1
The Elusive Concept of Security and Its Espression in Israel
Daniel Bar-Tal and Dan Jacobson
Chapter published in D. Bar-Tal, D. Jacobson, & A. Klieman (Eds.)(1998), Concerned
with Security: Learning from the Experience of Israeli Society. Greenwich, CT: JAI.
2
The Elusive Concept of Security and Its Expression in Israel
One of the key concepts of social sciences and particularly of political science is
security. In most of the writings, in the framework of political science, the concept
denotes a situation which provides national and international conditions favorable to
the protection of a nation, a state, and its citizens against existing and potential threats.
Specifically, the situation of security assures a survival of a state, its territorial integrity,
repulsion of a military attack, defense of citizens' life protection of state and citizens'
property, protection of economic welfare and societal stability, and even protection of
societal values (Finkelstein & Finkelstein, 1966; Farnsworth & Gray, 1969; Garnett,
1970; Haftendorn, 1991; Kahan, 1975; Klare & Thomas, 1991; Ney & Lynn-Jones,
1988; Pick & Critchley, 1974; Smoke, 1975, Ullman, 1983). This approach focuses
mainly on the analysis of the numerous conditions which either hamper or increase
security of states and regions.
The present socio-psychological conceptual framework acknowledges the
military, political, economic, and cultural conditions, which play an important role in
creating or deteriorating situations of security. But, at the time it comes to add a
perspective which sheds different light on the issue of security. It suggests that analysis
of security cannot be performed in military, political, societal or economical terms
only, since people as individuals and as society members (leaders and lay citizens) are
the ones who evaluate the international and national conditions and they experience
security, or insecurity. According to this perspective, experience of security, or
insecurity, is a psychological (cognitive-emotional) reaction and as such it is
3
inseparable from individual's perception and information processing and related to all
the factors which influence these processes.
The chapter thus will first describe the often used political approach to the study
of security, then it will elaborate the socio-psychological view, which takes a somewhat
different perspective to the study of security. In the third part, the chapter will present
the security problem of the state of Israel and finally the last part will outline the
rationale of the book and its structure, describing the particular chapters.
Political Approach to Security
The study of security, as developed since World War II, reflects a preoccupation
with a problem and not a discipline (Nye & Lynn-Jones, 1988). In terms of the
particular security concerns, most academic debates since World War II were directed
towards possible confrontation between, what was called, West and East. The West
consisted of United States, Canada and Western Europe and the East consisted of the
Communist states, including Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, China, North Korea and
North Vietnam. This was the core problem of the world because it involved not only
two superpowers, which competed for influence all over the world and engaged in
different violent conflicts, but also it actualized possible nuclear war too. The two
superpowers were caught in a "security dilemma" in which conflictive and cooperative
considerations were interwoven. Since they had to rely on their forces only, they had to
provide security through policies that heavily emphasized military strength and military
deterrence. Their "security" resided in their ability to inflict awesome damage on each
other in a surprise attack, as well as in retaliation for such attack. Each opponent
4
equipped himself with an assured retaliatory capability, though in modern nuclear war
there is no assurance of survival since such a war can inflict utter destruction for the
participating sides (e.g., Frei, 1983; Halperin, 1961; Kahn, 1961; Russett, 1983;
Smoke, 1975). Thus the study of security problems emerged as a response to real
needs, in a situation of a conflict, which threatened the peace in the world. In such
climate of international conflict, political scientists were the first one to analyze the
security problems and until today the political approach dominates this field of study.
At first, the preoccupation of political scientists, who studied security, centered
on the military and international conditions of security, such as conventional military
power, technology, nuclear capability, military alliances, and foreign policy, neglecting
its economic, societal, cultural and psychological aspects. Most of the efforts were
directed to elaborate the strategic choices between alternatives of various types of
deterrence and arms control, since it became clear that national security can be sought
in two ways -- through increase of power, deterrence, or even violence or through
negotiation, international agreements, cooperation, and formation of international
safeguards to prevent violence (Brennan, 1961; Burrows & Irwin, 1972; Garnett, 1970;
Henkin, 1960; Herz, 1959; Hunter, 1972; Huntington, 1961; Kaplan, 1973; Kaufmann,
1956; Kissinger, 1957; Schelling, 1960; Snyder, 1961; Weston, 1984). With time,
additional factors appeared in the study of security problems. Political scientists
realized that security is not dependent on military and political conditions only and
began to consider other factors, which play also important role in guaranteeing
personal, national and regional security. First, economic aspects were added and later
the analyses included societal, cultural and even demographic and environmental
factors, (e.g., Allison & Treverton, 1992; Berkowitz, 1986; Buzan, 1991; Dalby, 1992;
5
Klare & Thomas, 1991; Michta, 1992; Stern, 1995; Thomas, 1987; Tuchman-Mathews,
1989; Ullman, 1983). These views extended the definition of security as referring to
coping with different types of threats and turned it into a major concept of social
sciences. Today the study of security encompasses many of the areas of domestic
politics and international relations. It is of such wide scope that it includes issues such
as causes of war, international conflicts, nuclear threats, arms races, development of
weapons, hunger, economical growth, alliances, proliferation, military organization,
diplomacy, environmental threats, population growth, and so on. In essence security,
as the basic concept of human life touches on many issues that are at focus in social
sciences.
According to the political approach, security is an essential precondition of an
ordered existence for an individual and a societal system. Individuals and collectives
must have a secure environment which allows them to pursue their goals without being
subjected to threats. In contemporary times, in most cases, it is the role of the state to
provide security to its citizens, both, on internal and external levels. On the first
domestic level, the state has to create economic, societal, cultural, environmental, and
educational conditions which assure a secure life to its citizens. On the second
international level, the state has to defend the citizens against possible harm from
external forces. The harm does not have to include only loss of life, property or
territory, but refers even to threats of core values cherished by individuals and
collectives (Buzan, 1991). In order to carry this function, the state has to make
provisions for such a contingency and to maximize its position in relation to that of
potential aggressors.
6
It is assumed that the external threat is a function of the capability and intention
of the aggressor in relation to the state capability and its power potential (Birnbaum,
1987; Cohen, 1979; Smoke, 1975). The definition of capability is not simple since it
includes tangible and nontangible factors. While it is relatively easy to assess tangible
factors such as a number and quality of population, area, military power, or economic
power, it is difficult to evaluate nontangible factors such as cohesiveness, morale,
political tradition or patriotism. Nevertheless, these evaluations serve as a basis for
setting strategies and policies of national security.
