Ontological Counter-securitization in Asymmetric Power Relations: Lessons from Israel

Abstract

This article seeks to enhance the understanding of ontological counter-securitization and the constitution of securitized subjects in the context of asymmetrical power relations. It builds on the available critique of the conceptualization of counter-securitization and the differentiation between physical and ontological securitization in order to facilitate a better understanding of the identity formation of securitized subjects as resistance. It argues that whereas the current literature deals with the differentiation between physical and ontological dimensions of securitization and recently with the meaning of counter-securitization, nonetheless the treatment of the later as a resistance is limited. It remains in the realm of the physical dimensions of securitization, rendering ontological ones unaddressed. The article argues that ontological counter-securitization emerges as an analytical category when the mismatch between the physical and ontological securitization policies is utilized as a structural opportunity for resisting asymmetrical power relations. The article exemplifies its theoretical arguments through exploring the complicated securitization policies of Israel toward its Palestinian citizens and the resistance of the latter to such policies. It argues that despite the fact that the Israeli physical and ontological securitization of its Palestinian citizens have not matched, they have been constructed as complementary and therefore have not been morally justifiable. This lack of moral justifiability has had repercussions on the legitimacy of the securitization policy, leading to the rise of the securitized subject as a securitizing agency that is able to practice counter-securitization. Since the power relations between the state and its Palestinian citizens has been asymmetrical, the latter limited their counter-securitization to the ontological dimension, manifested through politicizing their indigenous identity. The conceptualization of politicizing indigeneity as an ontological counter-securitization strategy of resistance has not been addressed in the available literature on securitization theory. Thus, exploring its analytical merits is a central goal of this article.

Full text

International Studies Review (2019) 0,1–25
ANALYTICAL ESSAY
Ontological Counter-securitization in
Asymmetric Power Relations: Lessons from
Israel
AMAL JAMAL
School of Political Science, Government and International Affairs, Tel Aviv University
This article seeks to enhance the understanding of ontological counter-
securitization and the constitution of securitized subjects in the context of
asymmetrical power relations. It builds on the available critique of the con-
ceptualization of counter-securitization and the differentiation between
physical and ontological securitization in order to facilitate a better under-
standing of the identity formation of securitized subjects as resistance. It
argues that whereas the current literature deals with the differentiation be-
tween physical and ontological dimensions of securitization and recently
with the meaning of counter-securitization, nonetheless the treatment of
the later as a resistance is limited. It remains in the realm of the physi-
cal dimensions of securitization, rendering ontological ones unaddressed.
The article argues that ontological counter-securitization emerges as an
analytical category when the mismatch between the physical and ontologi-
cal securitization policies is utilized as a structural opportunity for resisting
asymmetrical power relations. The article exemplifies its theoretical argu-
ments through exploring the complicated securitization policies of Israel
toward its Palestinian citizens and the resistance of the latter to such poli-
cies. It argues that despite the fact that the Israeli physical and ontological
securitization of its Palestinian citizens have not matched, they have been
constructed as complementary and therefore have not been morally justi-
fiable. This lack of moral justifiability has had repercussions on the legiti-
macy of the securitization policy, leading to the rise of the securitized sub-
ject as a securitizing agency that is able to practice counter-securitization.
Since the power relations between the state and its Palestinian citizens has
been asymmetrical, the latter limited their counter-securitization to the
ontological dimension, manifested through politicizing their indigenous
identity. The conceptualization of politicizing indigeneity as an ontologi-
cal counter-securitization strategy of resistance has not been addressed in
the available literature on securitization theory. Thus, exploring its analyt-
ical merits is a central goal of this article.
Keywords: asymmetric power relations, counter-securitization,
ontological securitization
Jamal, Amal. (2019) Ontological Counter-securitization in Asymmetric Power Relations: Lessons from Israel. International
Studies Review, doi: 10.1093/isr/viz057
© The Author(s) (2019). Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the International Studies Association.
All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/isr/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/isr/viz057/5678803 by TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY user on 01 April 2020

2Ontological Counter-securitization
Introduction
Building on recent contributions in the literature on securitization, especially those
expanding its scope and operationalization, this article aims to introduce the con-
cept of ontological counter-securitization and the nature of its relationship to the
process of identity formation of securitized subjects in the context of asymmetri-
cal power relations. To that end, it explores a unique case study that draws atten-
tion to new theoretical and practical aspects of securitization theory. Exploring a
unique case study enables us to highlight new aspects of the dialectics of securitiza-
tion that have not yet been sufficiently addressed in the literature. Accordingly, two
major analytical steps are taken: first, clarifying the complex and dynamic nature of
the relationship between physical and ontological securitization and, second, expli-
cating the meaning of ontological counter-securitization and the way it emerges
from the differentiation between the physical and ontological dimensions of
securitization.
The following analysis builds on new treatments of securitization theory, which
have established deep ties with recent developments in various areas and created
dialogue with an increasing number of theoretical and empirical arenas. The impor-
tance of narratives and the centrality of speech acts (Huysmans 2011;Krebs 2015),
the emphasis on contextual circumstances of securitization (Stritzel 2007), the cen-
trality of legitimizing discourses (Balzacq 2005), and the place of moral claims have
all been heavily discussed in the literature (Floyd 2011). The necessary differentia-
tion between the physical and the ontological dimensions of securitization have also
been debated, and different patterns of relationship between them have been in-
troduced (Rumelili 2015;Kinnvall and Mitzen 2017). The growing emphasis on the
centrality and complexity of ontological securitization has shifted the conceptualiza-
tion of the entire process from realist to constructivist paradigmatic commitments
(Campbell 1992;Farrell 2002;Mitzen 2006;Stritzel 2007). Some have invested en-
ergies in establishing a theoretical and analytical affinity between securitization and
the differentiation made between normal and exceptional politics (Ejdus 2009). As
part of the expanding literature, the idea of counter-securitization as a form of re-
sistance has also been recently introduced, greatly deepening our understanding of
the dialectics of securitization (Stritzel and Chang 2015). These contributions make
clear that securitization is deeply related to decisions made by authorized subjects
via discursive moves that manage to persuade a referent audience that an issue or
a social group poses a threat and, therefore, ought to be treated with exceptional
means. They also imply that the exceptional means used have ramifications on the
identity formation of the securitized subject (Buzan, Wæver, and de Wilde 1997;
Ejdus 2009;Huysmans 1998,2011;Williams 2003).
Notwithstanding, these contributions fall short of explicating the meaning and
the implications of this last point—namely, the relationship between securitization
and identity formation among securitized subjects and the way this emerges as
counter-securitization. The existing literature also fails to address the relationship
between the development of counter-securitization and the physical and ontologi-
cal dimensions of securitization in the context of asymmetric power relations.
Exploring the complex dynamics between the various levels of the securitization
process in asymmetric power structures is not only an interesting avenue to explore
but could also help in providing new insights on the dialectics of securitization
and close some lacunas that still remain unexplored in the literature. In more con-
crete terms, the way securitization of social groups facilitates the construction of
new subjectivity among them has not been sufficiently explicated in the literature.
Furthermore, only recently has the idea of counter-securitization begun gaining
some attention (Stritzel and Chang 2015).
The following discussion focuses on the impact of securitization on the identity
formation of securitized social groups and the possible constitution of the latter’s
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/isr/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/isr/viz057/5678803 by TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY user on 01 April 2020

AMAL JAMAL 3
subjectivity as counter-securitization. It is argued that, in the contexts of asymmetric
power relations, counter-securitization is framed as resisting the coupling of phys-
ical and ontological dimensions of securitization narrated by a securitizing subject
and thereby a strategy of resistance that is most likely limited to its ontological
dimension. This means that the subjectivity of securitized social groups in asym-
metrical power relations is gradually constituted as counter-securitization. Such
securitized social groups instrumentalize the structural incompatibility between
physical and ontological dimensions of their securitization to facilitate counter-
securitization measures as a strategy of resistance. They turn the gaps between the
two dimensions of securitization into a structural opportunity to be employed in
the counter-securitization process. Put differently, whereas hegemonic groups con-
struct the physical and ontological dimensions of securitization as complementary,
securitized minority groups question the legitimacy of their congruence. In doing
so, their identity is gradually constructed as a unique form of counter-securitization
and a strategy of resistance.
Discussing these topics addresses the lack of attention to identity construction
among securitized social groups and its deep relationship with their securitization.
It also addresses the path-dependent nature of the differentiation between the phys-
ical and ontological dimensions of securitization in asymmetrical power relations. It
factors legitimization and moral justification into the process of securitization and
counter-securitization (Floyd 2011). And finally, it addresses the indispensable need
to integrate realist and constructivist approaches into the theory of securitization
and counter-securitization (Adler and Barnett 1998;Balzacq 2005;Buzan, Wæver,
and de Wilde 1997;Croft 2012;Farrell 2002;Kinnvall and Mitzen 2017;Lupovici
2012;Mitzen 2006;Roe 2004;Rumelili 2015;Stritzel 2007).
To demonstrate these arguments, this article goes beyond a theoretical explo-
ration of these topics and examines a particular case study in which the dialectics
of securitization turn the identity formation of securitized subjects into counter-
securitization. A single case is sometimes best suited to assess implications of
theoretical debates (Flyvbjerg 2001;Seawright and Gerring 2008). That is why
the context in which conflicts between settler societies and indigenous popu-
lations is chosen. In such contexts of asymmetric power relations, the field of
identity construction serves as the frontline for the battle of securitization and
counter-securitization. The justifications necessary to maintain the cohesiveness
and legitimacy of securitization in such conflicts bring to the fore the centrality of
narratives of moral superiority, expressed through “civilizing missions,” “frontier
myths,” “existential threats,” or “divine rights” in order to justify securitization
(Bliesemann de Guevara 2016;Krebs 2015;Mitzen 2006;Nesbitt-Larking and
McAuley 2017). Settler societies seek to “go native” and utilize mythicoreligious
historical memory to achieve such a goal (Nesbitt-Larking and McAuley 2017;Klein
2011). This identity entrepreneurship frames indigenous nations as a threat and
thereby constructs their ontological insecurity (Croft 2012). Securitized group
identity is dialectically constructed through the mere differentiation established
by their dominating other. The constructed identity of securitized groups delegit-
imizes securitization, thereby breaking the asymmetry of power. It also leads to a
symbiotic relationship between protecting one’s identity and ontological counter-
securitization. Hence, narrating indigeneity by securitized native groups becomes
equivalent with counter-securitization. Examining these dynamics enables us to
shed light on the meaning and complexities of securitization theory, in contexts
that have not been sufficiently addressed in the literature thus far.
To explicate this process, the following pages explore the Israeli securitization
of the Palestinian citizens of the state, and the politicization of their indigene-
ity, as a form of ontological counter-securitization. This analysis explores how
Israeli state authorities have securitized its relationship with the Palestinian citi-
zens and constructed the physical and ontological dimensions of securitization as
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/isr/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/isr/viz057/5678803 by TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY user on 01 April 2020

