Journal of World Sociopolitical Studies

Abstract Israel's foreign policy at times diverges from realist expectations based on rationality, proportionality, and prudence. This article argues that Israel’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon exemplifies such divergence, driven by what Ernst Cassirer terms "mythical thought," or a myth-based discourse that constitutes the mindset of Israeli policymakers. Within this discourse, quantity and quality acquire specific characteristics, resulting in maximalist goals, voluntarism, reactive strategies, and disproportionate actions in foreign policy. Initially, Israel’s stated aim was a limited security operation; however, influenced by myth-based discourse, the mission expanded dramatically, seeking the elimination of the Palestine Liberation Organization, the expulsion of Syrian forces, and the establishment of a pro-Israeli government in Lebanon—goals far exceeding Israel’s strategic capabilities. Ultimately, encountering international structural constraints forced Israel to retreat and recalibrate its objectives temporarily. Employing discourse analysis of statements and texts produced by Israeli decision-makers during this war, the article illustrates how mythical thinking enabled unrealistic and expansionist elements to shape Israel’s foreign policy.

Abstract Objective: Israel's radical policy in the War on Gaza is dehumanizing and absolutely contrary to international norms and standards. Dehumanization refers to the deprivation of humans and other groups of all their basic rights.
Method: This article argues that Zionist discourse has enabled Israel's radical policy through the reproduction of dehumanizing narratives. Such narratives are influenced by Western anthropological perspective, which values Western lives more highly than non-Western ones. Zionist discourse enables such radical policy for Israel by reproducing narratives such as Legitimizing Self and Delegitimizing the Other, Denial of Coevalness, Viewing the Other as an Object, Representation of a Superior Extended ‘We’, and Belonging to a Different Place.
Results: This radical policy includes elements such as diplomatic weakness, voluntarism, disproportionality between capabilities and actions, maximalism, and reactive behavior. This policy has deviated from realist elements such as prioritizing diplomacy to secure national interests, avoiding risk-centered approaches, respecting the vital interests of others, and operating within the framework of power. Using discourse analysis methodology and examining texts reproduced by Israeli officials and leaders, this article seeks to explain Israel's dehumanizing narratives and radical policy in the War on Gaza.

Abstract The fundamental norms of the United Nations Charter, particularly the prohibition on the use of force and the inviolability of state sovereignty, have been repeatedly challenged in the modern security landscape. The June 2025 military attacks by Israel, with direct support from the United States, on Iranian territory and its safeguarded nuclear facilities represent a critical juncture in this historical context, testing the resilience of the international legal order. This article aims to provide a comprehensive legal assessment of the legality of these actions under international law. Employing a doctrinal legal research methodology, the study conducts a systematic analysis of primary legal sources, including the UN Charter, ICJ jurisprudence, and non-proliferation treaties, integrated with secondary scholarly commentaries and institutional reports. Findings demonstrate that the attacks constitute a manifest act of aggression in violation of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter and the jus cogens rule prohibition on the use of force, as they were undertaken without Security Council authorization or a valid claim to self-defense under Article 51. Furthermore, the targeting of IAEA-safeguarded nuclear facilities breached the NPT and the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, eroding the global non-proliferation regime. The study also concludes that Iran’s defensive response was a legitimate exercise of its inherent right to self-defense. In conclusion, the attacks underscore a profound crisis in the UN collective security system, exacerbated by the Security Council's paralysis. The article ends with normative recommendations for upholding accountability and reinforcing the integrity of international law against unilateral militarism.

Abstract The Palestine issue and the Israeli regime's occupation are among the most crucial matters on the global stage. The situation of Palestinians in the territories controlled by this regime, referred to as the 1948 territories, holds significant importance. Western countries have consistently aimed to present the Israeli regime as a democratic model, using the status of residents in the 1948 areas as evidence. This article utilizes a qualitative and comparative approach to address the query: What is the situation of Palestinians residing in the occupied territories of 1948 within the Israeli democracy? The hypothesis posited is that while Israel exhibits some elements of democracy based on recognized criteria, reliable statistics suggest that the Arab community does not benefit from this purported democracy to the same extent as the Jewish community, calling into question the foundational principle of the Israeli democracy. By examining reports from Israeli and international authorities, this article concludes that the Israeli regime cannot be deemed a democratic regime for all its citizens. Furthermore, the respect for human rights within this regime, particularly for the indigenous minority residing in the occupied territories, is nothing but a myth.

Abstract The Israeli aggression against Iran in June 2025—targeting defense infrastructure, military personnel, civilians including scientists, children, and women, as well as hospitals, schools, and national media—was not merely a military confrontation but a turning point in the collective and psychological victimization of Iranian society. The ensuing fear, urban displacement, partial economic collapse, and existential anxiety fractured Iran’s cultural and moral fabric, creating conditions for new forms of post-war violence. This study examines how collective victimization reproduces violence and breaks norms in the post-war context both at cultural and psychological levels, and explores the relationship between symbolic violence in media, political discourse, and everyday life (routine activity criminology). The central premise posits that aggression —and the enduring fear of its recurrence—erodes social cohesion, normalizes aggression, and embeds violent cultural patterns into civic life, generating a cyclical process of victimization and offending, wherein society itself perpetuates violence. From a cultural criminological perspective, this cycle reflects a normalization of deviance and a redefinition of social power through violence. Breaking it requires a shift in Iran’s criminal policy from a security-based to a cultural and restorative approach at legislative, judicial, and executive levels—prioritizing the symbolic reconstruction of trust, hope, and meaning alongside structural post-war recovery.