In democratic societies where the governments are elected it is difficult to sell
policies for external security, which require vast spending, since the citizens are
preoccupied with different aspects of internal security -- they are concerned with the
economic security of being employed, having proper wages, instituting welfare nets;
they worry about level of crime to assure personal safety; think about health insurances;
are concerned with pollution; and oppose limitations of speech freedom. In general, it
is possible to suggest that internal and external security interact continuously.
Governments, which rule unstable and internally insecure societies, have difficulty to
guarantee external security and also in times of external insecurity, it is very difficult to
develop secure and stable societies. Without external security, governments cannot
succeed in creating satisfied and stable society. On the other hand, excessive
preoccupation with external security covers internal stresses and conflicts, which can
be damaging in the long term to the political, social, and economic fabric of the state.
In situations of acute crisis, when an attack my seem to be imminent, the
importance of external security becomes self-evident. But such moments are
fortunately rare, and in situations, which are not seen to be immediately critical,
7
emerges a debate about ways and conditions to maintain securities of different kinds.
Such debates are not surprising in view of the this fact that security concerns are at the
basis of all nation-states and the achievement of security whether territorial, economic,
environmental or ideological is the vital interest of all the nations. As their primary
goals, the states, thus, make an effort to provide defense, peaceful life, protection,
welfare, stability, prosperity, and well-being, to their citizens. These concerns are
continuous since each nation faces conditions, which at least, to a minimal extent can
hamper its security, especially if it is defined widely to include also economic, societal
and cultural well-being. Also, the world changes all the time, arising new opportunities
and new threats. It is therefore imperative constantly to consider these changes and
evaluate how they affect security of the people, nation, state and the world.
The common denominator to the studies of security using the political approach
is the underlying assumption that security is an objective and well-defined concept. In
dealing with questions such as what are the causes of insecurity, what are the ways of
maintaining security, or what are the conditions and factors that influence security, the
students of security assume that people have common understanding of what security
and insecurity are, that people similarly experience security and insecurity in the same
situations and that people react similarly to the conditions which influence security.
Therefore, the literature mostly preoccupies itself with strategic and tactical analyses,
separately from what people actually experience. Socio-psychological approach to
security, which is presented in the next part, takes into consideration the subjective
thoughts and feelings of people. It suggests to include in the security concept the
beliefs, attitudes, and affects of those people who are the focus of security concerns.
8
Socio-psychological Approach
The socio-psychological conceptual framework of security does not come to
replace the political conceptions. It intends to provide an additional outlook, which
relies on different theories and suggests different premises. In distinction from
political-societal concepts such as democracy, stratification, or socialism, which
describe with well-defined criteria, political societal and economic structures, processes
and values, independently of human beings, security (or insecurity), as a sociopsychological concept, has meaning only within the context of human reactions.
As a concept, it belongs to those psychological-hypothetical constructs, which
reside in human mind, as other beliefs and feelings are. It implies that people as
individuals and/or as group members (e.g., members of ethnic groups, nations)
experience security, or insecurity, with regard to own personal life and/or with regard to
their collective entity and its systems. Security, thus, is a psychological experience,
which in most of the cases can be assessed by inquiring the people, who feel security,
or insecurity. Therefore, security, or insecurity, cannot be observed by social scientists
objectively through their judgment, but assessed by asking the evaluation of the
individuals or group members, whose security they intend to evaluate. Their judgment
reflects their own opinion, which is unique and often different from the evaluation of
other people, in different places or situations. It is thus important to posit that any
study of security has to take into account that it is possible to calculate military might,
9
to tap the expressed intentions of leaders, or to observe war acts, but we cannot see
insecurity, except when people report it.
The concept security, or insecurity, denotes a belief and a feeling, which are
part of human repertoire. A belief is defined as a proposition to which a person
attributes at least a minimal degree of confidence (Bar-Tal, 1990; Bem, 1970; Fishbein
& Ajzen, 1975; Kruglanski, 1989). A proposition is a statement about an object(s) or
relation between objects and/or attributes. A minimal degree of confidence refers to
the likelihood of the proposition to be true from the person's perspective. Beliefs may
arouse affective reactions in the form of feelings (Arnold, 1960; Fiske, 1981;
Leventhal, 1984). 'Security' then is one category of beliefs covering different contents.
These beliefs, concerning basic human needs of safety (Maslow, 1970), are
accompanied often by feelings of unpleasantness, anger, or frustration in the case of
insecurity and feelings of pleasantness, satisfaction, or calmness in the case of security.
Specifically, security, or rather insecurity, is defined as an appraisal of a perceived
danger in the environment to which a person perceives threat (Jacobson, 1991). In
essence, two beliefs constitute the set of beliefs about insecurity. One refers to the
appraisal of an event(s), condition(s), or situation(s) as an indicator of threat or danger
(primary appraisal) and the other refers to an evaluation of available defenses and the
ability to cope with the perceived threat or danger ('secondary appraisal'). Accordingly,
people form beliefs about being secure when they do not perceive threats or dangers, or
even when they perceive threats or dangers, which they believe to be able to overcome.
In contrast, people form beliefs about being insecure when they detect dangers or
threats and see difficulty in coping with them (Lazarus, 1991; Smith & Lazarus, 1993).
10
In reality, beliefs about security or insecurity are not dichotomous, but vary on the
range of which high level of insecurity and high level of security are the extreme poles.
As noted, the contents of beliefs regarding security are of wide scope. First of
all, the objects of security (i.e., regarding with whom or what one feels insecurity).
They can be the person himself/herself, the family the neighborhood, the ethnic or
religious group, the nation and state, or even the geopolitical region in the world and
the entire world. With regard to each of the objects, individuals may have beliefs
regarding the level of experienced security. In addition to the level of experienced
security with regard to various objects, the category of security beliefs includes a
variety of other contents pertaining to conditions which can either weaken or strengthen
security, consequences of security or insecurity, and so on. In the study of these
contents, psychologists have focused on the study of personal security beliefs, while
political scientists have devoted their efforts to investigate issues of national,
international regional and world security.
