Guy Ziv

This textbook e-reader introduces undergraduate students to the historical foundations of American foreign policy; key theoretical approaches to the study of foreign policymaking; the central actors, institutions, and political processes of U.S. foreign policy; and contemporary challenges to U.S. primacy in the 21st century. The e-reader includes recent essays on current debates in U.S. foreign policy, such as how to best restore transatlantic ties and meet the serious challenges the United States faces vis-à-vis China and Russia and in the Middle East.

Benjamin Netanyahu has carefully cultivated a self-image as Israel's 'Mr. Security' during his decades of political activity. His reputation as a security-minded leader has resonated with large swathes of the Israeli public, enabling him to become Israel's longest-serving prime minister. Yet the Israeli security community has long questioned Netanyahu's approach to national security. The Netanyahu era has seen unprecedented civil-military tensions, while retired generals and former heads of the Mossad and Shin Bet intelligence agencies, some of whom were appointed by Netanyahu, have publicly rejected both his leadership and his policies. Drawing on interviews with dozens of senior veterans of the Israeli security establishment, this book addresses this intriguing paradox. It sets out to explain the mutual distrust and intense disagreements between Netanyahu and the security community, as well as the underlying reasons behind the Israeli public's inattention to the collective judgment of hundreds of ex-generals and former spymasters.

This textbook reader introduces undergraduate students to the historical foundations of American foreign policy; key theoretical approaches to the study of foreign policymaking; the central actors, institutions, and political processes of U.S. foreign policy; and contemporary challenges to U.S. primacy in the 21st century. This third edition focuses in particular on the Trump Era in an attempt to offer greater clarity on the new administration’s enigmatic and, at times, contradictory approach to foreign policy. The reader includes recent essays on current debates in U.S. foreign policy, such as how to deal with the threat of North Korea and the effectiveness of using drones as a principal tool of U.S. counterterrorism strategy.

One underplayed aspect of the current populist zeitgeist is the politicization of the military, adding to the growing list of dangers that democracies face today. Israel, which has experienced its own nationalistic populism since 2010, represents a deviant case with regard to the civil-military dimension. In contrast to the typical pattern of populist leaders enhancing the military's influence to bolster their own power, in Israel, populist politicians have sought to restrain the military top brass from the decision-making process, going as far as delegitimizing them by portraying them as part of the "leftist" out-of-touch elite. In a country in which the lines between the military and civilian spheres have traditionally been blurred and where security officials have played a significant role in decision-making, this has been a noteworthy development in the era of Benjamin Netanyahu. This article advances two causal claims pertaining to the Israeli case. First, perceived military setbacks and political-diplomatic moves associated with the military have diminished the once-hallowed reputation of the Israel Defense Forces. Second, right-wing politicians often view the military top brass as potential political rivals, given the standard practice in Israel of high-ranking generals entering politics upon retirement. The generals' declining status in Israeli society has opened up the political space for populist nationalists to assault both active and retired security officials whose assessments often clash with the worldview of right-wing politicians.

The long impasse in Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking has dashed the hopes for a near-term resolution to one of the world's most intractable conflicts. The continuous expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank has made the creation of an independent and contiguous Palestinian state an exceedingly difficult undertaking that has gotten farther and farther from reach. Consequently, a growing number of scholars, practitioners, and activists have shied their attention away from the two-state paradigm to the so-called "one-state solution." The latter, however, has dramatically different interpretations by its proponents, with one version premised on full equality and another on Jewish supremacy sans equality -- irreconcilable positions. Only a small minority of Israelis and Palestinians, moreover, support the one-state solution in any of its variants. Unless steps are taken by the Israeli government to keep the two-state solution alive, Israel will become a binational state with the conflict remaining unresolved.

This article argues that the widespread notion that Israel lacks a Palestinian negotiating partner has endured in Israeli society despite the security community's unease with this narrative. Many of Israel's former generals and spymasters, some of whom were interviewed for this article, have argued that the "no partner" mantra runs counter to Israeli interests and that there are steps the government of Benjamin Netanyahu has avoided taking that would keep prospects for a two-state solution alive.

Guy Ziv analyzes the case of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s endorsement of the two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He argues that Netanyahu’s  June 2009  declaration was a  tactical maneuver rather than a reassessment of his beliefs.