Abstract:
The global geopolitical implications of the 11 September 2001 attacks highlight the
need to reassess theories and concepts of security, as well as processes of foreign policymaking.
This thesis examines traditional paradigms of International Relations, suggesting an
alternative conceptual framework that views non-state actors as actors in their own right. It
suggests that the variables shaping a state's foreign policy towards non-state actors are
similar to those shaping its foreign policy towards state actors, notwithstanding the
fundamental disparity in power relations between the two types of actors. It then studies the
security doctrine and foreign policy behavior of one state: Israel. Having faced the challenge of non-state actors for much of its existence, Israel is an
ideal case to examine. The thesis thus investigates Israeli attitudes and policies vis-a.-vis three
non-state actors: the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), the Islamic Resistance
Movement (Hamas), and the Islamic Resistance in Lebanon (Hezbollah). It concludes that
while Israel has portrayed all the actors that have challenged its interests and security as
"terrorists", its attitudes and policies towards these three non-state actors are far from
uniform. Furthermore, although Israel has presented its policies towards non-state actors as a
function of its quest for security, some of these policies are rooted in political considerations
rather than classic security interests. This is not to suggest that security and strategic
considerations do not playa role; however, these considerations have often been exaggerated and utilized as a means to the attainment of political ends. Finally, this thesis contends that
rather than serving its security interests, Israel's actions have been counterproductive,
undermining instead of promoting the security of the state and that of its citizens.
