Greece and Israel : a new emerging alliance in the eastern Mediterranean

(1)

1

Greece and Israel: A new emerging alliance in

the eastern Mediterranean

Program: MSc Political Science, European Politics & External Relations Track Thesis supervisor: Dr. Dimitris Bouris

2nd_{reader: Dr. Mehdi Parvizi Amineh} Author: Fotis Tegopoulos, 12237698 Date: 21/06/2019

(2)

2

Abbreviations

AKP: Justice & Development Party (Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi) CBM: Confidence-Building Measures

EEZ: Exclusive Economic Zone

ELIAMEP: Hellenic Foundation for European & Foreign Policy (Elliniko Idryma Evropaikis & Exoterikis Politikis)

ERT: Greek Public Broadcaster (Elliniki Radiofonia Tileorasi) EU: European Union

FIR: Flight Information Regions

HIV/AIDS: Human Immunodeficiency Virus/Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome IDF: Israeli Defense Forces

ISIS: Islamic State

MoU: Memorandum of Understanding NATO: North Atlantic Treaty Organization NAVTEX: Navigational Telex

ND: New Democracy (Nea Dimokratia)

PASOK: Panhellenic Socialist Movement (Panellinio Sosialistiko Kinima) PCI: Project of Common Interest

PM: Prime Minister RoC: Republic of Cyprus

SYRIZA: Coalition of Radical Left (Synaspismos Rizospastikis Aristeras) US: United States

(5)

5

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank my supervisor Dr. Dimitris Bouris for his continuous support throughout the process of writing this thesis, as well as for the constant encouragement during this period of time. I want to thank my second reader Dr. Mehdi Parvizi Amineh for his feedback and for agreeing to undertake this task. Moreover, I am more than grateful to my interviewees for their time, their availability and more importantly, for their useful information. I would also like to thank my family and my friends for their backing and their advice whenever needed.

(6)

6

Chapter 1: Introduction

1.1. Importance of this research

This thesis is going to cover an issue which concerns a region with a notable interest, the Eastern Mediterranean. Greece and Israel are two countries that are part of this territory and have deepened significantly their cooperation, as an aftereffect of a series of events that happened in the area. The region of the Eastern Mediterranean can be described as generally unstable, as there are various events that show this insecurity: the Cypriot conflict, Turkish aggression, the civil war in Syria and 2015 refugee crisis. Despite these though, positive and interesting facts rekindled even further the interest of international actors in this region. For instance, the discoveries of natural gas and hydrocarbons in the Exclusive Economic Zones of Cyprus and Israel which is a determinant factor for the collaboration among these states. Moreover, the weakness of Turkey to handle this new geopolitical reality leads it to provocative actions in the territory, aiming to block in any way possible the collaboration developed by Greece, Israel, and Cyprus; in this way, it remains isolated and is searching for the appropriate reaction in order to enhance its regional role. The growing importance of the region of Eastern Mediterranean can be seen from the fact that huge energy companies coming from states that are considered to be powerful (e.g. France and the US that are members of the UN Security Council) are more than active in blocks of the Cypriot and Israeli EEZ and increases the geopolitical value of the region. Trilateral summits started to be held from 2016 among the heads of states (Greece, Israel & Cyprus) and it is worth mentioning that they are supported actively by other international actors. This is obvious if someone takes into account that the US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo attended the last summit on 20 March 2019, whilst the US ambassador to Israel expressed his support for the operations of this cooperative scheme during the 5th_{summit on 20 December}

2018 in Beer-Sheva, Israel. In addition, through common action in energy affairs, there is a window of opportunity for the EU to reduce dependence on Russia and achieve the goal of energy security, as the necessary conditions for the fulfillment of this target started to arise, although there are some obstacles that have to be overcome.

(7)

7

The said possibility has been discussed already by the leaders of the aforementioned states and what falls short is the needed capacity so as to make this a reality in the future, always in the interests of the citizens.

The central aim of this thesis is to provide an insight into the factors that affected the enhancement of collaboration between Greece and Israel, the reasons behind it as well as the areas in which the two states joined their forces.

