Introduction 

When states’ leaders rely on realist theories in foreign policymaking – prioritizing state defense over citizen welfare – women often bear a disproportionate share of the consequences. I will consider alternative frameworks to realism, such as feminism and constructivism, which shift the focus of security from the state to the individual. These approaches expose the limitations of realist theory in practice, particularly as they apply to the security of women. This phenomenon can be observed in the United States, where realist assumptions about the primacy of national autonomy and defense dominate. I will further explore this dynamic through the case study of Israel’s culture around security. 

 

Definitions of State and Human Security

Security in international relations refers to the absence of, or protection against, threats. In political science, security tends to be thought of as a state’s ability to defend itself (its sovereignty, territory, population, and interests) from foreign and domestic threats. But security also entails a consideration for individuals, communities, and even the global system itself. In this broader understanding of security, threats may entail anything from military attacks to genocide, transnational crime, cultural extinction, supply chain disruptions, muggings, pandemics, and climate change. Thus, the concept of security must include threats from a variety of sources and refer to the status of entities at every level of analysis. 

 

Realism, perhaps the most prominent international relations theory, can be used to explain how the international environment and the behavior of states impact states’ security and the stability of power dynamics between the strongest states in the world. Realist theorists posit that a state’s need for security increases as its power increases.[1] The international system evolved as individuals and communities organized themselves into states in order to obtain security. Later, some of those states conquered other nations and territories and organized their people into states. Realism can be used to describe the insecurity of states – at least, of the “great powers,” the strongest states in the world – which realists argue is the central problem of international relations.[2] This conjecture stems from the assumption that the international system is a zero-sum game of power in an anarchic environment, and it is used to justify the desire of great powers to amass relatively more resources to ensure their security. Thus, this ‘security dilemma’ is believed to be the natural and inevitable state of the world.[3] 

 

The security dilemma is managed through the ‘balance-of-power’. This theory, embedded in realism, emphasizes the importance of relative, rather than absolute power. Classical realist Hans Morgenthau explains how “The relative power of nations depends… upon the quantity and quality of human beings in terms of size and quality of population, size and quality of military establishment, quality of government, and more particularly, of diplomacy.”[4] Morgenthau describes states’ citizens as inputs to a bigger system, wherein their number and utility to the state are of the utmost importance. 

 

Yet, security measures that states take to protect themselves do not always translate into the protection of their citizens. Moreover, the realist focus on the most powerful countries in the world entails overlooking the security outcomes for the preponderance of countries in the world and their citizens. The strongest countries in the world, which are seeking dominance, often create insecurity for weaker states (the majority of states in the world) and their citizens, as well as for their own citizens. One need only look at the outcomes of the two World Wars, the Korean War, the war in Vietnam, the Cold War, and the war in Afghanistan (among others). These historical examples demonstrate that the pursuit of greater relative power by strong states can lead to devastating insecurity for weaker states and their citizens. 

 

Neorealist John Mearsheimer explains that survival is the primary goal of great powers – specifically their territorial integrity and the autonomy of their domestic political order.[5] He highlights the entity of the state, not the individuals who make up that state. Mearsheimer’s reference to survival pertains to the structure and function of the state itself, not the survival of the people inside of it. By addressing state survival in abstract terms, realists, and particularly neorealists, distance the state from its citizens. This allows realists to avoid measuring human outcomes, since this variable is more difficult to theorize. 

 

In contrast to realism, human security is a theoretical concept that places human quality of life at the center of the security discourse. While realists focus on state security and defense, human security is a much broader concept that can be defined as “protecting the vital core of all human lives in ways that enhance human freedoms and human fulfillment.”[6] This entails individuals’ and communities’ freedom from hunger, disease, violence, and access to education, healthcare, and opportunity.[7]

 

While some scholars argue that expanding the definition of security may dilute its meaning, others believe that human-focused issues such as health, poverty, and environmental issues are not only crucial in their own right, but essential components to general state security.[8] Both arguments have merits, even though a broad definition of security may reduce the perceived urgency and significance of traditional security issues. However, a realist approach to security cannot sufficiently address the immediate security needs, unrelated to the balance of power, of citizens, because they are perceived solely as contributors to the state rather than individuals. 

