From Allies to Frenemies and Inconvenient Partners: Image Theory and Turkish-Israeli Relations

Abstract

By way of utilising and also extending image theory, one of the earliest and longest-lasting research areas in foreign policy analysis, this article discusses the change in the perception of the Other that is currently taking place in both Turkey and Israel. It argues that whereas Israel sees Turkey increasingly as a frenemy, Turkey considers Israel an inconvenient/untrustworthy partner. Israel’s image of Turkey as a frenemy represents a perceived relationship in which Turkey has similar power traits, an inferior culture, and that Turkey presents a threat to Israel’s power and security in the Middle East. Turkey’s image of Israel as an inconvenient/untrustworthy partner represents a perceived relationship in which Israel has similar power and inferior cultural traits, and that Israel is a partner that cannot be trusted. Indeed, the strategic interactions between the two countries, especially since the first significant signs of problems emerged in the mid-2000s, illustrate the level and extent of these changes taking place, which have important policy implications for both Turkey and Israel.

Keywords

• Turkish foreign policy, Turkish-Israeli relations, image theory, frenemy, the flotilla incident, decision-making.

References

1. Amikam Nachmani, “The Remarkable Turkish- Israeli Tie”, Middle East Quarterly Vol. 5, No. 2 (March 1998), pp. 19-28; Meliha Altunışık, “The Turkish-Israeli Rapprochement in the Post-Cold War Era”, Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 36, No.2 (April 2000), pp. 172-189.
2. A detailed examination of Turkish-Israeli relations in the 1990s and 2000s can be found in Ali Balcı, “Turkiye’nin Dış Politikası ve Israil: 1990’lar ve 2000’lere Ilişkin Bir Karşılaştırma”, Ortadoğu Etütleri, Vol. 2 (2011), pp. 117-136.
3. Ayşegül Sever, “Turkey and the Syrian-Israeli Peace Talks in the 1990s”, Middle East Review of International Affairs, Vol. 5, No. 3 (September 2001).
4. Joe D. Hagan, “Does Decision Making Matter? Systemic Assumptions vs. Historical Reality in International Relations”, International Studies Review, Vol. 3, No. 2 (Summer 2001), pp. 5-46.
5. Herbert Simon brilliantly showed that human beings can have only bounded rationality, and the “satisficing man” (for example, the foreign policy decision maker) who has this “bounded rationality” is very much a social-psychological creature operating under conditions of time constraints, ill-defined goals, and uncertain conditions, see, Herbert Simon, “Rational Choice and the Structure of the Environment”, Psychological Review, Vol. 63, No. 2 (March 1956), pp. 129-138.
6. See for example Susan T. Fiske and Shelly E. Taylor, Social Cognition, 2nd ed., New York, McGraw- Hill, 1991.
7. Ole R. Holsti, “The Belief System and National Images: A Case Study”, The Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 6, No. 3 (September 1962), pp. 244-252. (Reprinted in James N. Rosenau, International Politics and Foreign Policy, 2nd ed., New York, The Free Press, 1969, pp. 543- 550).
8. Jerel Rosati, “A Cognitive Approach to the Study of Foreign Policy”, in Laura Neack, Patrick J. Haney, and Jeanne A.K. Hey (eds.), Foreign Policy Analysis: Continuity and Change in its Second Generation, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1995, p. 53.