4Ontological Counter-securitization
complementary, thereby justifying their conception as a threat to national secu-
rity. Exploring these dimensions facilitates establishing the first contribution of this
article—namely the centrality of context for the coupling of physical and ontolog-
ical dimensions for securitization. Exploring the reaction of the indigenous Pales-
tinian inhabitants to their securitization, we also attest to a second contribution—
namely, the implications of identity formation of securitized subjects on the differ-
entiation between the physical and ontological dimensions of securitization and its
potential as a structural opportunity for ontological counter-securitization in asym-
metrical power relations.
Addressing the Israeli case builds on the limited literature that explores securiti-
zation in Israel (Olesker 2014a,2014b,2011). Olesker’s (2014a) treatment of Israeli
securitization of the Palestinian minority, which is framed as posing a threat to the
Jewish identity of the state and thereby is an existential danger to Israeli national
security, is a major contribution to the relevance of securitization theory to the un-
derstanding of the relationship between ethnic states and indigenous minorities.
The focus on discriminatory legislation as an avenue to demonstrate “the ways in
which political actors and audiences negotiate the meaning of security” is a major
contribution to our understanding of the multiple unfoldings of securitization pro-
cesses (Olesker 2014a, 371). Olesker’s works form a deviation from the common
treatments of national security in the relevant literature in Israel and thereby chal-
lenge Israeli security studies. Very few cases critique the predominant realist concep-
tualizations of the Israeli security paradigm (Barak and Sheffer 2009;Ben Eliezer
1998;Kimmerling 1993;Merom 1999). Most of the literature on Israeli security
is deeply rooted in realist theories and remains committed to a narrow militaris-
tic epistemology, belittling the contribution of critical security studies to deepening
our understanding of the relationship between security and identity formation (Ben
Israel 2013;Barnett 1999). The predominant literature relates to national security
from a narrow, state-centric perspective, not only conflating national security with
state security but also ignoring the centrality of narratives in security strategy (Krebs
2015).
Olesker’s (2011,2014b) contribution focuses on ontological securitization and
very nicely reflects the recent developments in Israeli securitization measures vis-
à-vis Palestinian citizens and the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. However, it does
not relate to the historical roots of these decisions, thereby creating the impression
that securitizing the Palestinian minority has only recently become the policy of the
hegemonic Israeli elite. Furthermore, Olesker’s pioneering contribution does not
address the ramifications of Israeli securitization policies on the securitized Pales-
tinian subjects. His work, therefore, invites us to explore this issue and address the
way their counter-securitization efforts emerge as a result of the exceptionality of
their situation. In this sense, this article continues Olesker’s work by demonstrat-
ing how the Palestinian minority’s emphasis on being indigenous leads to the rise
of a counternarrative that resists the narrative of “going native” of the Jewish elites
(Jamal 2011;Stafford 2005). The narrative of indigeneity goes beyond the sumud
strategy, adopted by this minority in the early years of the state and well-known
to us from the broader Palestinian struggle ( Johansson and Vinthagen 2014). In
other words, counter-securitization becomes a translation of the efforts to protect
not only the physical presence of the minority but also the quality, meaning, and
justifications of this presence.
The foregoing arguments are developed in four sections. The first lays the the-
oretical foundations of the article by addressing the physical and ontological di-
mensions of securitization theory and exploring its moral implications. The second
part explores Israeli securitization policies in particular, based on the above the-
oretical foundations. The third part deals with Palestinian citizens’ collective be-
havior vis-à-vis Israeli securitization and demonstrates the way in which ontological
counter-securitization emerges out of their identity formation, resulting from their
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/isr/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/isr/viz057/5678803 by TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY user on 01 April 2020

AMAL JAMAL 5
resistance to the state securitization policies. I conclude with a discussion of the
implications of state-minority relations on securitization and briefly refer to the
moral underpinnings of desecuritization.
Securitization, Ontological Counter-securitization, and Asymmetric Power
Structures
Keeping the framing of the securitization literature in line with the main goals of
this article, this section conceptualizes ontological counter-securitization in the con-
text of asymmetric power relations and clarifies how it emerges from the differential
dialectics between physical and ontological securitization.
According to Buzan and Wæver (2003, 491), securitization is a successful “speech
act through which an intersubjective understanding is constructed within a political
community to treat something as an existential threat to a valued referent object,
and to enable a call for urgent and exceptional measures to deal with the threat.”
Accordingly, securitization is based on the concept of performative utterances intro-
duced by John L. Austin, according to which uttering security is not only describing
a reality but mainly performing an act that creates a new reality (Austin 1971,5–
6). This conceptualization means that securitization falls outside of the true/false
dichotomy. As Buzan and Wæver (2003, 11) clarify, the performative utterance of
security carries the potential to make an audience tolerate violations of rules that
could have been otherwise obeyed.
Balzacq (2005) criticizes Buzan and Wæver’s conceptualization of securitization,
arguing that it makes us understand that a speech act has a force of its own, not
related to features of the existing context. In his view, securitization cannot be a
practice that is mainly governed by internal rules that are independent of the exis-
tence of real threat. It is not only the utterance of security that has discursive ability
to lead to action, assuming that there is an audience that simply corresponds with
the securitizing actor about the threatening nature of the referent subject. Balzacq
warns of the self-referentiality of discourse and calls to incorporate a more intersub-
jective conceptualization of securitization in order to improve the analytical power
of securitization theory as a speech act. He points out three interrelated topics—
namely, the context in which the securitizing act takes place, an audience-centered
understanding of securitization, and the power-relations that must be addressed to
improve the power of securitization theory. Accordingly, one has to relate to “the
proportionate causal weight of audience and contextual factors ...insecuritization
theory” (Balzacq 2005, 178). Winning an audience’s attention is more successful
when securitization relates to an external reality that convinces the hearers to be
more sensitive to their vulnerability. Hence, securitization is a contingent act, de-
pending on the perceptiveness of the audience, who accept the description of the
threats deployed by the elites. The performative dimension of speaking security by
an elite is manifested in the understanding that discourse and narrative shape social
relations, provide the legitimacy needed in such contexts, and build its form and
content (Balzacq 2005;Krebs 2015;Goddard and Krebs 2015). This understanding
brings the existence of an Other that poses a threat to the fore and emphasizes
the constructive character of ontological security (Farrell 2002). It emphasizes that
relations with others are always intersubjective and, as such, are embedded in the
dialectics of securitization.
Notwithstanding the importance of Balzacq’s points, he fails to pay sufficient at-
tention to the insecurity of the receptive audience resulting from the securitization
act, on the one hand, and to the ramifications of securitization on securitized sub-
jects, on the other. This act does not only bring about security. As Ahmed (2014)
demonstrates, conceiving an Other as a threat also brings about insecurity. Secu-
ritization renders it necessary that the receptive audiences be persuaded to feel
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/isr/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/isr/viz057/5678803 by TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY user on 01 April 2020

6Ontological Counter-securitization
insecure in order to morally justify applying exceptional measures to the other.
This is crucial in asymmetric power relations, when the exceptional measures are
oriented toward a subordinate minority group.
Stritzel (2007, 360) clarifies this point, arguing that the articulation of security
“entails the claim that something is held to pose a threat to a valued referent object
that is so existential that it is legitimate to move the issue beyond the established
games of ‘normal’ politics to deal with it by exceptional, i.e., security methods.”
This understanding mirrors his emphasis on the legitimizing of the use of whatever
means necessary to block a threat. Accordingly, securitization is about the use of
security rhetoric, marked by the language of survival, urgency and danger, which
are differentiated from normal politics (Ejdus 2009).
This intersubjective understanding renders the dialectics of security/insecurity a
central factor in the identity formation of the actors involved in the securitization
process (Huysmans 2006). The objectification of the source of threat is an interpel-
lation process of subject-making. By being uttered as a source of fear and threat, the
securitized object necessarily becomes aware of its own subjectivity as a threat, which
is then transformed into agency (Ahmed 2014). The securitized other emerges as
subjectivity out of the dialectical ontology of securitization. This subjectivity is trans-
lated into collective consciousness, and self-narration becomes an important factor
in increasing the fears of the securitizing audience and thereby intensifies the com-
plexity of the securitization dialectics. Put differently, the process of securitization
is articulated through narrating national identity as threatened and thereby stands
in negative intersubjective relationship with the securitized group. The latter may
or may not accept their construction as a threat. But given their securitization, they
are made aware of the power entailed in their mere identity. Their search for on-
tological security is essentially transformed into a form of counter-securitization. By
emphasizing the wholeness and biographical continuity of the identity viewed as a
source of threat by the securitizing authority, securitized groups practice counter-
securitization. This means that identity formation of a securitized group is a form
of resisting being securitized within the dialectics of securitization. Such a process
introduces ontological counter-securitization, which is embedded in and is deeply
influenced by the persisting power relations. This process brings to the fore the
unique impact of asymmetric power structures.
The embeddedness of the performative utterances of security in context has been
seriously treated in the securitization literature. Stritzel (2007, 367) clarifies that
“[a]n actor cannot be significant as a social actor and a speech act cannot have an
impact on social relations without a situation that constitutes them as significant.
[It is the] embeddedness in social relations of meaning and power that constitutes
both actors and speech acts.” Such an understanding complicates the meaning of
power structures. Whereas its immediate meaning is that power relations are di-
rectly translated into the securitization process, it also has to be understood that
securitization and counter-securitization have a constructive impact on the power
relations between the sides entangled in the securitization dialectics. Since the bal-
ance of power is not only real and since the sense of threat is largely constructed,
the dynamics of the securitization process could lead to serious gaps between the
real and the imagined in power relations. This gap could bring ontological security
to contrast the real balance of power. In such cases, speech acts and the narration
of national security could have the power to convince an audience that despite the
real balance of power, the threat is existential (Abulof 2014). This understanding
of securitization demonstrates that security utterances facilitate real conditions. It
demonstrates the contingency and path-dependence of securitization, spotlighting
two dimensions that must be granted more attention. The first has to do with the
congruence or lack of it in the relationship between physical and ontological securi-
tization, depending on the context in which securitization takes place. The second
relates to the centrality of the moral justifications of securitization for its legitimacy.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/isr/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/isr/viz057/5678803 by TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY user on 01 April 2020

AMAL JAMAL 7
We briefly address them in turn and clarify their importance for conceptualizing
ontological counter-securitization in an asymmetric power structure.
The relationship between the physical and ontological dimensions of securitiza-
tion is disputed in the literature (Mitzen 2006;Rumelili 2015). According to Mitzen,
ontological and physical security do not always align (Mitzen 2006). They may con-
tradict each other when a “harmful or self-defeating relationship” is conceived in an
effort to establish ontological security (Mitzen 2006,342).InMitzen’s (2006, 342)
view, “states might actually come to prefer their ongoing, certain conflict to the
unsettling condition of deep uncertainty as to the other’s and one’s own identity.”
That given, “the security dilemma’s link between uncertainty and conflict” is turned
on its head. This means that “conflict can be caused not by uncertainty but by the
certainty [that a conflictual relationship] offer[s] their participants” (Mitzen 2006,
342–43). Put differently, securitization is not always related to a real threat. It could
be a result of a perception of threat based on past experience that despite the chang-
ing circumstances remains persistent (Goddard 2006). This differentiation between
the physical security and the ontological sense of insecurity is affirmed in Rumelili’s
(2015, 59) argument that “[o]ne can be at a state of physical insecurity while be-
ing at a state of ontological security and vice versa.” Both scholars demonstrate that
the physical and ontological dimensions of security don’t always match. This means
that the two dimensions represent two sides of the relationship with an Other in
which otherness is determined by a security-seeking subject. The construction of a
relationship with an Other as a threat is what enables a security-seeking subject to
introduce itself as a coherent collective. Establishing a distance from the threating
other—an enemy—is the other side of the act of defining intimacy and friendship
within the group of affiliation (Ahmed 2014). This dialectical relationship of anx-
iety and agency is behind the gradual construction of subjectivity that is aware of
its conflictual relationship with an Other. This understanding is in concert with the
assumption that identities are constructed and dependent on narratives, habits, rou-
tines, and the maintenance of a system of certitude that must be affirmed by others
(Butler 1997;Jackson 2006;Zarakol 2010). Accordingly, identities are constructed
based on a self-perception that relates to others as a threat (Campbell 1992). There-
fore, it is not always possible to clearly differentiate between securitization as a need
and as a means to achieve security. It also means that securitization—physical and
ontological—is a complex process of objectifying an Other that becomes a process
of subjugation in two ways: becoming a subject of surveillance and control, on the
one hand, but also becoming a subject who is aware of its power to pose a threat
and thereby an agent of counter-securitization.
These two forms of subjugation are contradictory but inseparable. They establish
different dynamics between physical and ontological dimensions of securitization
and counter-securitization, especially in asymmetric power relations. Hegemonic
majorities seeking the subjugation of a perceived source of threat align the two di-
mensions, for they are not only able to legitimate their complementarity but also to
assure their implementation. In contrast, subaltern minorities in asymmetric power
relations seek the decoupling of the two, for their alignment does not enable them
to counter-securitize. Their subordinate position makes neutralizing their physical
securitization into part and parcel of their narrative. Thus, narration as a form of
subject-making by subaltern minorities may allow them to overcome the gaps of
physical power and thereby reconstruct the power structure in their favor.
The centrality of narratives in securitization and counter-securitization brings
to the fore the importance of the relationship between the causes and the moral
judgment that justifies them (Aradau 2004). Justifying securitization and counter-
securitization play a crucial role in their efficacy, although differentiating between
causes and justifications are not always possible. Their interchangeability highlights
the combination of their normative and realist dimensions. This combination is ad-
dressed by Floyd (2011), who argues that the justness of securitization is determined
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/isr/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/isr/viz057/5678803 by TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY user on 01 April 2020