 

While realist security scholars conceive of human security as inseparable from state security (that is, for people to be secure, their state must also be secure), human security scholars believe that the security of the state may not translate into security for its people.  Generally, the best security policies integrate all aspects of security – including the political, military, economic, and humanitarian arenas.[9] However, a realist security lens will always prioritize the security concerns of the state over those of its citizens. Thus, a realist security approach demands that the state – if it is a great power – focus on its relative power compared to other great powers, regardless of a policy’s effect on its citizens’ more immediate security concerns. 

 

Because states exist, in part, to ensure the security of individuals, when they are insecure, their citizens are also insecure. However, because realism emphasizes the relative power between great powers, it does not include the human costs of security actions. Thus, an overreliance on realist assumptions in policymaking leads to security decisions that disproportionately harm not only citizens but also, more specifically, women. The United Nations Inter-Agency Committee on Women and Gender Equality released a report that explained the human security elements with a gendered dimension, that have historically been left out of security agendas. These include: (1) violence against women, (2) gender inequality in control over resources, (3) gender inequality in power and decision making, (4) women’s human rights, and (5) women (and men) as actors, not victims.[10] Gendered dimensions of security tend to be marginalized from human security discourse, which is already a subordinated arena of realist state security. By focusing on individual levels of security at the local level, human security reveals the importance of institutionalized and normalized gender equality.[11] 

 

Tension Between State and Human Security

Due to the limitation of state capacity, pursuits of both types of security require resource trade-offs. Given that state- and human-focused lenses aim to achieve the shared goal of comprehensive security, the government must determine their effectiveness, and therefore value, relative to one another. Depending on the geopolitical context, a financial trade-off might be made in favor of one area of security over another. Because state security tends to be more capital-intensive and is generally perceived to be a prerequisite for human security, it tends to become the “superior” doctrine and benefit from the diversion of resources, while human security is relegated to the “supplemental” doctrine.[12] 

 

The United States is an example of a state that manages time and human resource trade-offs between state and human security policies by delegating responsibilities. Because of the outward-facing nature of state security, policies are often formulated and enacted at the federal level. Meanwhile, state and local governments undertake domestic human security policies and nongovernmental organizations address international human security. Thus, the United States government manages the time and human resources trade-off by distributing the burden of security across multiple actors. 

 

Realist theorists struggle to comprehend the entire security situation of a state because they do not look internally at the status of domestic human security or acknowledge how pursuits of state security can threaten human security abroad. Many states that construct themselves around a security agenda sacrifice human security within their borders. For example, during World War II, the United States scapegoated Japanese American for the bombing of Pearl Harbor.[13] Not only did the extremity of anti-Japanese discrimination and the frequency of hate crimes rise, but the United States government also incarcerated 120,000 innocent Japanese Americans.[14] This anti-Japanese sentiment was particularly harmful for women. In the concentration camps, Japanese American women were subject to sexual violence from both imprisoned men and guards.[15] Also, while Japanese American men enlisted in large numbers into the United States military to demonstrate their commitment to the country, Japanese American women did not have that option and were forced to confront the hate without recourse.[16] Thus, the prioritization of state security can lead to the abuse of domestic human security – exploiting or scapegoating marginalized communities, oppressing women, and eliminating human rights in the name of national security.

 

The realist inclination for great powers to balance against each other not only exacerbates their own sense of insecurity, but also creates an international competitive dynamic that makes the preponderance of states vulnerable. While strong and stable states can protect their citizens from external threats, they can also threaten the human security of foreign populations by inducing insecurity and instability internationally. When the United States feared the spread of Communism and the rise of the Soviet Union during the Cold War, it pursued foreign policies that endangered and harmed international populations in Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Korea, Cuba, Indonesia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Nicaragua, Guatemala, El Salvador, Chile, Angola, and Afghanistan.[17] While the United States engaged in these conflicts in the name of its own state security, it abused the state security of and created massive human security issues in each of these countries.[18] Arguably, the United States also did not improve its own relative state security as a result of these endeavors. 

