Femicide as “National Emergency”: Risks and Rewards when Framing Violence against Women in Israel/Palestine

For feminists, garnering the support of mainstream public opinion is a risky, if necessary, endeavor. In this article, we analyze contemporary feminist discourses regarding violence against women in Israel/Palestine, focusing on the latest, most extensive, and most successful attempt by feminists to transform Israeli public opinion on the subject. Our analysis exposes divergent feminist frames as they find purchase in mainstream discourses and enter the national agenda; we discuss their meanings and implications—both explicit and implicit, intentional and unintentional. Local feminist struggles evolved from efforts to define femicide as a social problem to framing it as a national emergency. We focus on three initiatives whose main goal has been to mobilize Israeli authorities and the public to combat femicide under the “national emergency” banner: the Women’s Protests, the Michal Sela Forum, and Gun-Free Kitchen Tables. Based on a discursive analysis of these case studies, we identify two contrasting feminist conceptualizations: the neoliberal securitist frame and the securitized care frame. We compare these opposing models, which coexisted at the mass protests of 2018–20, led by a broad and diverse coalition of Jews and Arabs campaigning for the worth of women’s lives and for the grievability of their deaths. Overall, we argue that feminists’ relative success in gaining mainstream endorsement may limit the path ahead and endanger the likelihood of contrasting frames and solidarities coexisting in the future. Specifically, we highlight the dangerous draw of innovatively framing femicide as a national emergency. It has huge potential for mobilization, but we warn that it risks neoliberal, militaristic, and nationalistic co-optation.