8Ontological Counter-securitization
by three main criteria. The first is realist and deals with the existence of an objec-
tive, existential threat to the survival of an actor. The second is constructive, arguing
that the referent object of security must be morally legitimate, which is established
when it is conducive to human well-being or the satisfaction of human needs. The
third is constructive-interpretive, emphasizing that the security response must be
appropriate to the threat in question.
However, notwithstanding Floyd’s important points, it must be made clear that
the criteria of the objective, existential threat is determined by the securitizing
agent, who cannot be conceived as neutral to the context’s balance of power. There-
fore, Floyd’s analysis does not pay sufficient attention to the potential differentiation
between real and imagined threat. As Campbell (1992, 1) put it, “Danger is not an
objective condition. It is not a thing that exists independently of those to whom it
may become a threat.” This is especially important when it comes to holding secu-
ritizing actors accountable. The universality of the justness of securitization when
it comes to satisfying basic human needs is an oxymoron. In the context of iden-
tity conflict, whose human needs, who defines them, and how become of crucial
importance. Securitization entails contradictions, if it is viewed from the point of
view of the universality of human needs, since securitization is fundamentally about
the hierarchal ordering of different human needs of different peoples. This means
that although examining the justifications of securitization is central for our under-
standing of the process, one cannot ignore the subjective nature of fear and, as a
result, of the justification of the entire securitization process (Croft 2012;Farrell
2002;Rumelili 2015).
Notwithstanding this complexity, addressing the moral justifications of securi-
tization makes it necessary to address the way they become a mean in counter-
securitization processes. Counter-securitization was first introduced by Stritzel and
Chang (2015). They view it as a move that “follow[s] the ideal-type of the gram-
mar of securitizing, namely, speech acts of claim, warning, directive (typically de-
mand) and propositional content” (Stritzel and Chang 2015, 552). In their view,
counter-securitizing “essentially appears as a move of resistance against a securitiza-
tion move . . . an attempt to repulse the securitizing move that portrays [an Other]
as a threat” (Stritzel and Chang 2015, 551). For them, resistance is conceived “as not
just a reactive response to (oppressive) power, but in the Foucauldian tradition, and
internally related to it—a practice that challenges and potentially undermines ex-
isting dominance but that is simultaneously productive” (Stritzel and Chang 2015,
552). This understanding means that resisting securitization practices cannot be
conceived as an instrumental act only (Balzacq 2005). Resistance, as a form of
counter-securitization is the other side of identity formation. It does not only mean
attempting to “[erode] the perceived legitimacy of security practices” and to weaken
“their power to oblige people to conform to their prescription” (Stritzel and Chang
2015, 552). It cannot only be conceived as a reactive act. It is constitutive of the re-
sister’s subjectivity, something that helps explain the emergence of the securitized
other as a form of agency rather than only as an object of securitization.
This analysis leaves us with a newly defined and highly complex relationship be-
tween counter-securitization and its physical and ontological dimensions. The na-
ture of the alignment between the two provides us with an interesting puzzle: if the
powerful, securitizing entity can physically and ontologically securitize its other, is
this also true for securitized subaltern groups?
Stritzel and Chang do not address the differentiation between the physical and
the ontological dimensions introduced by Mitzen (2006) and Rumelili (2015)
when explicating their view of counter-securitization. Bringing together Stritzel
and Chang’s treatment of counter-securitization and Mitzen’s and Rumelili’s dif-
ferentiation between physical and ontological securitization becomes of theoretical
and empirical importance, especially when relating to complex contexts, such as
an asymmetrical identity conflict. This means that the nature of the relationship
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/isr/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/isr/viz057/5678803 by TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY user on 01 April 2020

AMAL JAMAL 9
between the physical and ontological dimensions of securitization cannot be
left out of the theorization of securitization, counter-securitization, and identity
formation.
The alignment between the physical and ontological dimensions of securitization
could emerge or be constructed as crucial for the legitimacy and authority of a se-
curitizing process. In contrast, misalignment could emerge or be constructed as a
fundamental source of legitimacy for counter-securitization. In asymmetric power
structures it is the alignment between the two that legitimizes the securitizing act
by the powerful side. In contrast, their misalignment forms a legitimizing principle
to facilitate ontological counter-securitization by subaltern groups. Deconstructing
the relationship between the two dimensions renders delegitimization an act of re-
sistance, reflecting not only the weaker party’s defiance of the stronger party’s po-
litical authority and domination, but also the construction of its own subjectivity as
a wholeness. That said, the differentiation between the physical and the ontological
dimensions of securitization by subaltern, securitized social groups renders ontolog-
ical counter-securitization a strategy of resistance. The process of identity formation
resulting from being securitized becomes a strategic move, rebalancing asymmet-
rical power relations in identity conflicts. Identity features of securitized subaltern
groups that legitimize their securitization, are the same features that make ontolog-
ical counter-securitization possible.
To clarify and illustrate the complexity of this dialectic, we turn now to address
the way the Israeli securitization of Palestinian citizens aligns between physical and
ontological dimensions. We demonstrate this by pointing out the similarities in the
aspects of Palestinian physical and symbolic presence addressed by the Israeli secu-
ritization policies. Next, we explore how the alignment between these two dimen-
sions makes the subjectivity of Palestinian citizens an indispensable consequence.
We demonstrate that Palestinian awareness of the power embedded in their iden-
tity emerges as a result of the securitization process and that the search for ontolog-
ical security emerges as an ontological counter-securitization of Jewish society. The
gradual move of Palestinian citizens from guaranteeing their mere survival in their
homeland to flagging out their indigeneity reflects the attempt to bypass the asym-
metry of power by targeting the legitimacy of their securitization while avoiding
posing any physical threat to the state.
The Physical Securitization of the Palestinian Citizens of Israel
As clarified above, securitization is about generating meaning through the creation
of a threat. Threat, as theorized by most scholars, leads to fear, which has various
physical dimensions (Ahmed 2014;Campbell 1992). Ahmed (2014, 70) argues in
this regard that “fear works to align bodily and social space: it works to enable some
bodies to inhabit and move in public through restricting the mobility of other bod-
ies to spaces that are enclosed or contained.” She adds that “the regulation of bodies
in spaces through the uneven distribution of fear . . . allows spaces to become terri-
tories, claimed as rights by some bodies and not others” (Ahmed 2014, 70).
This understanding of the establishment of a threat, although discursive, has
aligning physical ramifications that ought to be explicated in order to better clar-
ify the dialectics of securitization as a form of identity formation. Put differently,
the physical securitization of the Palestinian citizens was and is still the other side
of the consolidation of Jewish geographical, demographic, and symbolic presence
and dominance in Israel. Securitization is not only about the Palestinian Other but
also about the mobilization of Jewish society behind its elites and the translation
of its utterance of security threat into tangible measures on the ground (Olesker
2014a,2014b). These measures are best illustrated in the massive shrinkage of the
physical spaces in which Palestinians live and, in contrast, the expansion of Jewish
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/isr/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/isr/viz057/5678803 by TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY user on 01 April 2020

10 Ontological Counter-securitization
towns and cities in order to settle the land and occupy it physically and symbolically
(Benvenisti 2000).
The utterance of threat is best illustrated by Israeli state founder David Ben Gu-
rion, who stated that “Arabs should be judged by what they can possibly do, rather
than by what they have done” (Lustick 1980, 71). This statement signifies the con-
struction of an imminent and continuous source of fear. As long as Palestinians
are there, they pose a potential existential threat. This act of securitization justified
the state’s administrative and material measures taken at that time and later to face
Palestinian efforts to protect their presence in their own homeland.
Notwithstanding Israelis’ sense of threat toward the Palestinian presence inside
the state, evidence provided by the Israeli open archives demonstrates that the Is-
raeli political and military leadership of the early decades of the state were fully
aware that the Palestinians who remained inside the areas controlled by the Israeli
army were a defeated, poor, and fragmented community that did not pose a seri-
ous threat to justify the measures taken against it (Benziman and Mansour 1992;
Raz 2018). Israeli documents demonstrate that army officers were aware that these
Palestinians sought to survive the reality in which they lived and therefore submit-
ted to the dictates of the governing military officers (Bäuml 2007;Manna 2016;
Ozacky-Lazar 2002). For example, Shmuel Dibon, the prime minister’s advisor for
Arab affairs in 1949, stated that the Arab population was “fully surprised, segregated,
fragmented and scared” (Bäuml 2007,48).
Securitizing Palestinian citizens was mostly based on the negative image of the
Palestinians, constructed during the Mandate period, when they were still a ma-
jority of the population in Palestine and resisted the partition of their homeland
(Benziman and Mansour 1992;Bäuml 2007;Hofnung 1996;Landau 1969;Layish
1981;Lustick 1980;Ozacky-Lazar 2002;Peled 1992;Reiter 2009;Stendel 1997;
Smooha 2015;Zureik 1979). But given the Palestinian defeat, one wonders why se-
curitizing their mere physical presence was relevant even before there was evidence
that they posed a threat.
There is sufficient evidence supporting the argument that the construction of the
Palestinian geographically dispersed and economically poor population as a secu-
rity threat is deeply related to the identity formation of the Jewish society (Bäuml
2007). Being a gathering of exiles, the constitution of a new Jewish identity in the
newly established state necessitated establishing an affinity between settling the land
and security needs. The differentiation made by the Israeli military establishment,
especially prominent leaders such as Moshe Dayan, between threats created by reg-
ular armies and those caused by sabotage and individual attacks turned Palestinian
citizens into a constant immediate threat (Hankin 2018). This differentiation legit-
imated the securitization of Palestinian citizens and not only justified the physical
measures taken against them in Jewish society but also legitimized the settlement
policies of Arab areas promoted by the state. The securitization of Palestinian pres-
ence intermingled causes and justifications, rendering their impact on the constitu-
tion of the new Jewish society indispensable.
The initial physical securitization measures were put in place by the provisional
Israeli government in 1948, based on the Emergency Laws of 1945. On May 19,
1948, the provisional government established the military administration in areas
in which Arab populations lived, including mixed cities in the center of the coun-
try, such as Lidda, Ramleh, Jaffa, and Askalan (Ashkelon today) (Hofnung 1996;
Sa’di 2016). This administration was based on Regulations 109, 110, 111, 124, and
125, which enabled army officers to monitor the physical movement of Palestini-
ans by declaring curfew, blocking geographical areas, and detaining and expelling
suspicious people without trial (Ozacky-Lazar 2002). The state of emergency de-
clared by the government legitimated all of the extreme measures taken to intim-
idate, segregate, and control the Palestinian population that remained within the
areas controlled by the Israeli army (Hofnung 1996, 50–105). Under the shadow
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/isr/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/isr/viz057/5678803 by TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY user on 01 April 2020