Taking the presented socio-psychological perspective to the study of security
issues of nations, we do not claim that conditions, situations, or events of geopolitical
or military nature are less important. We do suggest that they provide important
information about threats or dangers. But we also propose that this information has to
be perceived and evaluated in order to serve as an input to the formation of security
beliefs. The perception and evaluation of security, or insecurity situations, or their
conditions, are psychological processes and as such they are subject to individual and
group differences (Bar-Tal, 1991). On an individual level, members of the same group,
a nation, for example, differ with regard to their beliefs of security. That is, different
nation members in the same situation feel different levels of security or insecurity, and
11
also the same nation members may feel differently in a similar situation, at different
points of time. The described individual differences in experiencing security or
insecurity originate because individuals differ in their experiences, ability to perceive,
in their perceptual selectivity, in their information processing in their motivation and
knowledge, which influence the interrelation of the perceived information, and in their
coping ability (Bar-Tal, Y., Kishon-Rabin, & Tabak, in press; Epstein, 1994; Fiske &
Taylor, 1991; Kruglanski, 1989; Lazarus, Delongis, & Folman, 1985; Nisbett & Ross,
1980). These differences imply that individuals differently appraise the extent to which
situations may indicate dangers and threats and differently assess their own and their
group ability to cope with the (see Bar-Tal, Jacobson, & Freund, 1995; Jacobson &
Bar-Tal, 1995).
The individual differences appear especially in ambiguous and
equivocal situations, which in reality constitute a majority of cases. Only few cases
constitute categorical situations, which imply doubtless dangers and clear difficulties of
coping with them. Those can be, for example, situations of military attacks or of
openly stated repeated threats. However, in the majority of cases, the information is
indefinite and vague, and therefore can be evaluated in different ways.
Beliefs about security do not characterize individuals only, but also groups,
societies and nations (Bar-Tal, 1990). It is so because individuals, who hold beliefs
about security, often share them with other society members and are aware of this
sharing. There is a crucial difference between the cases when a belief is held by few
society members, or even by many of them, when they are not aware of sharing this
belief and hold it as personal belief, and cases when the belief is shared by all the
society members or a portion of them who are aware of sharing it. The awareness of
sharing beliefs, such as beliefs about security, turns sharing into powerful
12
psychological mechanism which has important effects on a society. Shared beliefs may
influence the sense of solidarity and unity that society members experience, the
intensity and involvement of society members with these beliefs, the nature of social
reality they construct, the pressure they exert on leaders, and eventually may affect the
policy and the course of actions taken by the leaders. In some cases shared beliefs by
society members may become societal beliefs, indicating that they are considered as
characterizing the society. Societal beliefs, as durable and central in public repertoire,
constitute societal knowledge accumulated by society members (Bar-Tal, in press).
In this vein, beliefs about security in a society plagued by permanent threat may
become societal beliefs, providing the particular characteristic to the society being the
focus of continuous public debate and serving as a major determinant of societal action
(Bar-Tal, in press). In this case, beliefs about security contribute to the sense of
uniqueness and social identity of society members, and feelings of differentiation from
other nations. They become their lenses through which society members look at their
world. Security beliefs, as societal beliefs, are not only stored in society members'
cognitive repertoire, but are also bound to appear in a variety of societal products such
as books, films; they are expressed through societal communication such as
newspapers, television or radio and are presented in societal institutions such as
schools. They appear often on the societal agenda and in public debates, since they are
related to many of the current issues which the society faces.
As a result, in the same way as individuals differ in their security beliefs, so are
societal differences. Societies differ in their beliefs about security (e.g., level of sensed
security, conditions influencing security), not only because of differences in
experiences, (which may even be similar), but also because of a number of societal
13
factors such as the climate formed by leaders, information provided by mass media, or
interpretations given by the military. Some of these factors will now be further
elaborated.
A number of societal factors play an important role in the formation and
maintenance of shared security beliefs by members of a particular group, a nation. The
most important ones are external sources, collective memory, and political ideology.
External sources. Society members rely on the information provided by
external sources in their formation of beliefs about security, since in most of the cases
the great majority of them are not directly involved in situations of relevance to security
and do not have a direct access to information about it. In most of the cases, they
receive the information through mass media, which reports events, provides messages
of the leaders and offers commentaries. This information however is mediated
selectively, since the channels of communication select its content, type, and length.
The influence of external sources is powerful, especially in view of the fact that
much of the information is ambiguous and therefore the sources not only describe the
events or conditions, but also explain their meaning. Among the external sources,
leaders play important role. Of special importance are political and military leaders,
who have the power of knowledge, in the capacity of their roles, to indicate to society
members the threats and dangers that they encounter, or may encounter, and to point
out as to the society's ability to cope with them. They usually have more information
for the evaluation of the situation, but they too make the inferences subjectively and
therefore it is not surprising that leaders may differ in their evaluations, although they
have the same information. Moreover, leaders have vested interests in particular
political positions in which often security play an important role, and therefore often
14
they perceive it and present it n accordance to their view, in order to persuade the
public to accept their position.
Some of the external sources serve as epistemic authorities for society
members. Epistemic authority is a source of information that exerts a determinative
influence on the formation of individuals' knowledge (Bar-Tal, in press; Kruglanski,
1989; Raviv, Bar-Tal, Raviv & Abin, 1993). Society members have high confidence in
the information provided by epistemic authorities, accept it as true and factual,
assimilate into their own repertoire, and rely on it. Certain political, military or
religious teachers, particular newsmen or commentators, who are viewed as epistemic
authorities, shape the beliefs about security of society members (Bar-Tal, Raviv, &
Freund, 1994; Bar-Tal, Raviv, & Raviv, 1991).
Collective memory. Beliefs about security are also greatly influenced by the
past experiences of the nation, as remembered in the collective memory. Collective
memory is stored knowledge by society, about its important past experiences. It may
affect the society to disregard particular information, on the one hand, and it may tune
the society to attend particular other information, on the other hand, and subsequently
to evaluate this absorbed information in certain way. For example, collective memories
of past traumas, involving war, genocide, or occupation may sensitize society members
to look for information that indicates possible threat and danger. Such sensitization
serves a function of allowing detection of possible danger situation in order to prevent
it.
