The eruption of the 2010 Arab uprisings has generated a great deal of academic scholarship. However, the foreign policy of Israel, a key power in the Middle East, amid the Arab uprisings, has received limited attention. Furthermore, as we demonstrate, the conventional wisdom purported by the current debate, which is that Israel adopted a “defensive, non-idealist” realist foreign policy posture (Magen 2015, 114) in the wake of the Arab uprisings, is wrong. Rather, utilizing an innovative approach linking foreign policy analysis (FPA) and the literature on framing, we demonstrate that Israel adopted a foreign policy stance of entrenchment. This posture is predicated on peace for peace not territory, reinforcing Israel's military capabilities, and granting limited autonomy to the Palestinians under Israeli occupation. Thus, the article demonstrates how framing can usefully be operationalized to uncover how binary discourse does not merely reflect foreign policy but is, in fact, constitutive of it. We demonstrate that diagnostic and prognostic frames helped to create a direct connection between the images held by a leader, his/her worldview, ideas, perceptions and misperceptions, and foreign policy actions. These frames constituted action-oriented sets of beliefs and meaning that inspired and legitimated certain foreign policy options and instruments while restricting others.

中文翻译：

---

框架与外交政策——以色列对阿拉伯起义的回应

2010 年阿拉伯起义的爆发产生了大量的学术奖学金。然而，在阿拉伯起义中，中东关键大国以色列的外交政策受到的关注有限。此外，正如我们所展示的，当前辩论所声称的传统智慧，即以色列在阿拉伯起义之后采取了“防御性的、非理想主义的”现实主义外交政策姿态（Magen 2015, 114），这是错误的。相反，我们利用将外交政策分析 (FPA) 与框架文献联系起来的创新方法，证明以色列采取了巩固的外交政策立场。这种姿态是以和平换和平而不是领土为基础，加强以色列的军事能力，并给予以色列占领下的巴勒斯坦人有限的自治权。因此，这篇文章展示了如何有效地运用框架来揭示二元话语如何不仅反映外交政策，而且实际上是外交政策的组成部分。我们证明，诊断和预测框架有助于在领导者所持有的形象、他/她的世界观、想法、看法和误解以及外交政策行动之间建立直接联系。这些框架构成了以行动为导向的信念和意义，激发了某些外交政策选择和工具并使之合法化，同时限制了其他选择和工具。他/她的世界观、想法、看法和误解，以及外交政策行动。这些框架构成了以行动为导向的信念和意义，激发了某些外交政策选择和工具并使之合法化，同时限制了其他选择和工具。他/她的世界观、想法、看法和误解，以及外交政策行动。这些框架构成了以行动为导向的信念和意义，激发了某些外交政策选择和工具并使之合法化，同时限制了其他选择和工具。