AMAL JAMAL 11
of a state of exception, great measures were taken to color every policy toward the
Palestinian population as a matter of security ( Jabareen 2014). To demonstrate this
point, we address three interrelated avenues of securitization that have had great
ramifications on the constitution of Jewish society.
The first is the argument that Arabs live close to Israel’s armistice lines, along
fully Arab-populated areas in which they have family ties (Bäuml 2007;Cohen 2010;
Ozacky-Lazar 2002). This reality was directly described by Yigal Alon, one of Israel’s
main leaders at the time; the sentiment was also echoed among the military and po-
litical elite (Alon 1968;Schiff and Haber 1978). Alon (1968, 324) regretted the fact
that the government did not adopt “a policy that could have brought the majority
of Arab citizens to think about displacing themselves to another country.” A similar
sentiment was also expressed by Jehoshua Palmon, the first prime minister’s advisor
for Arab affairs, who was also the head of the Information Services in the Hagganah
(the army intelligence before 1948). In a letter sent to the military governors in
Arab areas, he stated:
They have to understand their status in the state in the emergency era in general
and in the controlled areas in particular, and their rights and duties and the advan-
tages and disadvantages related to these facts to them . . . There is a need to explain
that many Arab honorary persons living in the areas under the military rule have re-
quested that the military administration continue for the utility of the residents in
this period. (cited in Ozacky-Lazar 2002, 107)
The combination of Alon’s aspirations and Palmon’s framing of the military gov-
ernment demonstrate that the presence of Palestinian citizens in Israel was viewed
by the Israeli elite as conditional. It would have been much better if they had not
been there, and therefore, their behavior would determine their future. Placing
Palestinian citizens under military rule, and limiting their freedoms and rights, was
construed as serving their best interest. From the point of view of the military elite,
these conditions would guarantee that they would not conduct any moves threaten-
ing their presence in their homeland. This temporalization of the Palestinian pres-
ence in Israel was seriously received by them. Surviving the conditional presence be-
came an existential aspiration and led to strict self-disciplining. In the meanwhile,
the same policy enabled the expansion of Jewish settlements in Arab areas.
The settling of new Jewish incomers in evacuated Arab villages brings to the
fore the second discursive utterance that mirrored the physical securitization of the
Palestinian citizens and guaranteed the demographic domination of Jewish society
inside the state borders. This motivation was translated into Israel’s prohibition of
Palestinian refugees’ return to the areas controlled by the Israeli army following the
formation of the state (Keydar 2012;Morris 1993). This goal was also translated into
legal restrictions on internal Palestinian freedom of movement and the declaration
of certain areas as military zones that could not be accessed by Palestinian citizens
(Benziman and Mansour 1992;Hofnung 1996). The policy of limiting freedom of
movement was deeply tied to surveillance, despite reports provided by the security
services that there were no signs whatsoever of organized resistance or efforts to
harm state security (Benziman and Mansour 1992).
Notwithstanding the important security needs of the time, these restrictions on
movement and the declaration of certain areas as military zones targeted internal
Palestinian refugees who sought to return to their homes after having been ex-
pelled or having fled from their villages. Many Palestinians remained in neighbor-
ing villages, hoping to return to their homes at the end of the battles. However,
the securitization policy of the Israeli army rendered their return to their original
homes a threat (Cohen 2010;Morris 1993). To that end, state authorities uttered
the “present absentees order,” which became law in 1950 and resulted in the loss of
all possessions belonging to internal refugees and their transfer to the ownership
of the state. As Hofnung (1996, 162) claims, “It is not by chance that the definition
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/isr/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/isr/viz057/5678803 by TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY user on 01 April 2020

12 Ontological Counter-securitization
of absentee is very similar to the conditions set for granting citizenship based on
presence on the land in the citizenship law. The formulation of both laws was mo-
tivated by the same trend—to make sure that the largest number of Arabs remain
outside the frame of those entitled to citizenship rights” (Hofnung 1996, 162).
When it came to freedom of movement, the military government imposed a
regime of permits that regulated the movement of Palestinian citizens within and
between areas (Hofnung 1996). This new regime not only enabled the government
to control these citizens but also rendered them fully dependent on the goodwill of
the military officers. To receive a permit, citizens had to prove they had a “clean”
record to security forces, especially the police, who would determine whether or
not this was sufficient ( Jiryis 1976). This total dependence limited the ability of
Palestinian citizens to enter the job market and was, therefore, an efficient mech-
anism for controlling their behavior (Lustick 1980). The justification of this pol-
icy in Jewish society established an inherent relationship between national secu-
rity and the priority given to integrating Jewish immigrants into the job market
(Ben-Porath 1986). The exclusive securitization of the Palestinians was reflected in
the state comptroller’s report to the government on February 15, 1959, in which he
argued:
Everyone entering a closed area or leaves it without a written permission from the
military officer conducts a criminal fault. Jewish citizens are not asked to show such a
permit and they are not criminalized when they violate the instructions of this order.
The causes for this differentiation are reasonable, but there is a flaw in a regulation
that was universally formulated and includes all the inhabitants of the land, but is
applied for only part of it. (State Comptroller cited in Hofnung 1996, 151)
Declaring areas close to Arab villages as security zones and preventing Palestinian
citizens from entering them, while enabling Jews to freely move in them, aligned
the construction of the Palestinian demographic presence as a threat, as well as
aligning the physical measures taken against them with state policies to shape the
demographic presence of Jewish society (Forman and Kedar 2004;Kretzmer 2002;
Yiftachel 1999).
The third utterance of securitization of Palestinian citizens dealt with the geo-
graphical proximity of Palestinian villages to one another. The demographic conti-
nuity of Palestinian citizens was conceived of not only as a threat but also as evidence
of the Palestinian history vis-à-vis the place. It provided evidence of the weakness of
the Zionist narrative regarding the demography of the land. Therefore, settling Jews
in Arab areas became a clear translation of the physical securitization of Palestinian
citizens (Chowers 2012). Settlement and military strategy thus became intertwined,
leading to the conceptualization of settlement in security terms (Falah 1989). This
conceptualization is reflected in the following aphorism made by Ben-Gurion:
The security of the state will not rest exclusively on the armed forces. Our methods of
settlement will determine the security of the state no less than establishing the army.
(Cited in Tzfadia 2009, 47)
This securitization claim has also been translated into geographic and demo-
graphic segregation, fragmentation, and the encircling of Arab towns, as promoted
by the planning and zoning policies enacted by state institutions (Kafkafi 1998).
This policy began with the military government and was later reflected in the
Koenig Memorandum in 1976 (Algazi 2011;MERIP Report 1976;Sa’di 2003a). The
Koenig Report states clearly:
Expand and deepen Jewish settlement in areas where the contiguity of the Arab pop-
ulation is prominent, and where they number considerably more than the Jewish
population; examine the possibility of diluting existing Arab population concentra-
tions. Special attention must be paid to border areas in the country’s northwest and
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/isr/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/isr/viz057/5678803 by TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY user on 01 April 2020

AMAL JAMAL 13
to the Nazareth region. The approach and exigency of performance have to deviate
from the routine that has been adopted so far. Concurrently, the state law has to be
enforced so as to limit “breaking of new ground” by Arab settlements in various areas
of the country. (MERIP Report 1976, 12)
The demographic securitization of Palestinian citizens has been translated into a
wave of Judaization of Arab areas, such as the establishment of the Jewish towns of
Carmiel, Upper Nazareth, and Migdal Ha-Emek in the 1960s and the city of Harish
in the Triangle Area in the center of the country in the last few years; the Seven
Stars Settlement Project in the same area in the 1970s; and the Mitzpim (settle-
ment posts) Plan implemented in the Galilee in the 1980s and up to the present
(Forman and Kedar 2004;Holzman-Gazit 2007;Kedar 2001;Sa’di 2003b;Yiftachel
2006;Yacobi and Cohen 2007). These settlement policies reflect the antagonistic
nature of the Palestinian presence and the consolidation of Jewish hegemony as a
basic principle of security (Falah 1989;Kedar, Amara, and Yiftachel 2018;Yiftachel
2006). Based on the symbiosis between security and Judaization, the Israeli geode-
mographic policies can be conceived as physical securitization. The meaning and
implications of this policy become even clearer when addressing its alignment with
ontological dimensions.
The Ontological Securitization of Palestinian Citizens
As mentioned earlier, ontological security is concerned with subjectivity and a sta-
ble sense of self in order to practice agency. It is dialectically related to an Other,
which inspires a sense of anxiety and therefore has to be disciplined and controlled.
As Kinnvall and Mitzen (2017, 7) argue, “Ontological insecurity refers to a state of
disruption...wheretheindividual or collectives of individuals have lost their stabi-
lizing anchor (their sense of security) and their ability to sustain a linear narrative
and answer questions about doing, acting and being.” Narration has been depicted
in the literature not only as a central dimension of identity formation but also as
a major mechanism of overcoming anxiety (Bhabha 1990). Thus, narratives are
deeply related to national security (Bliesemann de Guevara 2016;Krebs 2015). They
provide the continuity and linearity necessary for coherent self-perception. When
relating this understanding to the Israeli case, one cannot ignore the conceived dis-
ruptive role that the mere Palestinian presence, let alone the narrative, play in the
constitution of Jewish Zionist identity. This is especially true vis-à-vis Jewish citizens
who are aware of the gap between the argued eternal and continuous organic ties
between the Jewish people and the land of Israel and the massive Palestinian pres-
ence on the ground. Overcoming the threat to the Zionist narrative necessitated the
ontological securitization of Palestinians. Elaborating this dimension of securitiza-
tion and clarifying its alignment with the physical one makes it necessary to delve
into its discursive manifestations.
The Zionist narrative establishes a deep affinity between the Jewish people and
its historical and cultural cradle—namely, the land of Israel (Gans 2008;Shumsky
2018). This cultural cradle has also become the safe haven for Jews on earth, espe-
cially after the Holocaust (Abulof 2014). The safety of the Jewish people has been
deeply tied to sovereignty in the historical fatherland (Abulof 2014). These percep-
tions, which became central pillars of the Zionist narrative and provided a sense
of justness, had and still have to face the presence of millions of Palestinian in the
same territory. The challenge was not limited to the physical but also included their
cultural and national identity. Since Palestinian national culture was translated not
only into the topography of the land but also into their self-perception and their atti-
tudes toward Jewish society, they challenged many convictions and beliefs that were
central to the consolidation of Jewish national memory and imagination ( Jamal
2017).
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/isr/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/isr/viz057/5678803 by TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY user on 01 April 2020

14 Ontological Counter-securitization
In other words, Palestinian identity negated the aspired-for Jewish identity and
therefore had to be obliterated. This process, which could be coined as “negation of
negation” was translated into policies of biographical fragmentation of the Palestini-
ans. Simultaneously, the Jewish-Israeli identity was established on biblical grounds
in order not only to secure the continuity between the Jews of today and those who
inhabited the land two thousand years ago (Sand 2009) but also to justify the exclu-
sive historical, cultural, and religious bond between Jews and the land. This narra-
tive has been coupled with framing Palestinian presence in Palestine as occasional
and a physical disturbance that should be overcome.
Since Palestinian citizens could not be physically eliminated, their identity as
such has been targeted. State policies of socialization of the Palestinian citizens
focused on de-Palestinizing them (Al-Haj 1995;Mar’i 1978;Rabinowitz 1993;Said
1978). De-Palestinizing Palestine and Palestinian consciousness started immediately
after 1948 and was facilitated by the reality established on the ground, as hundreds
of Palestinian villages were fully evacuated from their inhabitants (Morris 1993)
and their traces were systematically targeted by the state (Benvenisti 2000). In
this regard, Ram (2016) argues that the state established a sophisticated forgetting
regime, composed of three complementary elements—namely, narrative forgetting,
physical forgetting, and symbolic forgetting. Following Mary Douglas (2007, 13), he
defines forgetting as “different kinds of selective remembering, misremembering
and disremembering.” This regime was made relevant for Jewish society as the refer-
ent audience of securitization, and to the Palestinian citizens as the object of threat.
This regime could be best illustrated through the politics of naming or more ac-
curately renaming. State authorities prepared plans and began implementing them,
changing the Palestinian names of places, such as towns, mountains, valleys, roads,
and junctions (Ram 2016). Given that Palestinian names form an interruption in
the Zionist narrative and therefore pose a threat, the authorities started granting
places biblical names (Benvenisti 2000,Fenster 2004;Kadman 2015). Benvenisti
(2000, 8–9) cites Ben Gurion’s argument, “We have to remove the Arab names for
political reasons, for as much as we don’t recognize their political ownership of the
land, so we neither recognize their cultural possession nor their names.” He demon-
strates how “mapmaking and the assignment of place-names . . . was an act of estab-
lishing proprietorship” (Benvenisti 2000, 12). The archeologist Shmuel Yavin, cited
by Benvenisti (2000, 7), demonstrates that giving biblical names to places aimed at
establishing an associative bond “between the people of Israel and the land of Israel
. . . from the time of Yehoshua Ben Nun and until the days of the contemporary
occupiers of the Negev.” Ram (2016, 20) cites the geographer Arnon Golan, who
argues that “Arab space was almost fully obliterated from the surface of earth and
remained an imagined geography rooted in the Palestinian consciousness only.”
Notwithstanding Golan’s statement, state authorities sought to reshape the collec-
tive consciousness and memory of Palestinian citizens, who remained as evidence
of the Palestinian identity of the land. Resocializing the Palestinian citizens and de-
Palestinizing them began with renaming them. Their Palestinian background has
been completely omitted from all state documents, especially in educational sys-
tem textbooks. They suddenly became Israeli-Arabs. Rabinowitz argues that “with
time the concept of ‘Israeli Arabs’ was used to alienate the Palestinian citizens of
Israel from the Palestinian national movement, which posed a growing threat to
Israel and the Israelis with its growth and successes” (Rabinowitz 1993, 146). The
portrayal of Palestinian citizens as Israeli Arabs not only came to signify their dis-
connection from the Palestinian people but also to allude imply that they could be
affiliated with the state in which they live, exactly like Arabs in Egypt are Egyptians
and Arabs in Lebanon are Lebanese. The possessive aspect of the term Israeli Arab
is also meant to establish loyalty to the state in which one lives as a normal expec-
tation of the state from its citizens, and the Jewishness of the state does not and
should not prevent them from doing so.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/isr/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/isr/viz057/5678803 by TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY user on 01 April 2020