Society makes special effort to transmit collective memory, including various
beliefs related to security, to its members, since collective memory plays an important
role in its life. It is one of the elements which cement the identity of the society or
15
nation. School books, ceremonies, national holidays, commemorations, statues, films,
poems, history lesson, are only few examples of the ways collective memories are
imparted to society members and maintained by them. Every society member
internalizes at least the most significant parts of the collective memory, which become
meaningful basis for absorbing, understanding and organizing new information.
Ideology and attitudes. Of similar influence may be the shared political
ideology or shared political attitudes that society members hold. When political
attitudes are central in an individual's repertoire and especially when they constitute a
coherent and holistic system, as an ideology, they exert special influence on the way
society members view their world. They affect what information will receive attention
and how it will be encoded and organized in the mind. Subsequently, they function as
interpretive framework and thereby influence evaluations, judgments, predictions and
inferences (Fiske & Taylor, 1991; Iyengar & Ottati, 1994; Jervis, 1976; Markus &
Zajonc, 1985; Minar, 1961; Vertzberger, 1991). Beliefs about security may be part of a
individual's ideology or serve as a core of a person's political attitudes. In this case,
society members, who hold the particular ideology or political attitudes, may process
information regarding security to validate their ideology or political attitudes. In other
words, they selectively absorb knowledge by rejecting inconsistent information
regarding security matters and accepting consistent one in order to maintain their
ideology or political attitudes. Since in any particular society, society members differ
in their political attitudes, this difference may be one factor that causes to differences of
beliefs about security. Indeed, society members may disagree with regard to beliefs
about security. They may differ with regard to their evaluation of potential threat and
16
the ability to cope with it, as well as with regard to conditions which may avert the
danger and strengthen security.
As other dominant beliefs, security beliefs have the emotive power that political
interest groups can easily use in the struggle for dominance and control. This is the
case in Israel where the political groups, while united in their view of security as sui
generis, use it also as a password to differentiate themselves, build intra-group
solidarity gain legitimacy, accumulate political influence and realize own visions. The
next part elaborates on the particular problem of security in Israel.
Security in Israel
The question how to secure the personal life of Jews and the existence of the
Jewish collective in Israel has been the fundamental problem that has preoccupied for
over a century every Israeli Jew and all the Jewish authorities of this collective (Arian,
1995; Horowitz, 1984; 1993; Inbar, 1991; Lanir, 1985; Tal, 1996; Yaniv, 1993a). This
challenge has become the single most critical factor that has shaped the personal and
societal life in Israel and has had a determinative effect on the possible resolution of the
Israei-Arab conflict in the Middle East (Bar-Tal, 1996; Horowitz, 1975; Klieman,
1991; Levite, 1990; Lissak, 1984; Peri, 1983). This concern by Israel, even in the very
midst of negotiating a coveted Middle East peace, is hardly surprising in view of the
long-standing pattern of threats and violence characterizing its dominant relationship of
enmity vis-á-vis the neighboring Arab countries and with the Palestinian people. The
continuous violent conflict turned the Israeli society into "a nation in arms' or "a nation
in uniform" which has lives in a situation that has been called a "dormant war" (Yaniv,
17
1993b). As a result, security which symbolizes the existence of the State of Israel as
well as personal safety, has become a key concept in Hebrew vocabulary (Liebman &
Don-Yehiya, 1983).
Through the years security has been used continuously as an important
justification and explanation for many governmental decisions, even if they do not have
direct implications for security; it became a rationale for initiating actions and
responding with reactions in military, political, societal and even educational and
cultural domains, it became an excuse for undemocratic, immoral, or even illegal
practices done by the Israelis, and it has been used to mobilize human and material
resources. Security has also been used as the most important objectives in the
negotiations with Arabs, since this is the only legitimate consideration accepted by the
international community and by the great majority of the Israeli Jews. Such central and
intensive preoccupation with security turned it, as some social scientist, suggested into
religion, whose beliefs dominate the Israeli ethos.
The special concerns with security are not new ones. Since the first wave of
Jewish immigration to Palestine, at the end of the previous century, as a result of the
risen Jewish national movement called Zionism, until today the issue of security has
dominated the public agenda. From the point of view of the majority of the Israeli Jews,
the events of the last 100 years provide unequivocal evidence to the dangers threatening
the personal and collective security.
As registered in the collective memory, already
the first Zionist Jews, who arrived to Palestine at the end of the 19t and the beginning
of the 20th century, faced insecurity because of extremely severe conditions as the
hostile attitudes of the Ottoman administration, harsh life situation, and adverse Arab
population. During the British rule (1918-1948), the Jewish national revival was
18
strongly opposed by Arabs. Their resentment erupted in occasional periods of intense
violence (1920, 1921, 1929, 1936-1939), when Jewish transportation was harassed,
fields and forests were set on fire, and unprovoked attacks were launched against the
Jews. The continuing large-scale Arab anti-Jewish riots led Britain to issue in 1939 a
White Paper imposing drastic restrictions on Jewish immigration, despite the clear
signs of Nazi persecutions, which aimed later to carry a systematic liquidation of the
Jewish community and Europe. This genocide called Holocaust which resulted in the
murder of 6 million Jews, has stamped the life of the Jewish community everywhere in
the world, and especially the life of Jews in Israel, who used the experience as an
important lesson of how to assure their security in the future.
With the establishment of the State of Israel on May 14, 1948, a War of
Independence broke out with the attack of the regular armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria,
Lebanon and Iraq on the new state. Although armistice agreements were signed in
1949, the full blown intractable conflict between Israel and Arab states persisted. Arab
states continued to regard themselves as at war with Israel, refusing to recognize it or to
negotiate a peaceful settlement. They vowed to destroy the State of Israel and expel the
Jewish population to the sea. The Arab League established a ramified boycott
organization to dissuade businessmen in other countries from trading with Israel or
investing in its economy.
Until 1967, Israel and Egypt fought a full scale war in 1956, following
numerous invasions into Israel of terrorist squads (fidayuns) from neighboring Arab
countries for murder and sabotage and Egyptian military built up which threatened
Israel. In the sixties, the persistent Syrian artillery bombardment of agriculture
settlements jeopardized the secure life in the north of Israel. The Six Day War in
19
1967, which broke out because of blockade of the entrance to the Israeli post Eilat by
Egyptians and their massive military concentration along the border, ended with the
occupation of the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Sinai Peninsula and Golan Heights.