9. Kenneth Boulding, The Image: Knowledge in Life and Society, Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press, 1956, p. 423.
10. Robert P. Abelson, “Beliefs Are Like Possessions”, Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, Vol. 16, No. 3 (October 1986), pp. 223-250.
11. Michael Brecher, The Foreign Policy System of Israel, New Haven, Yale University Press, 1974.
12. For example, in Patricia G Devine, David L. Hamilton, and Thomas Ostrom, Social Cognition: Impact on Social Psychology, San Diego, Academic Press, 1994, pp. 3-4; Donald Sylvan and James Voss, Problem Representation in Foreign Policy Decision Making, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1998.
13. Thomas Preston and Margaret G. Hermann, “Presidential Leadership Style and the Foreign Policy Advisory Process”, in Eugene R. Wittkopf and James McCormick (eds.), The Domestic Sources of American Foreign Policy, New York, Rowman & Littlefield, 1999.
14. Eric Stern, Crisis Decisionmaking: A Cognitive-Institutional Approach, Stockholm Studies in Politics 66, Stockholm, Stockholm University, 1999. See also Alex Mintz, “Behavioral IR as a Subfield of International Relations”, International Studies Review, Vol. 9, No. 1 (Spring 2007), pp. 157-172.
15. Eric Stern, “Contextualizing and Critiquing the Poliheuristic Theory”, Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 48, No. 1 (February 2004), p. 113.
16. Holsti, “The Belief System and National Images”, p. 244.
17. Richard K. Herrmann and Jonathan W. Keller, “Beliefs, Values, and Strategic Choice: U.S. Leaders’ Decisions to Engage, Contain, and Use Force in an Era of Globalization”, Journal of Politics, Vol. 66, No. 2 (May 2004), p. 561.
18. Boulding, The Image: Knowledge in Life and Society, p. 423.
19. In particular, Boulding, The Image: Knowledge in Life and Society; Holsti, “The Belief System and National Images”.
20. Robert Jervis, Perception and Misperception in International Relations, New Haven, Princeton University Press, 1976; Jerel Rosati, “A Cognitive Approach to the Study of Foreign Policy”, in Laura Neack, Patrick J. Haney, and Jeanne A.K. Hey (eds.), Foreign Policy Analysis: Continuity and Change in its Second Generation, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall, 1995, pp. 49-70.
21. Boulding (1959), quoted in Richard K. Herrmann., James F. Voss, Tonya Y.E. Schooler and Joseph Ciarrochi, “Images in International Relations: An experimental Test of Cognitive Schemata”, International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 41, No. 3 (September 1997), p. 407.
22. Holsti “The Belief System and National Images”, p. 249.
23. Rosati, “A Cognitive Approach to the Study of Foreign Policy”, p. 55.
24. Wright’s (1957), quoted in Holsti, “The Belief System and National Images”, p. 244.
25. Francis A. Beer, Alice F. Healy and Lyle E. Bourne Jr., “Dynamic Decisions: Experimental Reactions to War, Peace, and Terrorism”, in Margaret G. Hermann (ed.), Advances in Political Psychology I, London, Elsevier, 2004.
26. Beer, Healy, and Bourne, “Dynamic Decisions”, p.141.
27. Richard K. Herrmann and Michael P. Fischerkeller, “Beyond the Enemy Image and Spiral Model: Cognitive- Strategic Research after the Cold War”, International Organization, Vol. 49, No. 3 (Summer 1995), p. 415.
28. Herrmann and Fischerkeller, “Beyond the Enemy Image and Spiral Model”, p. 426.
29. Herrmann, Voss, Schooler, and Ciarrochi, “Images in International Relations”, pp. 403-433.
30. Its Aftermath”, CRS Report for Congress #7-5700, 2010.
31. Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “Press Release Regarding the Use of Force by the Israeli Defense Forces Against the Humanitarian Aid Fleet to Gaza”, Open Source Center Document GMP20100531017013, 31 May 2010. Quoted in Migdalovitz, “Israel’s Blockade of Gaza, the Mavi Marmara Incident, and Its Aftermath”.
32. Speech delivered by Prime Minister Erdoğan at the AK Party Parliamentary Party Group Meeting, 1 June 2010, at http://www.akparti.org.tr/tbmm/grupkon.asp [last visited 12 June 2012].
33. “Turkey FM Says Ankara Entitled to Review Ties with Israel”, Anatolia, 14 June 2010; BBC Monitoring Newsfile, Quoted in Migdalovitz, “Israel’s Blockade of Gaza, the Mavi Marmara Incident, and Its Aftermath”.
34. Tzvi Ben Gedelyahu, “Turkey: Patience Prevented War with Israel over Flotilla”, Israel National News, at http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/147798 [last visited 27 February 2012].
35. Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu’s remarks at the Press Conference in New York, 27 September 2011 at http://www.mfa.gov.tr/sayin-bakanimizin-new-york_ta-duzenledigi- basin-toplantisi_-27-eylul-2011.tr.mfa [last visited 25 July 2012].
36. “Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu, Press Conference”, Hurriyet, 2 September 2011 at http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/planet/18633531.asp [last visited 28 May 2012].
37. Charles Osgood, An Alternative To War or Surrender, Urbana, University of Illinois Press, 1962.
38. The term “frenemy” was used to describe the changing US-Turkish relations by Steven Cook in his opinion piece, “How Do You Say ‘Frenemy’ in Turkish?”, Foreign Policy, at http://www. foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/06/01/how_do_you_say_frenemy_in_Turkish [last visited 18 June 2012].
39. Quoted in Chris Deliso, “In Israel, Concerns over Turkey’s Present Orientation and Future Coures”, at http://www.balkanalysis.com/turkey/2011/02/19/in-israel-concerns-over- turkey%E2%80%99s-present-orientation-and-future-course/ [last visited 22 June 2012].
40. “Barak Warns Against Further Harming Israel-Turkey Relations”, Haaretz, 12 October 2009.
41. Gökhan Bacık, “Turkish-Israeli Relations after Davos: A View from Turkey”, Insight Turkey, Vol. 11, No. 2 (April- June 2009), pp. 31-41.
42. “Erdoğan Attacks Israel, Throws Weight Behind Palestinian Statehood”, Today’s Zaman, 13 September 2011.
43. Hasan Kösebalaban, “The Turkish-Israeli Relations: What is its Strategic Significance?”, Middle East Policy, Vol. 17, No. 3 (Fall 2010), pp. 36–50.
44. In a recent publication, Şaban Kardaş also contends that the relations between Turkey and Israel are headed in a rocky path. See, Şaban Kardaş, “Türk-Israil Krizi: Moral Politikadan Çatışmaya”, Görüş, Vol. 70 (October 2011), pp. 12-17.