AMAL JAMAL 15
The educational system established in Arab villages became the main mechanism
to manufacture the new “Israeli Arab” identity (Rabinowitz 1993). Shmuel Dabon,
the first prime minister’s advisor on Arab affairs expressed the securitization of the
Palestinian citizens in a discussion on Arab education that took place on October
22, 1957. He stated:
What is the goal of Arab education? It can be assumed: education of its citizens ben-
efits both the state and themselves, and so that they should not constitute a fifth
column or active potential for surrounding enemies, whether on the borders or at
greater distances . . . the Arab community, that over thirty years of settlement was
aggressive and hostile to our evolving state, must compensate for it and prove that it
does not identify with the enemy. (cited in Al-Haj 1995, 97)
The metaphor of the fifth column became central to the securitization speech
act of the Israeli security forces, especially the General Security Service (Shabak)
and special units of the police force. Palestinian citizens were framed in security
terms that justified encouraging “positive” forces to dominate society. Accordingly,
good citizenship was introduced to Palestinians as a safety net, protecting them
from physical measures, such as detention or displacement. Becoming good Israelis
marked the rebirth of the Palestinians who remained under Israeli jurisdiction after
1948. History then started anew for these citizens, whose collective past had to be
remolded to match the new reality (Bishara 1993).
The resocialization process taking place in the educational system was supposed
to diminish sentimentality toward the Palestinian past or sympathy with the Pales-
tinian cause, especially concerning the historical injustice and the miserable reality
of the refugees, and instead nourish rational thinking related to the safety and eco-
nomic benefits associated with being Israeli. Israeli-Arab identity was supposed to be
a possessive affiliation framework, where legal affiliation to the Israeli state was to
determine not only the priorities but also the worldview of the Palestinian citizens.
The efforts invested in denationalizing Palestinian identity were coupled with the
attempt to deconstruct the “fifth column,” as a necessary preemptively step.
The ontological securitization process was also articulated through the mass me-
dia. The Israeli elite of the early years of the state established media outlets in Arabic
and employed Jews of oriental origins (Mizrahim), who spoke Arabic, in order to re-
socialize the Palestinian citizens ( Jamal 2012;Yu and Cohen 2009). The main goal
of these media outlets was nicely defined by the advisor to the prime minister for
Arab affairs in the 1960s, Shmuel Toledano—namely, turning the Palestinian citi-
zens into “quiet Arabs” ( Jamal 2012). This disciplining policy aimed at manufactur-
ing consent, and in cases when this did not work and contentious voices remained,
stringent submission was utilized, as in the treatment of several national intellectu-
als, such as Rashid Hussein, Fauzi Al-Asmar, Habib Kahwaji, Mansur Kardosh, Sabri
Jyris, Mahmoud Darwish and others (Benziman and Mansour 1992;Kahwaji 1972).
These leading figures symbolize the refusal to give up their Palestinian identity, rep-
resenting the exception that demonstrates the rule.
In contrast, in the given circumstances, when being Palestinian meant being the
enemy and tangible proof of being fifth column, most Palestinian citizens repressed
their Palestinianness and adopted the more general Arab identity. This identity was
better received by state authorities since it emphasized the cultural and linguistic
identity rather than the national one, which was deeply related to the Palestinian
national movement in general and to the right to self-determination in particular.
Whereas Palestinian identity was inherently related to Palestine and the national
rights it represented, the more general Arab identity meant that Arabs could ex-
press their cultural identity in Israel, but their political rights would be salient only
in other Arab countries. Downplaying Palestinianness has been achieved by identi-
fying it with animosity and hostility, a legitimate cause for harsh treatment by state
authorities and the labor market, dominated by Jewish employers. The Shabak was
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/isr/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/isr/viz057/5678803 by TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY user on 01 April 2020

16 Ontological Counter-securitization
deeply involved in categorizing Palestinian citizens based on “good conduct” versus
“negative factors” and issuing orders to other state authorities about how to treat
every individual (Cohen 2010;Korn 2003). This strict surveillance policy was facil-
itated by the military government in Palestinian areas until 1966 and by a sophis-
ticated control system of segregation, dependency, and cooptation later on (Korn
2003;Lustick 1980;Zureik, Lyon, and Abu-Laban 2011).
Disciplining the Palestinian citizens became a full-fledged policy after the Kuf-
far Qassem massacre in 1956 (Madar 2019;Orbach 2013). The killing of forty-nine
unarmed citizens by the Israeli patrol police and the intervention of the Supreme
Court regarding the army’s fire orders led to the adoption of a stronger disciplinary
policy (Manna 2011;Rosenthal 2000). This policy is reflected in a statement made
during a meeting of the advisory committee of one of the major media outlets di-
rected to the Palestinian elite in Israel, the newspaper al-Yom, which was established
and began publication immediately after the 1948 war. The protocol of the meeting
of April 1, 1963, notes:
The newspaper would penetrate into the consciousness of the readers that the State
of Israel was an established fact by focusing on how it was becoming stronger cul-
turally economically, politically and militarily. (Israel State Archive, AAA Files, File
3551/5,2)
The newspaper aimed at convincing Palestinian citizens that thinking of identi-
fication with enemies of the state, such as the Nasser regime in Egypt, would harm
them and could not work, since Israel was here to stay. Furthermore, the newspa-
per, which was fully controlled by the Information Center at the prime minister’s
office, fostered a sense of insecurity among the Palestinian citizens, emphasizing
“the carrot and the stick” policy, followed by state authorities. In a summary of the
newspaper’s Board of Directors’ meeting with the representative of the prime min-
ister’s office on October 5, 1962, it was suggested that:
The newspaper should provide its readers with values of good citizenship, and general
and Israeli culture, while safeguarding and respecting the religious heritage, the eth-
nicity and the national feelings (but not negative nationalism) of the reader. (Israel
State Archive, AAA Files, File 3551/5,1)
This statement reflects the common perception among state authorities that
Palestinian identity is a form of negative nationalism that should be replaced by
good citizenship sentiments. The sophisticated disciplining policy aligned with
physical measures taken to narrow the physical spaces within which these citizens
live and establish their complete economic dependence on state authorities and
Jewish employers ( Jamal 2011). These securitization policies have strong ramifica-
tions on the Israelization of Palestinian society in Israel (Smooha 2015). Becoming
Israeli turned out to be the only refuge when confronting state policies. Israeli citi-
zenship became the only legal means to protect one’s rights, although these rights
were limited to the individual level and were very partial. The Israelization of the
Palestinian citizens has been limited to the instrumental and daily behavioral level.
As a result, it is possible to assert that the same state policies have had a stronger
impact on the reemergence of Palestinian consciousness and on the indigeneity
narrative among Palestinian citizens ( Jamal 2011). In other words, the securitiza-
tion of Palestinian identity has dialectically led to the rise of discursive utterances of
counter-securitization among the elites of Palestinian citizens. Demonstrating this
development is the goal of the next section.
Palestinian Ontological Counter-securitization
Stritzel and Chang (2015, 551) argue that counter-securitization “essentially ap-
pears as a move of resistance against a securitization move . . . an attempt to repulse
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/isr/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/isr/viz057/5678803 by TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY user on 01 April 2020

AMAL JAMAL 17
the securitizing move that portrays [an other] as a threat.” Since context is a cru-
cial factor in securitization, the type of resistance adopted by securitized subjects
is deeply related to the prevalent balance of power. As argued earlier, subaltern
groups in asymmetric power relations cannot afford to clash with their state if their
aim is survival and equal civic rights. Therefore, the decoupling of the ontological
and the physical dimensions of their securitization becomes a natural effort by se-
curitized groups, long before they are used as a constructive strategy to delegitimize
state policies, turning the misalignment between them into a structural opportunity
to overcome subordination and domination. The rule of law of the state becomes a
constructive discourse to demand that state authorities meet basic civic values. How-
ever, in identity conflicts, this strategy does not satisfy the aspiration to protect one’s
identity. The securitization of subaltern minorities, which is translated into policies
that seek to deconstruct their identity, threatens their sense of wholeness. Their
search for ontological security becomes a form of resistance. In the following sec-
tion, we demonstrate this form of resistance and its deep affinity with ontological
counter-securitization. Ensuring this goal makes it necessary to address the politi-
cization of indigeneity among Palestinian citizens of Israel.
Although one cannot reduce the Palestinian community into one coherent and
autonomous political agent, as it lacks the institutions necessary to make common
decisions, the political and intellectual elites have expressed the claim of counter-
securitization in various documents and forums over the years (Jiryis 1976;The Black
Book of the Forbidden Conference 1981;The Haifa Declaration 2007). These documents,
which have reacted to the severe measures of securitization made by the state re-
flected the awareness that it would be wise to act from within the Israeli legal sys-
tem. This insight has gradually emerged and limited resistance to the ontological
level only (Or 2003). The patterns of behavior of most Palestinian citizens have
demonstrated that they were fully aware that any physical threat to the state or Jew-
ish society would be utilized as a pretext to legitimize exceptional measures to cure
the threat of the “fifth column” and would lead to severe repressive measures that
might amount to expulsion. Therefore, most of them conformed to the discourse
of their elites.
Accordingly, Palestinian resistance in Israel can be divided into two major pe-
riods. The first dates between 1948 and 1975; it could be considered the search
for survival and is therefore predominantly characterized by politics of compliance.
This period was deeply tied to the experience and memory of loss that resulted
from the 1948 war and later the 1967 Arab defeat. In this context, a large pro-
portion of Palestinian citizens sought to guarantee their survival in their homeland
and therefore sought integration in the Israeli economy and politics (Manna 2016).
This should not mean that oppositional voices—such as leaders of the Communist
Party, Al-Ard movement (the Land), Abna’a Al-Balad (Sons of the Land), and Usrat
Al-Jihad (Family of Jihad), as well as Palestinian poets and artists—did not express
their dissatisfaction with the Israeli securitization policies. They articulated their dis-
satisfaction with state policies but avoided delegitimizing the state itself or its Jewish
identity. They expressed their resentment of state policies vis-à-vis their purported
“equal rights” as citizens (Frisch 2011), fearing to provide the state with the neces-
sary pretext for further physical securitization.
The state’s comprehensive securitization policies have brought Palestinian citi-
zens to gradually become aware that their securitization is not genuinely related to
their behavior but rather to their mere presence and identity. The persistent state
securitization policies refuted the argument made by some that integrating into
Israeli society would lead to the normalization of their lives as equal citizens (Touma
1977,1982). Therefore, national leaders and intellectuals, especially from the Al-
Ard movement, which was established in the mid-1950s, began reasserting their na-
tional identity as part of the Palestinian people. This voice marked initial utterances
of an ontological counter-securitization discourse, which was harshly repressed by
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/isr/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/isr/viz057/5678803 by TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY user on 01 April 2020