However, it did not end the security problems of Israel. Not only military clashes with
Egypt continued in the War of Attrition, but also the Palestinians began acts of terror to
undermine the normal life of those living in Israel and elsewhere in the world. The
Arab position as formulated at the Khartoum Summit (August 1967) called for "no
peace with Israel, no negotiation with Israel and no recognition of Israel". In 1973
(October 6) Egypt and Syria launched a coordinated surprise assault against Israel
which lead to war (very costly for Israel) that ended formally only in 1975 when the
sides signed disengagement agreements.
The unanimous rejection of Israel by the Arab states ended in November 1977
when the Egyptian President Anwar Sadat came to Jerusalem and began peace
negotiations with Israel. This visit and signing the peace treaty with Egypt in 1979
signaled the beginning of peace process which embarked on a rocky road and still
continues until today.
During the late seventies and early eighties, the Palestinian Liberation
Organization (PLO), whose policy stated in the Palestinian National Covenant asserted
that "armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine", was the main initiator of
violence against Israel. It mounted terrorist attacks inside Israel and especially in the
northern region, Galilee, from its bases in Lebanon. Israeli army entered Lebanon in
1982 trying to expel the PLO forces redeployed in southern Lebanon, and it ended its
advance with the conquer of Beirut. Eventually, after involvement in the Lebanese civil
war and bloody resistance to Israeli occupation, the Israeli forces left Lebanon in 1985,
20
but Israel has maintained a small security zone in southern Lebanon to safeguard its
population in northern country against continued atadt by hostile forces which continue
until today. In 1987 a Palestinian uprising (Intifada) broke out in the West Bank and
Gaza Strip which brought widespread violence in these areas, threatening the security
of the Jewish settlers living in these areas.
In 1991 the Gulf War broke out and Iraq reacted by launching scud missiles on
Israel and Saudi Arabia. Thirty-nine missiles were launched against Israel, most of
them falling in the densely populated area of Tel Aviv. It was the first time in Israel's
history that its entire civilian population came under threat of a chemical missile attack.
The victory over Iraq by the coalition in which Arab countries participated lead to the
convening of the Madrid Peace Conference (October 1991), held under American and
Soviet auspices which brought together the representatives of Israel, Syria, Lebanon,
Jordan and the Palestinians. Although the Madrid Conference ignited bilateral
negotiations between the parties and multilateral talks addressing regional concerns, no
real progress took place. But, in 1992 a new government was elected in Israel, lead by
the Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, which renewed the attempts to reach agreements
with the Palestinians and Arab states. Following months of intensive behind-thescenes negotiations Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) signed a
Declaration of Principles (DOP) in 1993, known as Oslo agreement. It outlined selfgovernment arrangements for the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
Following the Oslo Agreement, Jordan signed peace treaty with Israel in October 1994,
several Arab North African and Gulf states established formal relations with Israel,
Syria began serious negotiations with Israel and in September 1995 the Interim IsraeliPalestinian Agreement was signed. Nevertheless, Israel suffered from a series of mass
21
terrorist attacks which shook the sense of security of the Israeli population and
increased doubts about the peace process. The assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak
Rabin on November 1995 by a Jewish extremist brought the tension in the Israeli
society to its peak. The new wave of terrorism in the spring of 1996 and the attacks of
Hezballah on the northern part of Israel, raised the issue of security to the primary
focus. Benjamin Netanyahu, the leader of Likud party, won narrowly the elections of
May 1996 by promising to strengthen the security of Israel and continue the peace
process. However, his ascendance to power neither improved the security conditions
nor advanced the peace process. Netanyahu's hawkish policy has forestalled the peace
negotiations with Syrians and Palestinians, and alienated Arab leaders. At the same
time, terrorist attacks continued and Netanyahu set the achievement of security as a
main objective, which comes before the negotiations for peaceful settlement of the
conflict with the Palestinians and Syrians.
In view of the reviewed collective memory, Israelis are conditioned to believe
that there is a genuine, tangible, immediate and existential threat both, to the collective
security of Israel as a state, and to them as individual citizens of that state. Having
Iraqi "Scud" missiles rain down upon them as they sat all but helpless in sealed rooms
at home during the 1991 Gulf War, plus the wave of suicidal terrorist bombings in the
very center of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv in 1996 and 1997, serve as fairly recent and
quite vivid reminders of insecurity and the toll it continues to extract -- physical and
psychological costs. However, although the Israelis agree that Israel is plagued by
problems of insecurity, they are greatly polarized, mainly with regard to the conditions
which may warrant security. While a part of the Israeli public believes that a
prerequisite for security is peace, to be achieved through partial or full withdrawal from
22
the occupied territories in 1967, another part believes that only by holding on to most
of the territories can security be guaranteed (Arian, 1995; Bar-Tal, 1991; Barzilai,
1996; Stone, 1982).
In spite of the polarization of the Israeli society, "security" remains a dominant,
even pervasive symbol in the Israeli ethos connoting personal safety and well-being no
less than state survival (Bar-Tal, 1996). Indeed, as Israel nears the first half-century of
Jewish political independence, it is still existential security that stands out as the
foremost determinant reaching into and influencing virtually every conceivable sphere
of life. Consequently, any attempt at comprehending Israeli affairs -- from individual
perceptions, social networks, public policy and voting behavior to national security
doctrine and foreign relations -- of necessity must begin with: (a) an awareness, (b) an
appreciation, (c) an understanding and (d) critical analysis of this all-important basic
variable. In Israel, the security considerations played determinative role in such
decisions as dividing the budget, planning to build new towns and villages, developing
industry, setting election platforms, planning employment policy, legislating laws,
planning school curricula, using censorship on information and so on (Ben-Eliezer,
1995; Ben-Meir, 1987; Horowitz & Lissak, 1989; Klieman, 1985, 1990; Yaniv, 1993).
Five decades after the state's establishment, the unfulfilled goal of achieving
reasonable assured levels of perceived security still provides the main focus of public
political debate and is at the top of the national agenda. Pursuit of security plays a
decisive role, for example, as the bedrock precondition for reaching a comprehensive
Middle East peace agreement with the Arabs. Official Israeli policy insists that any
territorial compromises on its part must be conditional upon reliable Arab pledges
concerning the future security of Israel and its people, and even holding part of the
23
territories is a necessary condition to guarantee security of the state. Peace and security
are tied inseparably in different schemes, depending on the ideology and political
beliefs of the group. It became the sole criterion for the judgment of the success of the
peace process by the Israeli public and therefore the leaders fit and bend its use ,
according to their political view.
