New wars rational, old war expectations.

Abstract

The violent cycle between Israel and the Palestinians in Gaza, which took place in the summer of 2014, was understood and perceived by Israeli society as having characteristics of a new war: it was seen as part of an ongoing and never-ending conflict, with no clear starting point or finish, in which one side is not an official state that has an organized military, and in which it is hard to determine what is the ideal outcome for either side. By studying Israeli newspapers' reports of the war, this research report shows that although embracing the mind-set of new wars, it was also framed and perceived in Israeli society as having old war characteristics: There was a belief that a tie breaker can be found; that this violent cycle can fundamentally change the future of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; and there was hope for a clear and decisive end to the war in which one side will be the winner. It is therefore claimed that societies, even when rationally understanding what new wars are, still hold a collective memory of old wars. This shared memory makes them think and hope in ways that fit their past experiences, even when knowing that the nature of conflicts has changed.

“Winning” the “battle” and “beating” the COVID-19 “enemy”: Leaders’ use of war frames to define the pandemic.

“…War-framing, in the way U.S. and United Kingdom leaders practiced it, leads to a binary understanding of reality: You can either "win" or "lose." In the "New War" era of the last few decades, there are no distinct winners and losers (Kaldor, 2006), but society nonetheless still expects "Old War" results of being victorious (Benziman, 2017). By framing the pandemic as a war, the United Kingdom and U.S. leaders made their public 48 https://www.gov.uk/government/news/pm-call-with-pm-conte-13-march-2020 49 https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-presidenttrump-members-coronavirus-task-force-press-briefing/ 50 https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-donaldj-trump-taking-necessary-safety-measures-border-prevent-spread-coronavirus 51 https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-donaldj-trump-taking-necessary-safety-measures-border-prevent-spread-coronavirus/ This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.…”

“…While, as described above, the war-framing allows leaders more leverage in how they ask the public to act and what they ask the public to accept, it also has two other major outcomes. War-framing, in the way U.S. and United Kingdom leaders practiced it, leads to a binary understanding of reality: You can either “win” or “lose.” In the “New War” era of the last few decades, there are no distinct winners and losers (Kaldor, 2006), but society nonetheless still expects “Old War” results of being victorious (Benziman, 2017). By framing the pandemic as a war, the United Kingdom and U.S. leaders made their public believe in the possibility of a concrete outcome—that is, of being victorious.…”

“…They also show more willingness to cooperate with governmental institutions because of the unique situation and circumstances (LaFree & Adamczyk, 2017). And of no less consequence are the notions that societies in conflict believe that wars have an end-point (Benziman, 2017), that the cost of war is bearable if it ends in success (Gelpi, Feaver, & Riefler, 2005), that there is a plan of how to change the chaotic situation of war and a strategy of how to overcome and prevail, and that hope for a better future can be imagined (Adomi Leshem, 2017; Bar-Tal, 2013; Cohen-Chen, Crisp, & Halperin, 2015).…”

Editorial.

“…Sklad and Park (2017) examine how education can prevent radicalization, but Chapin and Coleman (2017) highlight how violence can be a problem in educational institutions. Finally, Benziman (2017) explores continuity, change, and collective memories in the Israel-Palestinian conflict.…”