 

Interestingly, the states most capable of ensuring human security within their borders are strong and stable. Moreover, secure borders and international economic, political, and social prominence have myriad benefits for the safety and well-being of people within that state. But if the pursuit of relative power and a focus on state interests over citizens interest goes too far, a state’s population may well pay the price, as the example of Japanese American during World War II demonstrates, and as will be exemplified through the study of Israel later in this paper. Therefore, governments must decide how to navigate different areas of security policy to both maximize their own human and state security, without exacerbating insecurity around the world through great power competition. 

​

Feminist Interpretation of Security Theories

The feminist lens can be applied to recognize how realism-driven policies can negatively affect human security and has particular implications for women. Fuentes and Aravena discuss how human security perspectives take into account internal security vulnerabilities, such as social violence.[19] Vulnerabilities may be objective, dealing with the exposure to risks, shocks and stress, or subjective, referring to the sense of powerlessness in the face of threats.[20]  In this way, human security policies focus on issues of violence that tend to impact women disproportionately, including domestic violence, femicides, and human trafficking. These vulnerabilities also include exposure to extreme poverty and the burden of being the primary caregiver.[21] The correlations between these two areas of vulnerability reinforce the concept of intersectional and cross-level security threats. 

 

By promoting equal institutions, human security policies address structures of oppression that contribute to general insecurity. For example, by focusing on the development of human and material resources in the workforce, these policies attempt to more comprehensively address economic issues that influence insecurity.[22] Human security policies also draw attention to people's experiences at the local level with community security forces, the intermediary level with the justice system, and at the highest level with anti-discrimination and equality laws. Strengthening civil engagement with these systems increases the order and stability of a state, making states more capable of ensuring their own state security. 

 

Not only does the integration of substantive human security policies into state security agendas significantly address issues faced by vulnerable and oppressed people generally, but particularly issues faced by women. Holzner and Truong explain that “all forms of human (in)security are gendered, even though their manifestations, patterns and degree of intensity may be specific and context dependent,” because the world has been constructed as a patriarchy.[23] For example, by considering the implications of internal social vulnerabilities on greater security, a focus on human security recognizes how violence directed towards women and economic burdens that disproportionately fall on women destabilize entire communities and societies. 

 

A human security lens also acknowledges how structural inequality perpetuates insecurity that disproportionately impacts women. Gender-power dynamics form patriarchal institutions, and negatively impact “collective security” efforts.[24] Unequal institutions also have adverse effects on peace-building and long-term stabilization because issues that impact women tend to go unaddressed. 

 

Human security policies that empower women, address discrimination, and combat inequality are essential aspects of greater security goals because they confront asymmetric gender power dynamics. Especially in communities where inequality is institutionalized and discrimination is normalized, human security policies that focus on the unique experiences of women are necessary to ensure broader state security. Nevertheless, human security goals should include the evolution of institutions at all levels of governance to become more egalitarian. Institutions must be strong and inclusive in order to effectively ensure the security of all members of society, including those who are often marginalized such as women.[25]

 

Lack of Female Representation in Defense Institutions

This observation is particularly relevant when considering that half the population – women – has been historically excluded from traditional security institutions and remains wildly underrepresented in positions of power. According to the report published by the United Nations in October 2024 titled Towards Equal Opportunity for Women in Defence, women’s representation in defense remains low despite marginal improvement.[26] Of the 55 Member States that provided information, over 97% of generals and admirals are men, and women make up between 12 and 16 percent of the personnel in the individual sectors of the military.[27] Women in the armed forces tend to work in logistics, administration, combat support, and medical positions, with less than 10 percent of women (who are permitted) serving in combat roles.[28] 

 

Moreover, women lack representation in government decision making positions. As of October 2024, 29 countries have 30 women serving as Head of State.[29] These states account for less than 15 percent of states worldwide. Additionally, women represent 23.3 percent of Cabinet members heading ministries globally.[30] These ministries are most often related to women and gender equality, family and children affairs, social inclusion and development, social protection and social security, and Indigenous and minority affairs.[31] Thus, women are unlikely to direct institutions related to foreign policy or security. 

