From its founding in 1948 to its bombardments of Gaza to its new goal of regime change in Iran, Israel has consistently behaved in accordance with the realist paradigm: states are rational actors in an anarchic international system, primarily concerned with their own survival. To survive in the realist paradigm, one must strive to be the most dominant power in the region within which the country is situated. Or, in other words, to become a regional hegemon. In this view, international law, norms,
or ethics are subordinate to the pursuit of national interest. Israel’s behaviour — from making and breaking regional alliances to its military operations to its nuclear ambiguity — reveals not recklessness, but realism in its purest form. It is not idealism that guides Jerusalem’s hand, but the hard logic of power, geography, and history.
In that sense, Israel is not simply acting rationally in theatres such as Gaza and Iran — it is, in many respects, acting as the most clear-eyed practitioner of realism in the modern era.
Realism begins with an essential insight: the international system lacks a central authority. In this “self-help” environment, every state must prioritize its security, because no one else will. In realist logic, the currency of the international system is power.
The ultimate value is survival. Classical realists thus emphasise the primacy of self-interest over moral principle, and regard considerations of justice as inappropriate and, even, dangerous. Surrounded historically by what Israel has perceived to be hostile neighbours, targeted by non-state actors, and subjected to frequent delegitimization campaigns,
Israel has long perceived itself as a nation under siege. This perception, far from paranoia, is grounded in history: five major wars, two intifadas, rocket attacks, and a nuclear-aspiring adversary in Iran.
No comments:
Post a Comment