Is it any wonder, therefore, that the average citizen expresses deep concern
about daily insecurity? That the professional opinion of experts in the military and
intelligence services or in the police and in anti-terrorist units are so highly respected as
to be often endorsed unquestioningly? That party leaders and political candidates
compete with each other over their career record in contribution to national security?
Or that political manifestoes use the term "security" as a convenient password to
distinguish one party or faction from another when seeking to convince an anxious and
expectant public just which of them offers the best solution to the insecurity dilemma,
while insisting their opponents would only expose Israel to even greater dangers and
possible disaster? Television and the news media further encourage this preoccupation
by devoting inordinate space and time to evaluating day-in-and-day-out the current
state of security.
In short, specific context of Israel the general theme of security-insecurity is
easily and routinely employed to mobilize a degree of effort and commitment, which
acadmic observers in other countries and cultural contexts from a safe distance, might
consider excessive, unwarranted and unhealthy.
Most of the debates about security carried out in Israel were from the political
perspective, discussing strategical and tactical policies to cope with potential and actual
threats to the State of Israel and its citizens, in view of the dangers posed by perceived
24
intentions and capabilities of states in the regions and the Palestinian people (e.g.,
Ayalon, Dror, 1989; Feldman, 1982; Harkabi, 1979; Horowitz; 1984; Neeman, 1980;
Rabin, 1979; Tal, 1996; Yaniv, 1994). These discussions focused on the nature of the
threat, extent of the threat and, especially, on the ways to contain these threats. They
ignored to a large extent the socio-psychological basis of security, implying that only
military, political and eoncomic conditions may bring sense of security to the people of
Israel. We suggest that security and the conditions which foster it do not have
objective criteria for their evaluation. Leaders make these evaluations according to
their own convictions, and they persuade the public in the "rightness" of their
perceptions. Clearly, thus the security problems of Israel is not only contingent upon
the military, political and economic indicators only, but also on the social psychological
factors elaborated in the first part of this introductory chapter.
The purpose of our edited book is to analyze Israeli society and government
policies and strategies in a balanced, dispassionate and scholarly fashion by treating
them as a direct product of security conditions, beliefs and concerns. We -- the editors
and contributors -- take as our working premise that contemporary Israel has been
profoundly shaped by this ceaseless concentration upon multifaced security. It suggests
that in order to fully and accurately comprehend the Israeli national ethos, much like
present institutional networks and procedures, policies and behavior at home and
abroad, extensive inquiry is required into national security; its objective and subjective
conditions, and, not least, alternative solutions for alleviating anxiety in the continued
absence of reasonable security standards.
This proposed collection of original essays is meant to highlight important
theoretical and conceptual assumptions as to how Israelis, much like individuals
25
everywhere, go about determining the level of security/insecurity they perceive, and
then deciding in a disaggregated way how best to cope with their perceived state of
private and/or national insecurity. It follows necessarily that the security issue in the
larger, aggregate sense, does not exist independently and apart from individual
members or units within any given society. This view implies the necessity to examine
geographical, ideological, political, cultural and other factors which influence
fundamental perceptions of security; various approaches to satisfying security needs put
forward by political elites, informal agents, as well as formal mechanisms of
socialization, that constantly transmit widely accepted approaches to security; and
finally, the influence -- whether direct or indirect -- these security views may have on
society.
Our focus for analysis is Israeli society in the mid-1990's. This in turn requires
asking, however, that we underscore past insecurities and changing security concerns
which, of course, serve as both the historical background and the operational reality for
the present generation of Israelis. Accordingly, we have chosen to organize the
respective essays - preceded by two introductory chapters -- into four sections arranged
around four central themes: shaping conditions, or inputs into the security equation;
the institutions which have transmitted and maintained the security beliefs;
contemporary Israelis society as the product of insecurity; and the prospects for now
moving toward a more secure future and greater normalcy.
Two chapters comprise the introductory section. The first written by the editors,
describes the approaches to study security, elaborates the socio-psychological
perspective which serves as a conceptual framework for the book and analyzes the
place of security in the Israeli society as a background for the rest of the chapters.
26
The second chapter, .....
[Description of the chapter]
The first part of the book reviews the antecedent factors and conditions that
have contributed to and still mold current beliefs about security in Israel. Under this
design each chapter in the first section separately describes the nature and importance
of a particular selected factor -- whether geographic and spatial, historical, ideological
or military -- that has tended to be treated as a permanent, fairly constant influence.
[Description of each chapter]
The next part proceeds to deal with major agents of socialization, tracing the
institutions and processes of influence thereby the beliefs of private Israelis toward
public security are initially formed and later articulated. Each chapter focuses on
mechanisms for transmitting beliefs in the form of values, norms, symbols, myths,
collective memory, and images pertaining to security.
[Description of each chapter]
The rationale of the third part of the book stands at the focus of the basic
proposition suggesting that the present Israeli society is to a considerable extent
product of security conceptions, which dictated particular intended decisions, policies,
and actions, as well as, a variety of unintended consequences in various aspects of
intrasocietal life and international relations. This part thus, analyzes the present Israeli
society, connecting between the security conditions and conceptions and selected
domains of the Israeli society.
27
[Description of each chapter]
The volume ends with two essays specifically commissioned to look at the
Israeli concern with security from a longer-term perspective: one, discusses the larger,
deeper and more profound consequences of the security preoccupation until now; the
other, the analyses range of strategic choices of Israel, which are going to determine
prospects for future national security. Taken together, the two final chapters not only
shed new light on the book's central subject, but also position the outside reader within
the extraordinarily lively and intense debate presently unfolding among different Israeli
"camps", political movements and schools of thought, inside the country over how best
to secure the state of Israel and the Jewish people who live there for the next 5 years,
20 years, 100 years, 2000 years.
As a matter of fact, currently on the table are a number of security formulas that
arrange themselves along a fairly broad continuum. At one end is the pole of stark,
undiluted military responses (a strong deterrence posture, counter terrorism,
conventional arms development, a formal defense treaty with the United States as the
ideal instrument of assurance for Israel's survival versus the rationale favoring selfreliance "in extremis" on a nuclear option). At the opposite polar extreme is the case
for a strictly political solution to what ails Israel (diplomatic persuasion, territorial
compromise, normalization of relations with Palestinian nationalism and with the
neighboring Arab countries as a prelude to Israel's full integration into a new Middle
Eastern regional order).