 

This data demonstrates how women in every country, from the strongest to the weakest, are affected by the decisions made by predominantly male leaders and carried out by predominantly male security institutions on behalf of the state’s security, regardless of the effects of those decisions on women’s security. 

 

Case Study: Security Policy in Israel

Israel has undertaken a powerful state security policy since its establishment in 1947 because it exists in a continuous state of hostility with its Arab neighbors.[32] The goals of its agenda are to ensure the survival of the state by protecting the territorial integrity and the security of citizens and inhabitants, protect the values and national character of the state as Jewish and democratic, maintain socioeconomic strength, and reinforce standing by seeking peace with neighbors.[33] To achieve these goals, Israel enacts security policies that address both emerging and existential threats through a combination of prevention, deterrence, defense, and offense.[34] The Israeli Military is the primary mode through which the state is able to display power, strength, and legitimacy.[35] In fact, the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) is a highly funded, and massive military with international support from prominent states, such as the United States and Germany.[36] Israel boasts significant land, air, and naval power, in addition to the Iron Dome air defense system, and approximately 90 nuclear warheads.[37] The state currently spends 4.5% of its GDP on the military. This is significantly higher than the global average of 2.3% and the U.S. expenditure of 3.5%.[38] Thus, Israel is extremely focused on its state security and uses hard power to pursue its goal. 

 

Israel’s security agenda has elements of human security considerations, as it highlights the importance of national consensus over security matters, the intention of the state to maintain a feeling of security among the population, and the need to nurture human capital.[39] Moreover, while the doctrine mentions the “Palestinian Issue,” it focuses specifically on how the “territories” interact with each other and the broader region. Therefore, although some human security aspects are mentioned, they are set exclusively in the context of state security issues. This demonstrates the state-centrism of Israeli security policies. 

 

Israel’s massive emphasis on state security inspires a culture of militaristic nationalism in Israel.[40] This pervasive sentiment has implications for gender equality, stereotypes, and inclusion. As explained above, the institutionalization and normalization of gender equality is essential to human security. Therefore, this paper argues that Israel’s state-centered security policy inspires a realist militaristic nationalism that undermines the human security of women. 

 

An illuminating example of the ways that Israel undervalues human security is through the ‘mobilization-marginalization’ phenomenon.’[41] This phenomenon demonstrates how the state recognizes the political importance of women for democratic governance, but prioritizes its security endeavors over universal equality and inclusion.[42] While the state mobilizes women for the war efforts, it marginalizes them from leadership positions, combat assignments, and opinion expression.[43] For example, although women are allowed, in fact required, to be in the military, they are relegated to secondary roles. Women are barred from 14% of positions, including “spearhead” units, assault forces, and elite commandos. This gendered division of labor in Israel’s most powerful institution contributes to the general inequality faced by women within the country.[44] In this way, military-industrial interests supersede civilian interests, which exemplifies how the state places its foreign affairs ahead of its domestic affairs.[45] 

 

Furthermore, women within the military are less likely to be taken seriously. There are reports that female soldiers in the IDF warned the government ahead of the Hamas attack on October 7, 2023.[46] These soldiers claim that their warnings were ignored repeatedly, resulting in Israel’s failure to respond to the Hamas attack that killed 1,200 people, including 20 soldiers who worked at the post that first reported the suspicions.[47] All of the soldiers in the border watch unit who warned about the attack were women.[48] The intelligence failure with respect to the attack on October 7 reflects how the women’s unequal status in Israel has serious implications for state and human security. These implications disproportionately impact women, as they are more often victimized in war through rape, violent crime, poverty, and family burdens.[49] 

 

