When Victimhood Goes to War? Israel and Victim Claims

Prominent sociopsychological approaches interpret collective victimhood as inseparable, central characteristic of societies involved in intractable conflicts. Victimhood is broadly perceived as an essential conflict‐supportive belief also in other disciplines. In the context of Israel, there is a cross‐disciplinary consensus that collective victimhood is the country's foundational identity. This project argues that states' employment of this theme changes and is context dependent. It discusses under what conditions Israel's political elites incorporate victim narratives towards armed conflicts. It examines public communication during the 2012 Operation Pillar of Defense (OPD) and the Yom Kippur war of 1973 (YKW). Employing a modified method of narrative conceptualization analysis, the research demonstrates that victim narratives were used almost twice as much during OPD than during YKW. The findings suggest that we need to differentiate between the role these narratives play for collectives versus states. For the latter, the presence of victim narratives is highly variable and reflects strategic developments. The project is the first systematic study exposing that victim narratives can be a challenge for governance. By conceptualizing victim narratives as claims, it captures the dynamic, contextual characteristics of collective victimhood in state affairs offering a theoretical tool for understanding the political dimension of this identification

Anxious Leviathan: The Powerful Vulnerability of Strong States

Why do strong countries implement narratives of vulnerability in their wartime public communication? This dissertation solves the puzzling practice of powerful actors pursuing identifications we commonly associate with weakness and political failure. It is the first systematic study analyzing vulnerability narratives as a practice of statecraft and warcraft. I compare the politics of vulnerability of Israel and the UK during two conflicts: Israel's 2014 Operation Protective Edge (OPE) and the UK's participation in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. I combine the analysis of states' wartime public communication with in-depth interviews with 32 British and 38 Israeli officials. Using identity as an analytical starting point to theorise about the states' behaviour, I expose the rationale behind actors' vulnerability narratives. I show that both conflicts were a source of ontological insecurity and that actors presented themselves as insecure to avoid negative evaluations of fighting against the underdog. In the case of strong actors, vulnerability narratives have two functions. One, they reduce anxiety about the actor's identity. Warfare against a weaker opponent erodes positive self-perceptions of the powerful state. By self-identifying as vulnerable, the country's action gains a principled meaning which supports its ontological security. Second, vulnerability narratives provide the state with a special agency. By presenting itself as vulnerable, the state securitises a weaker opponent to justify offensive action. The dissertation contributes to socio-psychological studies of conflict by showing that vulnerability is a conflict-supportive identification not only for the collectives but also for the states. Validating previous experimental research conducted on an individual and group level, it provides empirical data that vulnerability self-identifications may also be a source of legitimacy on the state level. It is an innovative study of how states introduce vulnerability self-identifications to the collective. Israel and the UK have based their communication on a multiplicity of in/outgroup vulnerability narratives. This finding broadens socio-psychological scholarship on vulnerability by showing that states' try to evoke vulnerability self-perceptions not only by referring to the in-group's but also outgroup's standing. The dissertation contributes to the ontological security studies. It lays out a new research avenue for the study of the resilience of identity. This approach recognizes that states adapt their autobiographies to their evolving behaviour and ideational needs. Furthermore, that the state's identity can be protected from criticisms of its actions. Applying the sociology of trust, I show that vulnerability narratives may be used as a trust-inducing mechanism. This allows us to read anew the political role of vulnerability where - contrary to the traditional approach - vulnerability may be a bulwark of ontological security. While it is broadly recognized that ontological security is a key source of political agency, major studies focus on routines and inhibiting functions the identity has over the behaviour of states. The recognition of the resilience of Israel's and the UK's identity - in a time of controversial armed conflicts with much weaker opponents - allows us to decouple states' routines from states' agency by accounting for the ability to sustain their sense of self and adapt to change. The dissertation sheds new light on what constitutes a crisis of ontological security. While in the literature, states' behaviour was foremost studied from the perspective of external challenges to their identity, in both case studies it was the actions of states themselves that challenged their ontological security. The dissertation investigates the researcher's interpretation of the state's anxiety with the country's officials themselves. So far, no inquiries have employed interviews to study the role ontological security plays in state actions. Little attention has been also paid to the ways of establishing that a country is dealing with anxiety. Generally, such claims are based on discourse and historical analysis. By investigating how country officials pursued the safe identity of the state, this dissertation offers granular evidence of the ways through which actors seek ontological security. Furthermore, while the literature explains why conflicts may be supportive of ontological security, it abstracts from systematically analysing how states may support the safety of their identity while pursuing military confrontation. The study exposes the use of vulnerability narratives as such practice. Lastly, the dissertation contributes to the scholarship that links ontological security with securitisation by showing that securitisations can be used to protect identity from negative evaluations of state actions

The vulnerability of securitisation : the missing link of critical security studies

This article proposes to focus on vulnerability in the operationalisation of securitisation theory. It argues that in empirical investigations we often fail to acknowledge that security acts may reflect weakness, not strength. Employing second-generation securitisation research, it first problematizes the common approach to securitisation. Namely, that the self-referential conceptualisation of security acts, together with the realist understanding of power, lead to interpretations of securitisation as a tool of unprincipled statecraft. Secondly, drawing on Brown’s work on border walling, the article reasons that securitisation is predicated on vulnerability. Vulnerability is a legitimising necessity of securitisation. One cannot designate a threat without tying it to vulnerability (real/imagined). Securitisations are essentially claims of vulnerability. Thirdly, utilising contextual and narrative analysis of two case studies, this paper illustrates how securitisations are coupled with vulnerability. The article formalizes a generative research avenue of securitisation. One that better accounts for the intersubjective aspects of security acts

Talking to the State: Interviewing the Elites about What’s Not to Be Said

How can researchers conduct interviews about sensitive topicsthe interlocutors are unwilling to discuss? This article contributes to theongoing debates on interviewing. While we are observing a growing in-terest in this research method among international relations scholars,we lack formalized advanced practices for overcoming interview-relatedchallenges. Drawing on elite interviews conducted in Israel and the UK,the article introduces two research techniques particularly useful in dis-cussing controversial or sensitive matters: in-situ texts and adaptable self-presentation practices. It first presents the types of challenges I faced seek-ing answers as to why secure and powerful states like the UK and Israel em-ploy narratives of vulnerability in wartime public communication. Then itanalyses how the use of in-situ texts during interviews assists in introducingsensitive topics into the interview. I illustrate how they allow me to quicklyestablish the importance of the research phenomenon as well as to facili-tate more open conversations. Finally, I show the benefits of the adaptableself-presentation technique. The goal of this practice is to conduct a re-sponsive interview. One in which the researcher builds trust with the par-ticipant by bringing out its own biographical aspects that emphasize eitherits outsider or insider status