The central hypothesis posits that aggression —and the enduring fear of its recurrence—erodes social cohesion, normalizes aggression, and embeds violent cultural patterns into civic life, generating a cyclical process of victimization and offending wherein society itself perpetuates violence. From a cultural criminological perspective, this cycle reflects a normalization of deviance and a redefinition of social power through violence. Breaking it requires a shift in Iran’s criminal policy from a security-based to a cultural and restorative approach at legislative, judicial, and executive levels—prioritizing the symbolic reconstruction of trust, hope, and

Abstract The conflict between Palestinians and the Jews has been ongoing for seven decades. Despite numerous proposed solutions from the United Nations, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, and various countries involved in the issue, the crisis persists. The past three decades of right-wing leadership in Israel have shown that supported by major European powers and the US, meaningful negotiations are not anticipated from Israel. Meaningful talks would involve agreements on recognizing Palestine, affirming Palestinian sovereignty, establishing an independent Palestinian state, allowing for the return of displaced populations and determining the status of Jerusalem as the capital. The ascension of the extreme right in Israel has clouded the prospects for peace, augmenting the Israeli demands for more privilege, while sidelining those of the other side. This article posits that Israel's negotiation approach under the right-wing is built on a zero-sum mentality, with minimal concessions offered to the Palestinians. Moreover, its various political, security and economic pressures on Palestinians, along with sustained US and EU sanctions and its military superiority, render any peace model unattainable. This uncompromising approach, intended to impose unilateral conditions and prolong talks to thwart the establishment of an independent Palestinian state, accounts for the recurrent failure of negotiations. Israel's aim in these talks appears to demoralize the Palestinians and prevent the realization of their aspirations by imposing “the real”.

Abstract Israel’s foreign policy at times diverges from prevailing realist expectations, specifically rational considerations and prudence. This article argues that this is the result of what Ernst Cassirer calls mythical thought or what can be called a myth-based discourse that constructs the mindset of policy makers and has made the emergence of non-realist elements in Israel’s foreign policy possible. In this discourse, quantity, quality, similarity, space, and time acquire specific characteristics and, in the field of foreign policy, this primarily leads to maximalist aspirations, volunteerism, reactiveness, lack of proportionality between capabilities and actions, and at times refraining from diplomatic engagements. However, we encounter a state's identity as a modern ruling state which, to gain international recognition and acceptability, must abide by the norms and laws that define statehood. On the other hand, we face an identity stemming from a mythical discourse, encompassing non-modern, irrational elements and self-definitions based on rules that often contradict legal discourse. Relying on discourse analysis, the texts produced by Israeli foreign policymakers are analyzed to show how this specific way of thinking has made non-realist elements in Israeli foreign policy possible.

Abstract The Palestine-Israel conflict is among the most protracted disputes in recent history. Muslims and Jews have been competing for territorial, political and religious claims over the sacred land since the Ottoman Empire. The historical struggle, the establishment of the state of Israel against the wishes of local inhabitants, and Israel’s subsequent oppression and violence against Palestinians has pushed the region in an everlasting crisis, in which numerous regional and international actors are involved. Many proposals have been presented by different actors for a solution; however, neither the Palestinians nor Israelis have accepted the terms of such proposals. The idea of a two-state solution has been backed by different international actors for the lasting peace of this turbulent land, but political leaders of both Palestine and Israel have shown their reservations over this proposal. Leaders from both sides have argued for the one-state solution for many reasons. This article first discusses the existing proposals and efforts for the peaceful settlement of the land. It will then highlight the prospects and opinions of both Israel and Palestine over the status of refugees and their right of return and implementation of a two-state and one-state solution. The article will finally signpost the arguments from both sides for the resolution of the conflict, and suggest some findings by employing elite interviewing.

Abstract From the very first days of its birth, Zionism labeled Palestine a “land without a people”, deciding from the beginning to “willfully ignore” the presence or even the existence of the Palestinian people. Such a claim ultimately developed into one of Israel’s founding myths and has been repeated by prominent Israeli leaders and politicians, ranging from Golda Meir to, most recently, Israeli finance minister Smotrich. It is this denial of existence and rights, which has gone beyond words and statements and has been institutionalized in the different spheres of Israeli politics and society, and its urban spaces, that forms the basis of Hackl’s ethnographic research. This book takes an inside look at what goes on with Palestinians who move within Tel Aviv, aiming to demonstrate how Palestinians have practically become exiles in their own land.