Within the government, female Israeli legislators are less likely to contribute to national security policy discussions than male legislators.[50] This reflects how even women with institutional power feel unwelcome participating in the security enterprise. There are few women in positions of power within the Israeli government, with less than 20% women in Netanyahu’s cabinet, and 25% in the Knesset.[51] Therefore, the Israeli security enterprise lacks both descriptive and substantive female representation, which reflects how it is incapable of considering the broad scope of its impact. Galia Golan, a veteran Israeli feminist, academic and peace activist, concurs with the idea that the Israeli security enterprise is patriarchal, explaining how it reinforces “the stereotypical role of women as subordinate, subservient and superfluous.”[52] This is evidenced by women’s subordinate positions in the military and their lack of voice on security issues, despite their physical presence in both the military and government, thus reinforcing the unequal status of women within Israel and weakening domestic human security. 

 

Unequal gender divisions in the military and government resulting from the ‘mobilization-marginalization’ around security threats has consequences on general gender dynamics in Israel.[53] One way that men and women differ is in their definition of security, as determined by their experiences throughout the Israel-Arab conflict.[54] Although evidence shows that men and women in Israel share the same opinion on the need to unite around security issues, they do not focus on the same concerns.[55] Women orient security away from territorial concerns and military means, and towards acquiring protection for themselves through the “legitimization of the other.”[56] In many ways, this means that Israeli women do what they must do to ensure the security of themselves and their families in the militaristic, nationalist, and patriarchal system in which they live. Thus, Israeli women are primarily focused on the human security implications of the conflict, while the Israeli government focuses practically exclusively on state security. 

 

This difference in definition aligns with the gendered division of work on the “battle front” and work on the “home front,” as women have been traditionally conditioned to perceive their social and security role relative to the family structure.[57] Thus, women's strategic value of reproduction for the national security agenda is prioritized.[58] This particular emphasis perpetuates the dehumanization of women by devaluing and discouraging their participation in public arenas and reinforcing the idea that women are a vehicle for state policy. 

 

These unequal gender dynamics are further exacerbated for marginalized women in Israeli society, most notably Arab-Israeli women. Herzog argues that the institutionalization of the “security threat,” primarily referring to the threat posed to territory, reproduces “gender inequality in both Jewish and Palestinian Arab communities in Israel.”[59] She emphasizes how gender equality is seen as conflictual with security needs, as their adherence to traditional roles is believed to be necessary for men to continue their role as fighter-defenders of Israel.[60] Arab-Israeli women are especially impacted by the pervasive sense of insecurity because of their vulnerable position within Israeli society due to their fraught history with the state – a reminder that different groups within a state have varying security statuses and experiences.  As a result, Arab-Israeli women are controlled more strictly, enforcing more traditional identities that maintain their historical culture.[61] Herzog argues that the encouragement of traditional gender roles and family patterns is a consequence of the intense security culture because women are seen as more in need of protection.[62] Thus, the state’s focus on territorial security undermines its attention to human security, especially for the populations most vulnerable in Israel such as Arab women.  

 

Conclusion 

In conclusion, realist perceptions of security do not fully encapsulate the ways in which security issues at micro levels impact state security as a whole. Human security should be a critical criterion for evaluating the success of state security, but realist theory struggles to conceptualize the entire scope of this security lens. Gender inequality contributes to underlying human security issues, demonstrating the need for gender equality initiatives to be integrated into security agendas. The lack of focus on human security in Israel perpetuates gender inequality, resulting in state security catastrophes like the attack by Hamas on October 7, 2023. International security could be better ensured if women experienced security themselves and had a role in shaping security policies. 

 

Endnotes

1.  Mearsheimer, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics.

2.  Walt, Realism and Security.

3.  Walt, Realism and Security.

4.   Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations, 231. 

5.  Mearsheimer, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics.

6.  Ogata and Cels, Human Security - Protecting and Empowering the People.

7.  Welch, “The Meaning of ‘Security.’”; Walt, “The Renaissance of Security Studies.”

8.  Walt, “The Renaissance of Security Studies.”

9.  Ogata and Cels, Human Security - Protecting and Empowering the People.

10.  Beth, “Women’s Empowerment in the Context of Human Security.”

11.  Moussa, “Gender Aspects of Human Security.”

12. Rubenstein, “State Security, Human Security, and the Problem of Complementarity.”

13. “Japanese-American Incarceration During World War II.”