These real-world choices deserve to be examined systematically, but also
critically, in terms of (a) their likely benefits as well as prospective costs for Israel in
28
the narrower realm of security; (b) also their possible wider (strategical) political and
social consequences.
[Describe the two chapters]
29
References
Allison, G., & Treverton, G.F. (Eds.)(1992). Rethinking America's security. New
York: W.W. Norton.
Arian, A. (1995). Security threatened: Surveying Israeli opinion on peace and
war. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Arnold, M.B. (1960). Emotion and personality. New York: Columbia University
Press.
Ayalon, A. (1983). The national security of Israel during 35 years. Skira Hodshit,
Issues 2-3, pp. 18-35 (in Hebrew).
Bar-Tal, D. (1990). Group beliefs. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Bar-Tal, D. (1991). Contents and origins of the Isrelis' beliefs about security.
International Journal of Group Tensions, 21, 237-261.
Bar-Tal, D. (1996). Societal beliefs in times of intractable conflict: The Israeli
case. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Bar-Tal, D. (in press). Societal beliefs of ethos. A social psychological analysis of
a society. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bar-Tal, D., Jacobson, D., & Freund, T. (1995). Security feelings among Jewish
settlers in the occupied territories: A study of communal and personal antecedents.
Journal of Conflict Resolution,39, 353-377.
Bar-Tal, D., Raviv, A., & Freund, T. (1994). An anatomy of political beliefs. A
study of their centrality, confidence, contents, and epistemic authority. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 24, 849-872.
30
Bar-Tal, D., Raviv, A., & Raviv, A. (1991). The concept of epistemic authority in
the process of political knowledge acquisiton: The effect of similarity. Representative
Research in Social Psychology, 19, 107-120.
Bar-Tal, Y., Kishon-Rabin, L., & Tabak, N. (in press). The effect of need and
ability to achieve cognitive on congnitve structuring. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology.
Barzilai, G. (1996). Wars, internal conflicts and political order. Albany: State
University of New York Press.
Bem, D.J. (1970). Beliefs, attitudes, and human affairs. Belmont, CA:
Brooks/Cole.
Ben-Eliezer, U. (1995). The emergence of Israeli militarism 1936-1956. Tel
Aviv: Dvir.
Ben-Meir, Y. (1987). National security decision-making: The Israeli case. Tel
Aviv: Hakibutz Hameuchad (in Hebrew).
Berkowitz, B.D. (1986). American security: Dilemmas for a modern democracy.
New Haven: Yale University Press.
Birnbaum, K. (1987). Threat perceptions and national security policies. In S.
Lodgaard, & K. Birnbaum (Eds.) Overcoming threats to Europe: A new deal for
confidence and security (pp. 39-67). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brennan, D. (Ed.)(1961). Arms control, disarmament, and national security. New
york: Braziller.
Burrows, B., & Irwin, C. (1972). The security of Western Europe. London:
Charles Knight.
31
Buzan, B. (1991). People states and fear: An agenda for international security
studies in the post-cold war era (2nd ed.). Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
Cohen, R. (1979). Threat perception in international crisis. Madison: University
of Wisconsin Press.
Connerton, P. (1989). How societies remember. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Dalley, S. (1992). Security, modernity, ecology: The dilemmas of the post-cold
war security discourse. Atlernatives, 17, 95-34.
Dror, Y. (1989). A grand strategy for Israel. Jerusalem: Academon (in Hebrew).
Epstein, S. (19940. Integration of he cognitive and psycho-dynamic unconscious.
American Psychologist, 49, 709-724.
Farnsworth, L.W., & Gray,R.B. (Eds.)(1969). Security in a world of change.
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Feldman, S. (1982). Israeli nuclear deterence. New York: Columbia University
press.
Finkelstein, M.S. & Finkelstein, L.S. (Eds.)(1966). Collective security. San
Francisco: Chandler.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Fiske, S.T. (1981). Social cognition and affect. In J. Harvey (Ed.), Cognition,
social behavior and the environment (pp. 227-264). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Fiske, S.T., & Taylor, S.E. Social cogntion (2nd ed.), New York: McGraw-Hill.
Fox, W.T.R., & Schilling, W.R. (Eds.)(1973). European security and the Atlantic
system. New York: Columbia Uniersity Press.
32
Frei, D. (1983). Risks of unintentional nuclear war. Totowa, NY: Rowman &
Allanheld.
Garnett, J. (Ed.) (1970). Theories of peace and security: A reader in
contemporary thought. London: Macmillan.
Habwachs, M. (1992). On collective memory. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Haftendorn, H. (1991). The security puzzle: Theory building and discipline
building in internationalsecurity. International Studies Quarterly, 35, 3-17.
Halperin, M. (1963). Limited war in the nuclear age. New York: Wiley.
Hanrieder, W.F. (Ed.)(1987). Global peace and security: Trends and challenges.
Boulder: Westview Press.
Harkabi, Y. (Octobe 1979). Thoughts on the national security doctrine.
Ma'arachot, Issues 270-271, pp. 213-45 (in Hebrew).
Henkin, L. (Ed.)(1960). Arms control: Issues for the public. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Herz, J.H. (1959). International politics in the atomic age. New York: Columbia
University Press.
Horowitz, D. (1975). The Israeli concept of national security and the prosptects of
peace in the Middle East. In G. Sheffer (Ed.) Dynamics of a conflict (pp. 235-275).
NJ: Hmanities Press.
Horowitz, D. (1984). Israeli perception of national security (1948-1972). In B.
Neuberger (Ed.), Diplomacy and confrontation: Selected issues in Israel's foreign
relations, 1948-1978 (pp. 104-148). Tel Aviv: Everyman's University (in Hebrew).
33
Horowitz, D. (1993). The Israeli concept of national security. In A. Yaniv (Ed.)
National security and democracy in Israel (pp. 11-53). Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
Horowitz, D., & Lissak, M. (1989). Troubles in Utopia: The overburdened polity
of Israel. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Hunter, R. (1972). Security in Europe (rev. ed.). London: Elek.
Huntingon, S.P. (1961). The common defense. New York: Columbia University
Press.