18 Ontological Counter-securitization
state authorities (Frisch 2011). Al-Ard activists emphasized the indigeneity of the
Palestinians and heavily criticized the policies of de-Palestinization of the Israeli gov-
ernment, stressing the centrality of their bond with the land (Nassar 2017;Cooley
1973). This bond, manifested in the name of the movement, was reflected on by
one of the activists:
Because the land is the symbol of Arab existence in the country, because the gov-
ernment’s policy is to expropriate Arab-owned lands in order to cut the powerful
bond pulling them to their homeland, and because the real battle between the Zion-
ist movement and the Arab liberation movement is taking place on Palestinian land,
it was decided to call the newspaper Al-Ard.(Kahwaji 1972, 186)
In a memorandum sent to the United Nations in June 1964, Al-Ard insisted upon
the indigeneity of the Palestinian citizens of Israel stating:
The authorities are waging an incomparably mean and violent campaign of terror,
persecution and discrimination against the Arabs who are, in spite of all false allega-
tions, the first legitimate owners of the country. (cited in Greenstein 2014, 15)
Al-Ard also asserted their affiliation with the Palestinian people, saying that “the
Arabs in Israel are part of the Palestinian Arabs who are an integral part of the
Whole Arab nation” (Greenstein 2014, 15).
Al-Ard represented a very small group of activists that was harshly curbed by state
authorities (Al-Asmar 1971). Nevertheless, its discourse and behavior were fully ex-
ploited by state authorities to propagate the threatening idea of the “fifth column”
among Jewish citizens in order to justify its securitization policies. Although the vast
majority of Palestinians chose to struggle for equal civic rights, downplaying nega-
tive national sentiments ( Jamal 2011), state authorities insisted on policies of land
expropriation (physical securitization) and denationalization (ontological securiti-
zation).
These policies have gradually led to the growing conviction among an increasing
number of Palestinian citizens that it is their mere presence and identity that are
targeted by the state. This growing conviction began motivating a growing number
of people to take a more active role in resisting state policies. The consequences of
the 1967 war and the occupation of new Palestinian areas—namely, the West Bank
and Gaza Strip—intensified the recognition that Palestinian identity and presence
have to be protected beyond mere sumud (staying on the ground). One of the best
indicators of this growing recognition is the transformation that took place in the
discourse of the Communist Party, which gradually became the central representa-
tive of the Palestinian citizens. The party began emphasizing the Palestinianness of
the Arab citizens, thereby introducing an identity that counters the “Arab Israeli”
identity model promoted by state authorities (Touma 1982). The shift in the dis-
course of the Communist Party was best mirrored by the rise of the poet Toufik
Ziad to a very prominent position in the party ranks (Bashir 2016). Ziad’s poetry
and political discourse marked the growing emphasis on the Palestinianess of the
Palestinian citizens in defying state policies (Ghanem 2009). His central role in the
decision to call for a strike on March 30, 1976, which became marked as Land Day
is beyond doubt (Bashir 2016). The acronym “Land Day” reflected the centrality
of the land as a collective resource and a symbol of belonging and attachment that
has been threatened by the state’s policies. The tragic demonstration on Land Day,
in which six Palestinian citizens were shot dead by the Israeli police force, marked
the clash of identities and worldviews between the state elite and the Palestinian
citizens’ elite (Lustick 1980). This clash marked an incremental nationalization of
the political discourse of Palestinian citizens, manifested by raising the Palestinian
flag in collective protests (Sorek 2015). The civic discourse of liberal equality be-
gan to wane, and Palestinian sentiments started to take a growing place in politi-
cal discourse. The rise of the Progressive List for Peace in the early 1980s, which
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/isr/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/isr/viz057/5678803 by TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY user on 01 April 2020

AMAL JAMAL 19
reintroduced the Palestinian national stream of the Al-Ard movement, and the im-
pact of the outbreak of the first Palestinian intifada in 1987 in occupied Palestinian
territories marked the growing emphasis on the rights of the Palestinian citizens,
as part of the historic and national rights of the Palestinian people (Bishara 1993).
One of the best manifestations of this process was the publication of The Black Book
in 1981, which contained declarations and statements intended to be made at a pub-
lic conference in Israel that was prevented from taking place by the Israeli cabinet
based on emergency regulations (Touma 1982). In the declaration of the confer-
ence preparatory committee, one statement reads:
We are the owners of this land. We have no homeland other than this homeland . . .
It is political blindness and a disastrous orientation that lead the leaders of this state
to think that they could uproot us from our deep rooted presence in the soil of this
homeland . . . At the same time they should wake up from the illusion that their great
military might can change the rules of historical evolution with a cannon ...Itis
impossible in our age to destroy a public, like the Arab public, who are clinging to
their cities, towns and villages ...[and]whowillstickclingtotheirhomelandtothe
last drop of blood. (The Black Book of the Forbidden Conference 1981, 20–21)
The emphasis on the rights of the Palestinians as one people mirrored the prob-
lematizing and challenging of the Jewish identity of the Israeli state, whose re-
pressive and disciplinary policies have led to a growing emphasis on Palestinian
identity, culture, and rights. This has reflected the process of ontological counter-
securitization of the state and the Jewish majority in it.
The process of ontological counter-securitization is best mirrored through the
growing politicization of Palestinian indigeneity (Bishara 1993;Jamal 2011). The
discourse of indigeneity not only marks the active rejection of the Zionist narrative
concerning the historical bond between the Jewish people and the land but also
emphasizes the Palestinian narrative regarding the organic and symbiotic bond be-
tween Palestinians and Palestine. It emphasizes that the Jewish presence in Palestine
is a result of a settler colonial process that cannot be forgotten or forgiven (Touma
1982;Bishara 1993). Drawing on anti- and postcolonial discourse and on the grad-
ual rise of the struggle of indigenous peoples in various areas in the world has
strengthened the moral and legal foundations of the indigeneity discourse among
the Palestinian citizens’ elites ( Jamal 2011).
The process of ontological counter-securitization is also expressed through the
publication of documents that reflect the negation of the state’s exclusive Jewish
identity. The publication of the Future Vision Documents by several groups of in-
tellectuals and political activists between December 2006 and May 2007 marked
the growing emphasis not only on Palestinian indigeneity but also on the settler-
colonial nature of Israel (Ozacky-Lazar and Kabha 2008). These documents, which
were disseminated and discussed in public before and after being published in or-
der to gain public support, reflected the shifting of the Palestinian discourse in Is-
rael from focusing mainly on citizenship rights to reiterating the centrality of their
Palestinian background in demanding rights that establish equality with their Jew-
ish counterparts, not only on the individual but also on the collective level. One of
these documents is the Haifa Declaration. It states:
Israel is the outcome of a settlement process initiated by the Zionist-Jewish elite in
Europe and the West and realized by Colonial countries contributing to it and pro-
moting Jewish immigration to Palestine, in light of the results of the Second World
War and the Holocaust. After the creation of the State in 1948, Israel continued to
use policies derived from its vision as an extension of the West in the Middle East
and continued conflicting with its neighbors. Israel also continued executing internal
colonial policies against its Palestinian Arab citizens. Israel carried out the Judaization
process in various forms, beginning with the expulsion of the Palestinian People back
in 1948, the demolition of more than 530 Arab villages, massive confiscation of Arab
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/isr/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/isr/viz057/5678803 by TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY user on 01 April 2020

20 Ontological Counter-securitization
land and the creation of more than 700 Jewish settlements aiming at the absorption
of the new Jewish immigrants. This has led to the Judaization of the land and the
erosion of the Palestinian history and civilization and the building of a political and
economic system that marginalized and weakened the Palestinian People especially
in Israel. (The Haifa Declaration 2007,9)
The discourse of this declaration clearly reflects the perception that Zionism is
a colonial movement and that the state’s Judaization policies are illegitimate and
antagonistic to the basic rights of the Palestinian people as the native people of
Palestine. In this context, indigeneity is communicated as a basic characteristic of
the Palestinian people, which precedes the state. The declaration defines the iden-
tity of the Palestinian community in Israel:
We, sons and daughters of the Palestinian Arab people who remained in our home-
land despite the Nakba, who were forcibly made a minority in the State of Israel after
its establishment in 1948 on the greater part of the Palestinian homeland . . . (The
Haifa Declaration 2007,7)
Based on their indigeneity, Palestinians construct their rights as a central, legit-
imizing principle in addition to their citizenship, which supports Arab collective
rights in the state. Indigenous rights entail righting past wrongs, especially the pro-
cess of material and cultural dispossession, as well as solving the problems of the
internally displaced refugees ( Jamal 2011).
Jamal (2011) has already demonstrated that politicizing indigeneity is not only
about the official recognition of outstanding claims based on differences and ad-
dressing grievances against the state on indigenous terms but also a clear refutation
of the exclusive Zionist narrative, especially its assertion of an uninterrupted his-
torical bond between the Jewish people and Palestine. This biographical continuity
asserted by the Palestinian elite is a source of threat to Israeli Jewish society, and,
therefore, it is a form of ontological counter-securitization that is uttered via Pales-
tinian mainstream ideological documents.
Politicizing indigeneity not only refutes the Israeli Zionist narrative but also
causes moral dissonance and anxiety among the Jewish majority. Whereas the
number of Arab intellectuals and politicians that not only use the indigenous dis-
course but also conceptualize Zionism as a settler colonial movement is on the rise
(Rouhana and Sabbagh-Khoury 2015), Jewish society has increasingly conceived of
Palestinian citizens as illegitimate players in the Israeli political arena (Hermann
et al. 2018). Whereas most Palestinian citizens of Israel increasingly insist that they
are the native inhabitants of Palestine (Smooha 2015), a growing number of Jewish
Israelis express their distrust in them (Hermann et al. 2018).
The demand for recognition as an indigenous national minority prompts
sovereign equality within the State of Israel. Although this demand does not chal-
lenge the territorial integrity of the state, it does confront the exclusive sovereignty
of the Jewish majority. This counternarrative confronts the exclusive Jewish iden-
tity of the state and turns the mere presence of Palestinians in Israel into empirical
evidence of the Arab identity of Palestine. Simultaneously, this narrative provides
evidence of the Israeli “original sin” of ethnic cleansing, thereby emphasizing the
immorality of Zionism and its colonial nature. It thus turns the relationship be-
tween the state and its Palestinian citizens upside down. Whereas the state secu-
ritizes its Palestinian citizens, the Palestinian elite counter-securitize Jewish society
and thereby create cracks in the symbolic power structure that has determined the
relationship between the two sides. Although this development does not change
the real balance of power, the ontological counter-securitization of Jewish society
seems to enable the Palestinian citizens to overcome being trapped within the
Israeli system only. The expression of indigeneity and the demand for collective
rights based on indigenous grounds have led to severe reactions in Jewish society,
demonstrating the impact that ontological counter-securitization creates ( Jamal
2016;Ozacky-Lazar and Kabha 2008).
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/isr/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/isr/viz057/5678803 by TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY user on 01 April 2020