14. “Japanese-American Incarceration During World War II.”

15.  “Japanese American Women in the Internment Camps.”

16.  “Japanese American Women in the Internment Camps.”

17.  “Eight ‘Hot Wars’ During the Cold War.”

18.  “Eight ‘Hot Wars’ During the Cold War.”

19.  Fuentes and Rojas Aravena, “Promoting Human Security: Ethical, Normative and Educational Frameworks in Latin America and the Caribbean.”

20.  Moussa, “Gender Aspects of Human Security.”

21.  Moussa, “Gender Aspects of Human Security.”

22.  Moussa, “Gender Aspects of Human Security.”

23.  McKay, “Women, Human Security, and Peace-Building: A Feminist Analysis.”

24.  Moussa, “Gender Aspects of Human Security.”

25.  Moussa, “Gender Aspects of Human Security.”

26.  “Towards Equal Opportunity for Women in Defence Sector” (United Nations), accessed December 2, 2024, https://www.un.org/tr/node/223350.

27.  “Towards Equal Opportunity for Women in Defence Sector” (United Nations), accessed December 2, 2024, https://www.un.org/tr/node/223350.

28.  “Towards Equal Opportunity for Women in Defence Sector” (United Nations), accessed December 2, 2024, https://www.un.org/tr/node/223350.

29.  “Facts and Figures: Women’s Leadership and Political Participation,” UN Women – Headquarters, accessed December 2, 2024, https://www.unwomen.org/en/what-we-do/leadership-and-political-participation/facts-and-figures.

30.  “Facts and Figures: Women’s Leadership and Political Participation,” UN Women – Headquarters, accessed December 2, 2024, https://www.unwomen.org/en/what-we-do/leadership-and-political-participation/facts-and-figures.

31.  “Facts and Figures: Women’s Leadership and Political Participation,” UN Women – Headquarters, accessed December 2, 2024, https://www.unwomen.org/en/what-we-do/leadership-and-political-participation/facts-and-figures.

32.  Møller, “National, Societal and Human Security.”

33.  Dan Meridor and Ron Eldadi, “Israel’s National Security Doctrine: The Report of the Committee on the Formulation of the National Security Doctrine (Meridor Committee), Ten Years Later” (Institute for National Security Studies), accessed December 2, 2024, https://www.inss.org.il/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Memo187_11.pdf.

34.  Dan Meridor and Ron Eldadi, “Israel’s National Security Doctrine: The Report of the Committee on the Formulation of the National Security Doctrine (Meridor Committee), Ten Years Later” (Institute for National Security Studies), accessed December 2, 2024, https://www.inss.org.il/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Memo187_11.pdf.

35.  Dan Meridor and Ron Eldadi, “Israel’s National Security Doctrine: The Report of the Committee on the Formulation of the National Security Doctrine (Meridor Committee), Ten Years Later” (Institute for National Security Studies), accessed December 2, 2024, https://www.inss.org.il/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Memo187_11.pdf.

36.  “How Big Is Israel’s Military and How Much Funding Does It Get from the US?”

37.  “How Big Is Israel’s Military and How Much Funding Does It Get from the US?”; Davenport and Kimball, “Nuclear Weapons: Who Has What at a Glance.”

38.  “Military Expenditure (% of GDP) - United States, Israel.”

39.  Dan Meridor and Ron Eldadi, “Israel’s National Security Doctrine: The Report of the Committee on the Formulation of the National Security Doctrine (Meridor Committee), Ten Years Later” (Institute for National Security Studies), accessed December 2, 2024, https://www.inss.org.il/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Memo187_11.pdf.

