sheds light on the specific role of text as a means of cultural memory.

A Comparison of Spousal Aggression Prevalence Rates in U.S. Army and Civilian Representative Samples

Article

Full-text available

Apr 1999

This study compared prevalence rates from reasonably representative U.S. Army (N = 33,762) and civilian (N = 3,044) samples. Age and race were controlled by weighting each sample to 1990 U.S. Census characteristics for married, full-time employed persons. Men's reports of moderate husband-to-wife spousal aggression were not significantly higher, but reports of severe aggression were significantly higher in the standardized Army sample than in the comparable civilian sample (adjusted rates of 2.5% vs. 0.7%, respectively). Thus, controlling for age and race results in reasonably similar prevalence rates. Future studies that more carefully control for any background differences in military and civilian respondents could discern whether military service adds any increased risk for partner violence.

Mastering Soldiers: Conflict, Emotions, and the Enemy in an Israeli Army Unit

Book

Full-text available

Sep 2022

Eyal Ben-Ari

Wars, Wimps, and Women: Talking Gender and Thinking War

Chapter

Full-text available

Dec 1993

Carol Cohn

MASTERING SOLDIERS

Book

Sep 1998

Eyal Ben-Ari

Studies of the military that deal with the actual experience of troops in the field are still rare in the social sciences. In fact, this ethnographic study of an elite unit in the Israeli Defense Force is the only one of its kind. As an officer of this unit and a professional anthropologist, the author was ideally positioned for his role as participant observer. During the eight years he spent with his unit he focused primarily on such notions as "conflict", "the enemy", and "soldiering" because they are, he argues, the key points of reference for "what we are" and "what we are trying to do" and form the basis for interpreting the environment within which armies operate. Relying on the latest anthropological approaches to cognitive models and the social constructions of emotion and masculinity, the author offers an in-depth analysis of the dynamics that drive the men's attitudes and behavior, and a rare and fascinating insight into the reality of military life.

Debating Islam in the Jewish State: The Development of Policy Toward Islamic Institutions in Israel

Book