AMAL JAMAL 21
Concluding Remarks
The discussion above has demonstrated that securitization theory could benefit
from application to unique case studies that could enable the expansion of the
scope of its operationalization and simultaneously its critique. It demonstrates the
dialectics of securitization, especially the relationship between securitizing an Other
and the emergence of the latter’s counter-securitization as resistance. The analysis
of Israel’s securitization policies toward the Palestinian minority and the Palestinian
counter-securitization discourse demonstrate that the misalignment between the
physical and ontological dimensions of securitization could form not only a struc-
tural opportunity for social actors to securitize their opponents but also a construc-
tive analytical avenue to better understand the complexities of such processes in the
context of identity conflicts. The differentiations made by Mitzen and Rumelili are
demonstrated to be of great analytical importance in shedding light on the com-
plementarity of the physical and ontological dimensions of threat perceptions and
securitization and, as a result, counter-securitization. Understanding the nature of
the relationship between these aspects is crucial for our understanding of the role
of normative justifications and (de)legitimation in securitization theory. As critical
scholars have demonstrated, the justifications for securitization are important when
establishing the authority to do so. The ontological dimension of securitization is
therefore central to legitimizing securitization and for countering it.
The analysis of Palestinian citizenry’s politics, the target population of Israeli
securitization policies, demonstrates how the misalignment between the physical
and ontological dimensions of securitization forms a structural opportunity to fa-
cilitate ontological counter-securitization. It also demonstrates how the perception
of securitization policies by securitized subjects become an avenue of subjectivity.
Israeli policies of securitization of the Palestinian minority have been gradually and
more apparently conceived as rooted in Palestinian identity rather than in its behav-
ior. This recognition has led to a counter-securitization discourse that is rooted in
the asymmetry of power between Palestinians and the Jewish majority. Palestinian
counter-securitization discourse is clearly ontological, emphasizing the necessity to
conceptualize the relationship between physical and ontological securitization in
flexible and dynamic terms.
Furthermore, the analysis of this particular case study demonstrates the im-
portance of Stirtzel and Chang’s contribution to our understanding of counter-
securitization. Their conceptualization has facilitated the development of new
avenues for exploring the analytical and realist meanings and ramifications for
decoupling physical and ontological (counter)securitization. Looking at the Pales-
tinian indigeneity’s politicization shows us that ontological counter-securitization is
an interesting strategy of securitization that enables subaltern groups in asymmetri-
cal conflicts to bypass their categorization as physical threat and still achieve their
goals—namely, to instill anxiety and a lack of coherence in the consciousness of
their securitizing other.
The political behavior of the Palestinian citizens of Israel has revealed the the-
oretical limitations of the widespread coupling of the physical and ontological di-
mensions of securitization. Their decoupling strategy, manifested in their ontolog-
ical counter-securitization, mirrors not only the importance of the justifications
provided for securitization but also the centrality of the context in which the en-
tire process takes place. As Stritzel and Balzacq have argued, the embeddedness
of securitization is a central factor to be taken into consideration when explain-
ing the complexities of securitization theory. The asymmetry of power relations as
the contextual setting in which securitization and counter-securitization take place,
renders the misalignment between the physical and ontological dimensions of se-
curity a structural opportunity for a strategy of resistance. Notwithstanding the
analytical importance of these conclusions, the examination of this case study
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/isr/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/isr/viz057/5678803 by TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY user on 01 April 2020

22 Ontological Counter-securitization
demonstrates that breaking the negative dialectics of securitization and counter-
securitization renders desecuritization as the only way out of their vicious cycle.
This possibility invites transformative recognition as an ethical form of communi-
cation in overcoming the ramifications of fear and anxiety, especially in a setting
characterized by asymmetrical power relations.
Acknowledgment
This research has been supported by The Walter Lebach Institute for Jewish-Arab
Coexistence through Education, Tel Aviv University.
References
ABULOF,URIEL. 2014. “Deep Securitization and Israel’s ‘Demographic Demon.’” International Political
Sociology 8 (4): 396–415.
ADLER,EMMANUEL,AND MICHAEL BARNETT, eds. 1998. Security Communities. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
AHMED,SARA. 2014. The Cultural Politics of Emotions. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
AL-ASMAR,FAW ZI. 1971. Damoniyat. [In Arabic.] Nazareth: No press name.
ALGAZI,GADI. 2011. “The Deep State Talks: The Koenig Report 1976.” Tarabut- Hithabrut
http://www.tarabut.info/he/articles/article/koenig-report-1976/.
AL-HAJ,MAJID. 1995. Education, Empowerment and Control: The Case of Arabs in Israel. Albany: State University
of New York Press.
ALON,YIGAL. 1968. AVeilofSand. [In Hebrew.] Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameokhad.
ARADAU,CALUDIA. 2004. “Security and the Democratic Scene: Desecuritization and Emancipation.” Journal
of International Relations and Development 7 (4): 388–413.
AUSTIN,JOHN. 1971 How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
BALZACQ,THIERRY. 2005. “The Three Faces of Securitization: Political Agency, Audience and Context.”
European Journal of International Relations 11 (2): 171–201.
BARAK,OREN,AND GABRIEL SHEFFER, eds. 2009. Existential Threat and Civil-Security Relations. Lanham, MD:
Lexington Books.
BARNETT,MICHAEL. 1999. “Culture, Strategy and Foreign Policy Change: Israel’s Road to Oslo.” European
Journal of International Relations 5 (1): 5–36.
BASHIR,NABIH. 2016. The Land Day: National and Civic, 2nd ed. Haifa: Mada al-Carmel. [Arabic, the first
edition was published in 2006].
BÄUML,YAIR. 2007. Blue White Shadow. [In Hebrew.] Haifa: Pardes.
BEN ELIEZER,URI. 1998. The Making of Israeli Militarism. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
BEN ISRAEL,YITZCHAK. 2013. Israeli National Security Doctrine. [In Hebrew.] Tel Aviv: Ministry of Defense
Press.
BEN-PORATH,YORAM. 1986. The Israeli Economy: Maturing through Crises. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press.
BENVENISTI,MERON. 2000. Sacred Landscape: The Buried History of the Holy Land since 1948. Berkeley: Univer-
sity of California Press.
BENZIMAN,UZI,AND ATALLAH MANSOUR. 1992. Secondary Tenants: Arabs in Israel, Their Status and the Policy
towards Them. [In Hebrew.] Tel Aviv: Keter.
BHABHA,HOMI, ed. 1990. Nation and Narration. London: Routledge.
BISHARA,AZMI. 1993. “On the Question of the Palestinian Minority in Israel.” Theory and Criticism 3: 7–20.
BLIESEMANN DE GUEVARA,BERIT, ed. 2016. Myth and Narrative in International Politics: Interpretive Approached
to the Study of IR. London: Palgrave-Macmillan.
BUTLER,JUDITH. 1997. Excitable Speech: A Politics of the Performative. London: Routledge.
BUZAN,BARRY,AND OLE WÆVER. 2003. Regions and Power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
BUZAN,BARRY,OLE WÆVER,AND JAAP DE WILDE. 1997. Security: A New Frame for Analysis. Boulder, CO: Lynne
Rienner Publishers.
CAMPBELL,DAVI D. 1992. Writing Security, Rev. ed. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
CHOWERS,EYAL. 2012. The Political Philosophy of Zionism: Trading Jewish Words for a Hebraic Land.NewYork:
Cambridge University Press.
COHEN,HILLEL. 2010. Good Arabs: The Israeli Security Agencies and the Israeli Arabs, 1948–1967. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
COOLEY,JOHN. 1973. Green March, Black September: The Story of Palestinian Arabs. New York: Routledge.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/isr/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/isr/viz057/5678803 by TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY user on 01 April 2020

AMAL JAMAL 23
CROFT,STUART. 2012. “Constructing Ontological Insecurity: The Insecuritization of Britain’s Muslims.”
Contemporary Security Policy 33 (2): 219–35.
DOUGLAS,MARY. 2007. “Forgotten Knowledge.” In Shifting Contexts: Transformations in Anthropological Knowl-
edge, edited by Marilyn Strathern, 13–29. London: Routledge.
EJDUS,FILIP. 2009. “Dangerous Liaisons: Securitization Theory and Schmittian Legacy.” Western Balkans
Security Observer 13: 9–16.
FALAH,GAZI. 1989. “Israeli ‘Judaization’ Policy in the Galilee and Its Impact on Local Arab Urbanization.”
Political Geography Quarterly 8 (3): 229–53.
FARRELL,THEO. 2002. “Constructivist Security Studies: Portrait of a Research Program.” International Stud-
ies Review 4 (1): 49–72.
FENSTER,TOVI. 2004. “Belonging, Memory and the Politics of Planning in Israel.” Social and Cultural Geog-
raphy 5 (3): 403–17.
FLOYD,RITA. 2011. “Can Securitization Theory Be Used in Normative Analysis? Towards a Just Securitiza-
tion Theory.” Security Dialogue 42 (4–5): 427–39.
FLYVBJERG,BENT. 2001. Making Social Science Matter: Why Social Inquir y Fails and How It Can Succeed Again.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
FORMAN,JEREMY,AND ALEXANDER KEDAR. 2004. “From Arab Land to ‘Israel Lands’: The Legal Dispossession
of the Palestinians Displaced by Israel in the Wake of 1948.” Society and Space 22: 809–30.
FRISCH,HILLEL. 2011. Israel’s Security and its Arab Citizens. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
GANS,CHAIM. 2008. A Just Zionism: On the Morality of the Jewish State. New York: Oxford University Press.
GHANEM,HONAIDA. 2009. Reinventing the Nation: Palestinian Intellectual in Israel. [In Hebrew.] Jerusalem:
Magness Press.
GODDARD,STAC IE. 2006. “Uncommon Grounds: Indivisible Territory and the Politics of Legitimacy.” Inter-
national Organization 60: 35–68.
GODDARD,STACI E,AND RONALD KREBS. 2015. “Rhetoric, Legitimization and Grand Strategy.” Security Studies
24 (1): 5–36.
GREENSTEIN,RAN. 2014. Zionism and its Discontents: A Centur y of Radical Dissent in Israel/Palestine.London:
Pluto Press.
HANKIN,YAGIL. 2018. “High Price We Learned: The Israeli Security Perception from the Retaliation
Operation to Protective Edge.” [In Hebrew.] Ben Haktavim 15: 17–42.
HERMANN,TAMAR,ORANABI,ELLA HELLER,AND FADI OMAR. 2018. Democracy Index 2018. Israel: Democracy
Institute. https://en.idi.org.il/media/12170/the-israeli-democracy-index-2018.pdf.
HOFNUNG,MENACHEM. 1996. Democracy, Law and National Security in Israel. Aldershot, UK: Dartmouth.
HOLZMAN-GAZIT,YIFAT. 2007. Land Expropriation in Israel: Law Culture and Society. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
HUYSMANS,JEF. 1998. “Revisiting Copenhagen: Or, On the Creative Development of a Security Studies
Agenda in Europe.” European Journal of International Relations 4 (4): 479–505.
——. 2006. The Politics of Insecurity: Fear Migration and Asylum in the EU. London: Routledge.
——. 2011. “What’s in an Act? On Security Speech Act and Little Security Nothings.” Security Dialogue 42
(4–5): 371–83.
ISRAEL STATE ARCHIVE, AAA Files, file 3551/5, 1–3.
JABAREEN,HASSAN. 2014. “Hobbesian Citizenship: How the Palestinians Became a Minority in Israel.” In
Multiculturalism and Minority Rights in the Arab World, edited by Will Kymlicka and Eva Pfostl, 189–2018.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
JACKSON,PATRICK THADDEUS. 2006. Civilizing the Enemy: German Reconstruction and the Invention of the West.
Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
JAMAL,AMAL. 2011. Arab Minority Nationalism in Israel: Politics of Indigeneity. London: Routledge
——. 2012. “Manufacturing ‘Quiet Arabs’ in Israel: Ethnicity, Media Frames and Soft Power.” Government
and Opposition 48 (2): 245–64.
——. 2016. “Constitutionalizing Sophisticated Racism: Israel’s Proposed Nationality Law.” Journal of Pales-
tine Studies 45 (2): 40–51.
——. 2017. “Is the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Resolvable? Ethical Transformative Recognition and Con-
flict Resolution.” In Recognition as Key for Reconciliation: Israel, Palestine, and Beyond,editedbyYoram
Meital and Paula Rayman, 38–58. Leiden: Brill.
JIRYIS,SABRI. 1976. The Arabs in Israel. New York: Monthly Review Press.
JOHANSSON,ANNA,AND STELLAN VINTHAGEN. 2014. “Dimensions of Everyday Resistance: An Analytical Frame-
work.” Critical Sociology 42 (3): 417–35.
KADMAN,NOGA. 2015. Erased from Space and Consciousness: Israel and the Depopulated Palestinian Villages of
1948. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
KAFKAFI,EYAL. 1998. “Segregation or Integration of the Israeli Arabs: Two Concepts in Mapai.” Journal of
Middle East Studies 30: 354.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/isr/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/isr/viz057/5678803 by TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY user on 01 April 2020