40.  Muminov, “Redefining Israeli National Identity: Understanding The Role of Militarism and Settler Colonialism.”

41.  Jacoby, “Gender Relations and National Security in Israel.”

42.  Jacoby, “Gender Relations and National Security in Israel.”

43.  Jacoby, “Gender Relations and National Security in Israel.”

44.  Baruch , “Strategic Assessment.”

45.  Jacoby, “Gender Relations and National Security in Israel.”

46.  Dettmer, “Our Warnings on Hamas Were Ignored, Israel’s Women Border Troops Say.”

47.  Dettmer, “Our Warnings on Hamas Were Ignored, Israel’s Women Border Troops Say.”

48.  “IDF Soldier Says She Warned of Hamas Attack on Oct. 7.”

49.  “IDF Soldier Says She Warned of Hamas Attack on Oct. 7.”

50.  “Gendering Security: The Substantive Representation of Women in the Israeli Parliament - Reut Itzkovitch-Malka, Chen Friedberg, 2018.”

51.  Kenig, “Women’s Representation in Israeli Politics.”

52.  Jacoby, “Gender Relations and National Security in Israel.”

53.  Jacoby, “Gender Relations and National Security in Israel.”

54.  Jacoby, “Gender Relations and National Security in Israel.”

55.  Herzog, “Homefront and Battlefront.”

56.  Jacoby, “Gender Relations and National Security in Israel.”

57.  Herzog, “Homefront and Battlefront.”;  Jacoby, “Gender Relations and National Security in Israel.”

58.  Jacoby, “Gender Relations and National Security in Israel.”

59.  Herzog, “Homefront and Battlefront.”

60.  Herzog, “Homefront and Battlefront.”

61.  Herzog, “Homefront and Battlefront.”

62.  Herzog, “Homefront and Battlefront.”
 

Bibliography

Al Jazeera. “How Big Is Israel’s Military and How Much Funding Does It Get from the US?” Accessed October 23, 2024. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/11/how-big-is-israels-military-and-how-much-funding-does-it-get-from-the-us.

Beth, Woroniuck. “Women’s Empowerment in the Context of Human Security.” OECD/DAC Working Party On Women and Gender Equality. Bangkok, Thailand: UN ACC Inter-Agency Committee, December 1999.

CFR Education from the Council on Foreign Relations. “Eight ‘Hot Wars’ During the Cold War,” May 25, 2023. https://education.cfr.org/learn/reading/eight-hot-wars-during-cold-war.

Dettmer, Jamie. “Our Warnings on Hamas Were Ignored, Israel’s Women Border Troops Say.” POLITICO, November 21, 2023. https://www.politico.eu/article/israel-border-troops-women-hamas-warnings-war-october-7-benjamin-netanyahu/.

Donahue-Ochoa, Thomas J. “The Decline of National Patriarchy and the Rise of Global Male Supremacy.” In Unfreedom for All: How the World’s Injustices Harm You, edited by Thomas J. Donahue, 0. Oxford University Press, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190051686.003.0007.

“Gendering Security: The Substantive Representation of Women in the Israeli Parliament - Reut Itzkovitch-Malka, Chen Friedberg, 2018.” Accessed October 25, 2024. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1350506816684898.

Herzog, Hanna. “Homefront and Battlefront: The Status of Jewish and Palestinian Women in Israel.” Israel Studies 3, no. 1 (1998): 61–84.

Israeli Soldier Says Warning Signs Weren’t Taken Seriously Ahead of Hamas Attack, 2023. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFbRKTzgKwQ.

Jacoby, Tami Amanda. “Gender Relations and National Security in Israel.” In Redefining Security in the Middle East. Erscheinungsort nicht ermittelbar: Manchester University Press, 2002.

“Japanese American Women in the Internment Camps.” Breaking the Chains. Accessed December 3, 2024. https://www.breakingthechainsmag.org/japanese-american-women-in-the-internment-camps/.

Kenig, Ofer. “Women’s Representation in Israeli Politics: Analysis for 2024.” The Israel Democracy Institute, June 2024. https://en.idi.org.il/articles/53275.

Kristensen, Hans M., Matt Korda, Eliana Johns, and Mackenzie Knight. “United States Nuclear Weapons, 2024.” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 80, no. 3 (May 3, 2024): 182–208. https://doi.org/10.1080/00963402.2024.2339170.