Abstract Studies on securitization theory have neglected the fact that securitization is in place only when it is proven that expression of fear is insincere. A number of indicators can be retrieved from the literature on deception detection in social sciences to verify sincerity in fear expressions by political leaders. Application of these indicators in this paper demonstrates that former Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu’s expression of fear from Iran in his speech at the United Nations General Assembly in 2014, was more a case of constructing an existential threat, than expressing genuine apprehensions. A complete examination of Netanyahu’s claims about Iran establishes their contradiction with the known realities. The inconsistency between truth and Netanyahu’s goals, the knowledge available about Netanyahu’s negative beliefs about Iran,  the implausibility of some of his assertions, their judgmental nature, as well as the disclosure of their incorrectness over time all support the idea that Netanyahu was insincere in his expression of fear from Iran in this particular case, and that he was constructing an existential threat about Iran in the midst of negotiations to reach a nuclear deal with Iran, which he vehemently opposed.

Abstract Research on the special relationship between the United States and Israel has usually been focused on strategic aspects, whilst fewer scholars have focused on non-material dimensions of the relationship. In addition, the existing research is mostly confined to the political and decision-making realms, with very few excursions into the academic arena. The current article aims to fill this lacuna through the study of pro-Israel academic discourse in America, focusing on the specific case of the field of terrorism studies. Critical discourse analysis of pro-Israel academic texts in this field is carried out to reveal the discourse, themes and arguments used to build this ideational pillar of the special relationship and move towards a common identity between the US and Israel. The common ingroup identity model (CIIM) is used to describe the process through which a common identity is constructed. The article concludes that defining the Self, defining the Other, and defining the norms are the three main strategies employed in the studied texts to achieve this goal.

Abstract This article examines the rise and fall of the Peace Process and questions the reason for which the United States of America was successful in bringing the two sides to the negotiating table during the 1990s. It investigates the reason for which the process ultimately failed, as well as the reason for which Washington was unsuccessful in restarting the peace process in the past decade. It is argued that the collapse of the Soviet Union, as the Arab states’ most important ally, the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO)’s decision to back Saddam Hussein during the First Persian Gulf War, and the rise of Islamic movements in the occupied territories were the main reasons for which the PLO decided to negotiate with Israel. The subsequent Peace Process was a major political, economic and public image success for Washington and Tel-Aviv, while it was damaging to the Palestinian cause. Not only did the PLO recognize Israel and the Zionist movement, but it also ceded most of the West Bank in the process. Finally, it is argued that after the collapse of the process during the early 2000s, Donald Trump has attempted to restart the negotiations, but has failed thus far due to the inexistence of strong leaders in both Palestinian and Israeli sides, the rise of Hamas as a resistance movement, and the disenchantment of the Palestinian people with the Peace Process.

Abstract In the modern world, government policy makers engage in the decision making process to pursue the interests of their countries. Think tanks play a significant role in this complicated process by giving advice to decision makers. Since the beginning of the twentieth century, think tanks increasingly emerged in the world, especially in Western European countries and the United States of America (USA). Israel, since its illegal establishment, created various think tanks to serve its political and security interests in the Middle East. Making peace with Middle Eastern countries and strengthening ties with the USA are the most crucial goals of Israel's foreign policy. Nevertheless, since its establishment, Israel adopted an aggressive approach towards Palestine, Lebanon, and recently Iran. Therefore, the main questions addressed in this article are as follows: What is the impact of Israeli think tanks on its foreign policy from 2000 to 2017? The Rational Actor Model, the Poliheuristic theory and Groupthink theories have been used to explain how think tanks influence policy makers in Israel. In order to conduct the research, the authors have chosen case study method as a qualitative method. In fact, the authors have considered Israeli think tanks as a case study to examine its impact on Israeli foreign policy. The hypothesis of the article is therefore the following: In recent decades, Israeli think tanks have persuaded Israel regime to formulate its foreign policy on the basis of aggressive approach, as witnessed in the Lebanon war (2006), the Gaza war (2008-9) and (2014), and Israel’s countering of Iran.

Abstract Due to its artificial and unnatural structure, Israeli society has since the beginning of its establishment, been a context for the emergence of different kinds of cleavages and tensions. This state of affairs has endangered the political stability of the Israeli regime. The present research is trying to answer this question: what is the effect of religious-secular cleavages in Israel on the future of the political stability of the regime? The article hypothesizes that the religious-secular cleavage is one of the most important social cleavages in Israel and its expansion can be considered as a serious threat to the political stability of the regime. The present research indicates that there are three kinds of cleavages in Israel which constitute the most important social cleavages in society: the Arab-Jewish cleavage; the Ashkenazi-Sephardim cleavage; and the religious-secular cleavage. Although all these three cleavages affect Israel’s political stability, we concentrate on the cleavage that exist between religious and secular forces in society as one of the most serious social cleavages in Israel. It undermines Israel's political stability in at least two ways: the cleavage undermines Israel's political legitimacy; and its shift from the social arena into the political arena transforms it into a political cleavage.