Foreign Affairs, the National Interest, and Secular-Religious Identities in Israel

  • Published : 2016.08.31


Despite being a key concept of International Relations theory, there is no consensus about what the national interest is. It is almost impossible for political leaders of democratic states to make a crucial decision in foreign policies when considering only the national interest without public support. Rather, we are unable to imagine the national interest without public opinion. In general, international crises galvanize people who held different opinions and unify social cleavages, such as secular-religious identities, into a nation that acts in its national interest. The author proposes a method to operationalize the key concept and describes a relationship between the national interest and religious identities in a democratic state. The selected case is the state of Israel. It is believed that Israel is a good example to think about the association between foreign affairs and political attitudes since it is characterized as a socio-religious divided society and has often waged war against Arab military forces.


Supported by : JSPS KAKENHI


  1. Almond, G. (1950). The American people and foreign policy. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace.
  2. Almond G., Appleby, S., & Sivan, E. (2003). Strong religion: The rise of fundamentalism around the world. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  3. Arian, A. (1995). Security threatened: Surveying Israeli opinion on peace and war. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  4. Bader, C., & Froese, P. (2005). Images of God. Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Religion, 1, .2-24.
  5. Baumgartner, J., Francia, P., & Morris, J. (2008). A clash of civilization? The influence of religion on public opinion of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Political Research Quarterly, 61(2),.171-179.
  6. Barzilai, G., & Inbar, E. (1996). The use of force: Israeli public opinion on military options. Armed Forces and Society, 23(1), 49-80.
  7. Becker, S., & Ichino, A. (2002). Estimation of average treatment effect based on propensity scores. The State Journal, 2(4), 358-377.
  8. Ben-Nun-Bloom, P., Zemach, M., & Arian, A. (2011). The religious experience as affecting ambivalence: The case of democratic performance evaluation in Israel. Democratization, 18(1), 25-51.
  9. Doyle, M. (1986). Liberalism and world politics. American Political Science Review, 80(4), 1151-1161.
  10. Fearon, J. (1994). Domestic political audiences and the escalation of international disputes. American Political Science Review, 88(3), 577-592.
  11. Finnemore, M. (1996). National interests in international society. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
  12. Fujiwara, K. (2010). Heiwa no Riarisumu [Realism in peace]. Tokyo, Japan: Iwanami Books.
  13. Glazier, R., Divine direction: How providential religious belief shape foreign policy attitudes. Foreign Policy Analysis, 9, 127-142.
  14. Guth, J. (2006). Religion and foreign policy attitudes. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.
  15. Guth, J., Fraser, C., Green, J., Kellstedt, L., & Smidt, C. (1996). Religion and foreign policy attitudes: The case of Christian Zionism. In J. C. Green, J. L. Guth, C. E. Smidt, L. A. Kellstedt (Eds.), Religion and the culture wars (330-360). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
  16. Hall, R. B. (1999). National collective identity. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
  17. Harkabi, Y. (1988). Israel's fateful decisions. London, England: I.B. Tauris.
  18. Heckman, J., Ichimura, H. Smith, J. & Todd, P. (1998). Characterizing selection bias using experimental data. Econometrica, 66(5), 1017-1098.
  19. Hermann, T., & Yuchtman-Ya'ar, E. (2002). Divided yet united: Israeli-Jewish attitudes toward the Oslo Process. Journal of Peace Research, 39(5), 597-613.
  20. Holsti, O. (2004). Public opinion and American foreign policy (revised edition). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
  21. Hoshino, T. (2009), Kansoku Deta no Toukeigaku [Statistics in observational data:Causal inference, selection bias, and data fusion]. Tokyo, Japan: Iwanami Books.
  22. Huntington, S. The clash of civilizations and the remarking of world order. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
  23. Iida, K., & Shiro, S. (2014). Gaikou to Yoron: Kokumin ha Ryousya no Kankei wo Donoyouni Toraeteiruka? [How do citizens think about the relationship between foreign policy and public opinion?]. Leviathan, 54, 8-27.
  24. Inbari, M. (2012). Messianic religious Zionism confronts Israeli territorial compromises. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  25. Juergensmeyer, M. (1993). The new cold war? Religious nationalism confronts the secular state. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  26. Kant, I. (1795, 1996). Toward perpetual peace. In Practical philosophy (317-351). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  27. Kohno, M. (2013). Audience cost experiments in Japan. Paper presented at the Japan Association of International Relations Annual Convention.
  28. Kurizaki, S., & Whang, T. (2014). Kokusai Kiki to Seiji Risuku: Kansyu Hiyou Moderu no Kouzou Suitei [International crises and political costs]. Leviathan, 54, 48-69.
  29. Lewin-Epstein, N., & Levanon, A. (2005). National identity and xenophobia in an ethnically divided society. International Journal on Multicultural Societies, 7(2), 90-118.
  30. Liebman, C., & Yadgar, Y. (2009). Secular-Jewish identity and the condition of secular Judaism in Israel. In Z. Gitelman (Ed.), Religion or ethnicity? Jewish identities in evolution (149-170). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
  31. Lippmann, W. (1922). Public opinion. New York, NY: Macmillan.
  32. Miller, B. (2008). States, nations, and the great powers: The sources of regional war and peace. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  33. Nicolson, H. (1963). Diplomacy (3rd ed.). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
  34. Rosenbaum, P., & Rubin, D. (1983). Assessing sensitivity to an unobserved binary covariate in an observational study with binary outcome. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 45(2), 212-218.
  35. Russett, B. (1993). Grasping the democratic.peace. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  36. Sorek, T., & Ceobanu, A. (2009). Religiosity, national identity and legitimacy: Israel as an extreme case. Sociology, 43(3), 477-496.
  37. Sprinzak, E. (1991). The ascendance of Israel's radical right. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  38. Toms, M. (2007). Domestic audience costs in international relations: An experimental approach. International Organization, 61(4), 821-840.
  39. Toms, M., & Weeks, J. (2013). Public opinion and the democratic peace. American Political Science Review, 107(4), 849-865.
  40. Wald, K., & Wilcox, C. (2006). Getting religion: Has political science rediscovered the faith factor?. American Political Science Review, 100(4), 523-529.
  41. Waltz, K. (1979). Theory of international politics. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
  42. Warner, C., & Walker, S. (2011). Thinking about the role of religion in foreign policy. Foreign Policy Analysis, 7, 113-135.
  43. Yuchtman-Ya'ar, E., & Peres, Y. (2000). Between consent and dissent: democracy and peace in the Israeli mind. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
  44. Zaidise, E., Canetti-Nissm, D., & Pedahzur, A. (2007). Politics of God or politics of man? The role of religion and deprivation in predicting support for political violence in Israel. Political Studies, 55, 499-521.