Inbar, E. (1991). War and peace in Israeli politics: Labor party positions in
national security. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
Iyengar, S., & Ottati, V. (1994). Cognitive perspective in political psychology. In
R.S. Wyer, J. & T.K. Srull (Eds.), Handbook of social cognition (2nd ed., Vol. 2, pp.
143-187). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Jacobson, D. (1991). The conceptual approach to job insecurity. In J. Hartley, D.
Jacobson, & B. Klandermans (Eds.), Job insecurity: Coping with jobs at risk (pp. 2329). London: Sage.
Jacobson, D., & Bar-Tal, D. (1995). Structure of security beliefs among Israeli
students. Political Psychology, 16, 567-590.
Jervis, R. (1976). Perception and misperception in international politics.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Kahan, J.H. (1975). Security in the nuclear age. Washington, DC: Brookings
Institution.
Kahn, H. (1961). On thermonuclear war. Princeton: Princeton Univerist Press.
34
Kaplan, M.A. (1973). The rationale for NATO: European collective security past and future. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy
Research.
Kaufmann, W. (Ed.)(1956). Military policy and national security. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Kissinger, H. (1957). Nuclear weapons and foreign policy. New York: Harper
and Row.
Klare, M.T., & Thomas, D.C. (Eds.) (1991). World security: Trends and
challenges at century's end. New York: St. Martin Press.
Klieman, A. (19895). Israel's global reach: Arms sales and diplomacy.
Washington, DC: Pergamon - Brassey's International Defense.
Klieman, A. (1990). Israel and the world after 40 years. Washington, DC:
Pergamon - Brassey's International Defense.
Klieman, A. (1991). Rearming Israel: Defense procurement through the 1990s.
Bolder, CO: Westview Press.
Kruglanski, A.W. (1989). Lay epistemics and human knowledge: Cognitive and
motivational bases. New York: Plenum.
Lanir, Z. (Ed.)(1985). Israeli security planning in the 1980s. Tel-Aviv: Ministry
of Defense Publication House.
Lazarus, R., Delongis, A., Folkman, S., & Gruen, R. (1985). Stress and
adaptational outcomes. American Psychologist, 40, 770-779.
Lazarus, R.S. (1991). Cogntion and motivation in emotion. American
Psychologis, 46, 819-834.
35
Leebaert, D. (Ed.)(1979). European security: Prospects for the 1980's. Lexington,
MA: Lexington Books.
Leventhal, H. (1984). A perceptual-motor theory of emotion. In L. Berkowitz
(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 27, pp. 118-182). New York:
Academic Press.
Levite, A. (1990). Offense and defense in Israeli military doctrine. Boulder, CO:
Westview.
Liebman, C., & Don-Yehiya, E. (1983). Civil religion in Israel: Traditional
Judaism and political culture in the Jewish state. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Lissak, M. (Ed.)(1984). Israeli society and its defense establishment. London:
Frank Cas.
Markus, H., & Zajonc, R.B. (1985). The cognitive perspective in social
psychology. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (3rd
ed., Vol. 1, pp. 137-230). New York: Random House.
Maslow, A.H. (1970). Motivation and personality (2nd ed.), New York: Harper &
Row.
Michta, A.A. 1992). East Central Europe after the Warsaw pact: Security
dilemmas in the 1990s. New York: Greenwood Press.
Minar, D.W. (1961). Ideology and political behavior. Midwest Journal of
Political Science, 5, 317-331.
Neeman, Y. (May-June 1980). The Shomron, a foundation to Israel's security.
Ma'arachot, Issues 273-374, pp. 6-12 (in Hebrew).
36
Ney, J.S., & Lynn-Jones, S.M. (1988). International security studies: A report of a
conference on the state of the field. International Security, 12 (4), 5-27.
Nisbett, R., & Ross, L. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of
social judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Paez, D., & Basabe, N., & Gonzalez, J.N. (1997). Social processes and collective
memories: A cross-cultural approach to remembering political events. In J.W.
Pennebaker, D. Paez, & B. Rimé (Eds.), Collective memory of political events: Social
psychological perspectives (pp. 147-174). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Peri, Y. (1983). Between battles and ballots. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Rabin, Y. (October, 1979). The security problems of Israelin the 80s. Ma'arachot,
Issues 270-271, pp. 18-20 (in Hebrew).
Raviv, A., Bar-Tal, D., Raviv, A., & Abin, R. (1993). Measuring epistemic
authority: Studies of politicians and professors. European Journal of Personality, 7,
119-138.
Russett, B. (1983). The prisoners of insecurity: Nuclear deterrence, the arms race
and arms control. New York: W.H.Freeman.
Schelling, T.C. (1960). The strategy of conflict. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press.
Smith, C.A., & Lazarus, R.S. (1993). Appraisal components, relational themes,
and the emotion. Cognition and Emotion, 7, 233-269.
Smoke, r. (1975). National security affairs. In F.I. Greenstein & N.W. Polsby
(Eds.), Handbook of Political Science: International Politics (Vol. 8, pp. 247-362).
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
37
Smoke, R. (1984). National security and the nuclear dilemma: An introduction to
the American experience. New York: Random House.
Snyder, G. (1961). Deterrence and defence. Princeton: Princeton University
Press.
Stern, E.K. (1995). Bringing the environment in: The case for comprehensive
security. Cooperation and conflict, 30, 211-237.
Tal, I. (1996). National security: The few against many. Tel Aviv :Dvir (in
Hebrew).
Thomas, C. (1987). In search of security: The third world in international
relations. Boulder, CO: Rienner.
Tuchman-Mathews, J. (1989). Redefining security. Foreign Affairs, 68 (2), 162177.
Ullman, R.H. (1983). Redefining security, International Security, 8 (1), 129-153.
Vertzberger, Y. (1991). The world in their minds. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Weston, B.H. (Ed.)(1984). Toward nuclear disarmament and global security: A
search for alternatives. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Yaniv, A. (Ed.) (1993). National security and democracy in Israel. Boulder, CO:
Lynne Rienner (a)
Yaniv, A. (1993). A question of survival: The military and politics under siege. In
A. Yaniv (Ed.) National security and democracy in Israel (pp. 81-103). Boulder, CO:
Lynne Rienner-b.
Yaniv, A. (1994). Politics and strategy in Israel. Tel Aviv: Sifriat Poalim (in
Hebrew).
38