24 Ontological Counter-securitization
KAHWAJI,HABIB. 1972. The Arabs in the Shadow of the Israeli Occupation of 1948. [In Arabic.] Beirut: PLO
Research Center.
KEDAR,ALEXANDER. 2001. “The Legal Transformation of Ethnic Geography: Israeli Law and the Palestinian
Landholder 1948–1967.” New York University Journal of International Law and Politics 33: 923–1000.
KEDAR,ALEXANDER,AHMAD AMARA,AND OREN YIFTACHEL. 2018. Emptied Lands: A Legal Geography of Bedouin
Rights in the Negev. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
KEYDAR,RENANA. 2012. “‘I Was in a War, and in a War Things Like That Happen’: On Judgments and
Ethical Investigations in Israeli Law and Literature.” Jewish Social Studies 18 (3): 212–24.
KIMMERLING,BARUCH. 1993. “Patterns of Militarism in Israel.” European Journal of Sociology 34 (2): 196–223.
KINNVALL,CATARINA,AND JENNIFER MITZEN. 2017. “An Introduction to Special Issue: Ontological Security in
World Politics.” Cooperation and Conflict 52 (1): 3–11.
KLEIN,KERWIN. 2011. From History to Theory. Berkeley: University of California Press.
KORN,ALINA. 2003. “From Refugees to Infiltrators: Constructing Political Crime in Israel in the 1950s.”
International Journal of the Sociology of Law 31: 1–22.
KREBS,RONALD. 2015. Narrative and the Making of US National Security. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
KRETZMER,DAVID . 2002. Occupation of Justice, The: The Supreme Court of Israel and the Occupied Territories.
Albany: State University of New York Press.
LANDAU,JACOB. 1969. The Arabs in Israel—A Political Study. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
LAYISH,AHARON. 1981. The Arabs in Israel: Continuity and Change. [In Hebrew.] Jerusalem: Magnes Press.
LUPOVICI,AMIR. 2012. “Ontological Dissonance, Clashing Identities and Israel’s Unilateral Steps towards
the Palestinians.” Review of International Studies 38, no. 4: 809–38.
LUSTICK,IAN. 1980. Arabs in the Jewish State: Israel’s Control of a National Minority. Austin: University of Texas
Press.
MADAR,REVITAL. 2019. “Do You Know What It Means to be an Arab Passenger: Kafr Qassem Trial as a Case
Study of a Sovereign Failure to Differentiate between Friend and Foe.” In The Conflict—Sociological,
Historical and Geopolitical Aspects, edited by Amal Jamal, 25–48. The Walter Lebach Institute for Jewish-
Arab Coexistence through Education, Tel Aviv University.
MANNA,ADEL. 2011. “The Massacre of Kafr Qassem.” [In Arabic.] In The Palestinians in Israel—Readings
in History, Politics and Society, edited by Nadim N. Rouhana and Areej Sabbagh-Khoury, 87–94. Haifa:
Mada al-Carmel—Arab Center for Applied Social Research.
——. 2016. Nakba and Survival: The Story of the Palestinians Who Remained in Haifa and the Galilee1948–1956.
[In Arabic.] Beirut: Institute for Palestine Studies.
MAR’I,SAMI. 1978. Arab Education in Israel. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.
MERIP REPORT. 1976. “The Koenig Report: Demographic Racism in Israel.” Middle East Research and In-
formation Project, Inc. (MERIP) 51: 11–14.
MEROM,GIL. 1999. “Israel’s National Security and the Myth of Exceptionalism.” Political Science Quarterly
114 (3): 409–32.
MITZEN,JENNIFER. 2006. “Ontological Security in World Politics: State Identity and the Security Dilemma.”
European Journal of International Relations 12 (3): 341–70.
MORRIS,BENNY. 1993. Israel’s Border Wars 1949–1956. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
NASSAR,MAHA. 2017. Brothers Apart: Palestinian Citizens of Israel and the Arab World. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
NESBITT-LARKING,PAUL,AND JAMES MCAULEY. 2017. “Securitization through Re-enchantment: The Strategic
Uses of Myth and Memory.” Postcolonial Studies 23 (3): 317–32.
OLESKER,RONNIE. 2011. “Israel’s Societal Security Dilemma and the Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process.”
Nationalism and Ethnic Politics 17 (4): 1–20.
——. 2014a. “National Identity and Securitization in Israel.” Ethnicities 14 (3): 371–91.
——. 2014b. “Law Making and the Securitization of Jewish Identity in Israel.” Ethnopolitics 13 (2): 105–21.
OR,THEODOR. 2003. The Commission of Inquiry Report. [In Hebrew.] Jerusalem: Ministry of Justice.
ORBACH,DANNY. 2013. “Black Flag at a Crossroads: The Kafr Qaseem Political Trial (1957–58).” Interna-
tional Journal of Middle East Studies 45 (3): 491–511.
OZACKY-LAZAR,SARAH. 2002. “The Military Government as a Mechanism of Controlling Arab Citizens: The
First Decade, 1948–1958.” [In Hebrew.] Ha-Mizrah Ha-Hadash 33: 103–32.
OZACKY-LAZAR,SARAH,AND MUSTAFA KABHA, eds. 2008. Between Vision and Reality: The Vision Papers of the Arabs
in Israel, 2006–2007. [In Hebrew.] Jerusalem: The Citizen’s Accord Forum.
PELED,YOAV. 1992. “Ethnic Democracy and the Legal Construction of Citizenship: Arab Citizen of the
Jewish State.” American Political Science Review 86 (2): 432–43.
RABINOWITZ,DAN. 1993. “Oriental Nostalgia: How the Palestinians Became ‘Israel’s Arabs.’” [In Hebrew.]
Theory and Criticism 4: 141–52.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/isr/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/isr/viz057/5678803 by TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY user on 01 April 2020

AMAL JAMAL 25
RAM,URI. 2016. “Ways of Forgetting: Israel and the Obliterated Memory of the Palestinian Nakba.” [In
Hebrew.] The Public Sphere Journal 10: 9–42.
RAZ,ADAM. 2018. The Kafr Qassem Massacre: A Political Biography. [In Hebrew.] Jerusalem: Carmel.
REITER,YITZHAK. 2009. National Minority, Regional Majority: Palestinian Arabs versus Jews in Israel.Syracuse,
NY: Syracuse University Press.
ROE,PAUL. 2004. “Securitization and Minority Rights: Condition of Desecuritization.” Security Dialogue 35
(3): 279–94.
ROSENTHAL,RUVIK, ed. 2000. Kafr Qassem: History and Myth. [In Hebrew.] Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad.
ROUHANA,NADIM,AND AREEJ SABBAGH-KHOURY. 2015. “Settler-Colonial Citizenship: Conceptualizing the Re-
lationship Between Israel and Its Palestinian Citizens.” Settler Colonial Studies 5 (3): 205–25.
RUMELILI,BAHAR. 2015. “Identity and Desecuritization: The Pitfalls of Conflating Ontological and Physical
Security.” Journal of International Relations and Development 18 (1): 52–74.
SA’DI,AHMAD. 2003a. “The Koening Report and Israeli Policy towards the Palestinian Minority, 1965–1976:
Old Wine in New Bottles.” Arab Studies Quarterly 25 (3): 51–61.
——. 2003b. “The Incorporation of the Palestinian Minority by the Israeli State, 1948–1970.” Social Text
75: 75–94.
——. 2016. “Stifling Surveillance: Israel’s Surveillance and Control of the Palestinians during the Military
Government Era.” Jerusalem Quarterly 68: 36–55.
SAID,EDWARD W. 1978. Orientalism. New York: Pantheon Books.
SAND,SHLOMO. 2009. The Invention of the Jewish People. London: Verso.
SCHIFF,ZEEV,AND ETHAN HABER. 1978. Lexicon of Israeli Security. [In Hebrew.] Tel Aviv: Zmora Bitan Mudan.
SEAWRIGHT,JASON,AND JOHN GERRING. 2008. “Case Selection Techniques in Case Study Research.” Political
Research Quarterly 61 (2): 294–308.
SHUMSKY,DMITRY. 2018. Beyond the Nation-State: The Zionist Political Imagination from Pinsker to Ben-Gurion.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
SMOOHA,SAMMY. 2015. Still Playing by the Rules? Index of Arab-Jewish Relations in Israel in 2013.[InHebrew.]
Jerusalem: The Guttman Center for Public Opinion and Policy Research.
SOREK,TAMIR. 2015. Palestinian Commemoration in Israel: Calendars, Monuments, and Martyrs.Stanford,CA:
Stanford University Press.
STAFFORD,JANE. 2005. “Going Native: How the New Zealand Settler Became Native.” Journal of New Zealand
Literature 23 (1): 162–73.
STENDEL,ORI. 1997. The Arabs in Israel. Brighton, UK: Sussex Academic Press.
STRITZEL,HOLGER. 2007. “Towards a Theory of Securitization: Copenhagen and Beyond.” European Journal
of International Relations 13 (3): 357–83.
STRITZEL,HOLGER,AND SEAN CHANG. 2015. “Securitization and Counter-securitization in Afghanistan.” Se-
curity Dialogue 46 (6): 548–67.
The Haifa Declaration. 2007. Haifa: Mada al-Carmel.
The Black Book of the Forbidden Conference. 1981. Publication of the Struggling Committee for Canceling the Decision
to Forbid the Conference and the Protection of Democracy. Haifa: Al-Ittihad Press.
TOUMA,EMILE. 1982. The Road of the Arab Public to Resistance. [In Arabic.] Haifa: Abi Salma Publishing.
——. 1977. “Palestinian Arabs and Israeli Jews.” Journal of Palestine Studies 1(2):3–8.
TZFADIA,EREZ. 2009. “Settlement in Israel: A View of Militarism.” [In Hebrew.] In Defense Space: A New
Look at the Use of Land Resources for Defense and the Military in Israel, edited by Amiram Oren, 45–59.
Jerusalem: Van Leer Institute.
WILLIAMS,MICHAEL. 2003. “Words, Images, Enemies: Securitization and International Politics.” Interna-
tional Studies Quarterly 47: 511–31.
YACOBI,CHAIM,AND SHELLY COHEN, eds. 2007. Separation: The Politics of Space in Israel. [In Hebrew.] Tel Aviv:
Xargol.
YIFTACHEL,OREN. 2006. Ethnocracy: Land and Identity in Israel/Palestine. Philadelphia: University of Pennsyl-
vania Press.
——. 1999. “‘Ethnocracy’: The Politics of Judaizing Israel/Palestine.” Constellations 6 (3): 364–90.
YU,WANG,AND HILLEL COHEN. 2009. “Marketing Israel to the Arabs: The Rise and Fall of the al-Anba’a
Newspaper.” Israel Affairs 15 (2): 190–210.
ZARAKOL,AYSE. 2010. “Ontological (In)security and State Denial of Historical Crimes: Turkey and Japan.”
International Relations 24 (1): 3–23.
ZUREIK,ELIA. 1979. The Palestinians in Israel: A Study in Internal Colonialism. London: Routledge and Kegan
Paul.
ZUREIK,ELIA,DAV ID LYON,AND YASMEEN ABU-LABAN. 2011. Surveillance and Control in Israel/Palestine: Popula-
tion, Territory and Power, 1st ed. London: Routledge.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/isr/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/isr/viz057/5678803 by TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY user on 01 April 2020