Political cultures and historical memory in Israeli foreign-policy making: an initial analysis of mitigating factors

Normally, the literature on the uses of history for policy purposes traces a direct line between negative (even traumatic) events and justifications for ethnocentric, even revanchist and/or populist foreign and domestic policies (Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is a recent case in point). But is this link automatic? Israel offers a unique case to explore this question. Israeli external relations have always been dominated by the memory of past traumatic experiences between Jews and Gentiles. Indeed, Zionism itself was built on the double ethos of “the world is against us” and “Jews can only rely on themselves,” two worldviews that in themselves can converge towards greater use of military force for revanchist and nationalist purposes. Yet the history of Israeli foreign relations also shows that at several times, the tendency to justify aggressive policies with past history has not materialized. Famously, one of the main pillars of Ben-Gurion’s security doctrine was that Israel should always count itself as part of the family of nations, and thus cooperate and even rely on foreign powers, which means restraining itself in its use of force/territorial expansion. Over the years, these two opposing impulses affected Israel’s decision-making outcomes, depending on the personal ideological worldview of individual officials whether indeed Israel can and should rely only on itself or whether it is part of “the families of nations.” Given this reality Israel offers a good opportunity to explore which psychological, political and social factors temper the misuse of history to justify aggressive foreign policies? How do certain political cultures and ethos balance the temptation towards populist-type rhetoric? By exploring how different camps of Israeli officials viewed and learned from their own history we can unpack sophisticated dynamics about the use of traumatic memory in other countries as well.