Why do some bilateral relationships have the ability to become strong, stable and amicable but others do not even when they have incentive to develop higher resilience? This article proposes that perceived relational identity differences between two states, or otherness, shapes and limits resilience in their relationship. Drawing on the existing IR identity literature, the article develops a conceptual and operational definition of otherness and proposes a useful and replicable framework that can be used to capture the complexity of bilateral ties. The article illustrates this framework with two types of cases. First, two historical “least-likely” cases (Germany–Israel, 1949–1973; India–USSR, 1947–1970) of higher resilience, in which one would not expect the resilient relationships that developed. Second, a most likely contemporary mini-case (India–Israel 1992–2012), which uncovers lower than expected resilience. The article then concludes with the implications of this framework for further academic research and policy analysis.

中文翻译：

---

双边关系的差异性和韧性：以以色列-德国、印度-俄罗斯和印度-以色列为例

为什么有些双边关系有能力变得强大、稳定和友好，而有些双边关系却没有，即使他们有动力发展更高的韧性？本文提出，感知到的两个状态之间的关系身份差异，或他者，塑造并限制了他们关系中的弹性。本文借鉴现有的 IR 身份文献，对他者进行了概念性和操作性定义，并提出了一个有用且可复制的框架，可用于捕捉双边关系的复杂性。这篇文章用两种类型的案例说明了这个框架。首先，两个历史“最不可能”的案例（德国-以色列，1949-1973 年；印度-苏联，1947-1970 年）具有较高的弹性，其中人们不会期望发展出弹性关系。第二，一个最有可能的当代小案例（印度-以色列 1992-2012），它揭示了低于预期的弹性。然后，文章总结了该框架对进一步学术研究和政策分析的影响。