Liotta, P.H., and Taylor Owen. “Why Human Security Human Security.” Whitehead Journal of Diplomacy and International Relations 7, no. 2 (2006): 37–54.

McKay, Susan. “Women, Human Security, and Peace-Building: A Feminist Analysis,” Conflict and Human Security: A Search for New Approaches of Peace-building, 2004.

Mearsheimer, John J. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2003.

Meridor, Dan, and Ron Eldadi. “Israel’s National Security Doctrine: The Report of the Committee on the Formulation of the National Security Doctrine (Meridor Committee), Ten Years Later.” Institute for National Security Studies. Accessed December 2, 2024. https://www.inss.org.il/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Memo187_11.pdf.

Møller, Bjørn. “National, Societal and Human Security: Discussion — Case Study of the Israel-Palestine Conflict.” In Security and Environment in the Mediterranean, edited by Hans Günter Brauch, Peter H. Liotta, Antonio Marquina, Paul F. Rogers, and Mohammad El-Sayed Selim, 1:277–88. Hexagon Series on Human and Environmental Security and Peace. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2003. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-55854-2_16.

Morgenthau, Hans. Politics Among Nations. Fifth. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1973.

Moussa. “Gender Aspects of Human Security.” International Social Science Journal, 2008. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1468-2451.2008.00633.x.

National Archives. “Japanese-American Incarceration During World War II,” August 15, 2016. https://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/japanese-relocation.

NBC News. “IDF Soldier Says She Warned of Hamas Attack on Oct. 7.” Accessed October 25, 2024. https://www.nbcnews.com/now/video/idf-soldier-says-she-warned-of-hamas-attack-on-oct-7-221140037909.

Obete, Moses. “The Relationship between Gender and Human Security: Does Human Security Strengthen or Undermine?,” October 4, 2021. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10402659.2021.1953805.

Ogata, Sadako, and Johan Cels. “Human Security—Protecting and Empowering the People.” Global Governance 9, no. 3 (2003): 273–82.

Reardon, Betty A. “Women and Human Security: A Feminist Framework and Critique of the Prevailing Patriarchal Security System.” In Betty A. Reardon: Key Texts in Gender and Peace, edited by Betty A. Reardon and Dale T. Snauwaert, 109–28. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11809-3_8.

Rubenstein, Richard E. “State Security, Human Security, and the Problem of Complementarity.” In Rethinking Security in the Twenty-First Century: A Reader, edited by Edwin Daniel Jacob, 225–43. New York: Palgrave Macmillan US, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-52542-0_16.

Sharvit Baruch, Pnina. “Opening All Combat Positions in the IDF to Women.” INSS. Accessed October 23, 2024. https://www.inss.org.il/strategic_assessment/opening-all-combat-positions-in-the-idf-to-women/.

“Towards Equal Opportunity for Women in Defence Sector.” United Nations. Accessed December 2, 2024. https://www.un.org/tr/node/223350.

UN Women – Headquarters. “Facts and Figures: Women’s Leadership and Political Participation.” Accessed December 2, 2024. https://www.unwomen.org/en/what-we-do/leadership-and-political-participation/facts-and-figures.

Walt, Stephen M. “Realism and Security.” In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Studies, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.013.286.

———. “The Renaissance of Security Studies.” International Studies Quarterly 35, no. 2 (1991): 211–39. https://doi.org/10.2307/2600471.

Welch, David. “The Meaning of ‘Security.’” Accessed October 23, 2024. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/security/meaning-of-security/0A0BD2DA4F3B48418865D00CCF161C97.

“What Are the Trends in Armed Conflicts, and What Do They Mean for U.S. Defense Policy? | RAND.” Accessed October 9, 2024. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1904.html.

World Bank Group. “World Development Indicators.” Accessed October 23, 2024. https://databank.worldbank.org/reports.aspx?source=2&series=MS.MIL.XPND.CD&country=.

Accessed October 23, 2024. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000138940_eng.