1.2. Research question and methods used

The central research question of this thesis is the following: To what extent did the

shift of alliances in the Eastern Mediterranean influence cooperation between Israel and Greece? This research question is going to be answered through assessing first

the relations between Turkey and the State of Israel and how their gradual deterioration from 2010 onwards affected the respective Greek-Israeli relationship. This is also a crucial factor for the comprehension of the reason why the relations between Israel and Greece remained ‘’frozen’’ for almost 40 years, a period during which Israelis and Turks increased their common action (mainly during the 1990s), but also because of converging interests in the Middle East. 2010 was a key year for the reversal of the climate in the relations between Greece and Israel, due to the Mavi Marmara affair that damaged significantly the Israeli-Turkish relationship and pointed the interest of Israel to a new emerging ‘’ally’’ which is Greece.

Regarding the method that is used in this research project, the author chose semi-structured interviews as a way to gather useful information on the matter by talking to people which have the necessary experience in order to correspond to the requirements of this document. Via the selection of interviews as a method, the author wants to learn more things about the most important parameters of Greek-Israeli relations and the factors that had an impact on their configuration over the years. That is also a good way to crosscheck information received by secondary sources (e.g. academic journals or book chapters) and collect data that are useful for the empirical chapters.

(8)

8

1.3. Structure of this thesis

The thesis is structured as follows: Chapter 2 offers insights on the methodology which has been followed for the research in this thesis. Firstly, it elaborates on the choice of interviewees, their background and their relevance on the subject. Then, the strengths and limitations of this method are analyzed and there is also a description of the type of interviews which was selected for this thesis. Chapter 3 offers a review of the relevant literature and summarizes the main theoretical discussion and the framework that was chosen. Specifically, the main theorists’ ideas will be analyzed and the critics that they receive from other schools of thought. For the purpose of this thesis, the neorealist approach of international relations and the theory of alliance formation will be adopted in order to analyze the different empirical findings.

Chapter 4 offers details about the historical overview of Greek-Israeli relations and the role of Turkey in this ‘’state of affairs’’. Issues that cover the reasons behind ‘’frozen’’ Greek-Israeli relations, Greek-Turkish disputes, the first steps in the improvement of bilateral relations between Greece and Israel and Turkish-Israeli relationship will be touched upon. In chapter 5 there will be a discussion on the consolidation of Greek-Israeli relationship from 2010 onwards and the efforts to enhance energy cooperation also via the inclusion of the Republic of Cyprus in the relevant dialogue, as well as the reaction of Turkey to this new situation. In conclusion, there will be a summary of the findings of the research question, not only conceptual but also empirical and a few words about the prospects of bilateral relations.

(9)

9

Chapter 2: Methodology

2.1 Primary Sources: Interviews as a method to gather information

As far as the collection of data is concerned, one of the major ways to gather information regarding the evolution of the relationship between Israel and Greece is through interviewing. The choice of people that were interviewed takes into account their knowledge on the subject, their experiences as well as the relevant publications that they have in journals, newspapers and the media. For the purposes of this thesis, 6 interviews were conducted: one journalist, two diplomats coming from Greece and the US, a former member of the Greek diplomatic corps, the head of a Greek think tank and an official coming from the Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The first one was conducted in Brussels in April and the remaining 5 took place in Athens in May. At this point, reference should be made to the persons that were chosen for the purpose of the conduct of interviews. The journalist chosen works for the Greek Public Broadcaster (ERT) and is specialized in diplomatic affairs. He has got experiences from his life in several countries of the world, including Israel, covering issues of diplomacy and foreign affairs for the last 30 years. Moreover, the General Director of ‘’ELIAMEP’’ (Hellenic Foundation for European and Foreign Policy) think tank was interviewed, a person who has also worked in the Greek Ministries of Foreign Affairs and Defense in the past. A representative of the US Embassy in Athens elaborated more on the role that the United States plays in the region of the Eastern Mediterranean and on their perception towards the Israeli-Greek emerging relationship. The second diplomat is the energy attaché of the Permanent Representation of Greece to the European Union and elaborated on key issues concerning Greek-Israeli energy relations and the latest developments in the region of eastern Mediterranean in this context.

(10)

10

Also, an officer coming from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Hellenic Republic shared her views on the subject of trilateral summits between Israel, Cyprus, and Greece and made reference to several agreements that were signed either trilaterally or bilaterally between Greece and Israel. Moreover, an interview took place with a former diplomat who has served the Hellenic Republic for many years in the past. His experience from the field will provide me with valuable information in the areas of the historical evolution of Greek- and Turkish-Israeli relationship, the changing dynamics of the territory of the Eastern Mediterranean and the current state of affairs. In general, the aim is to collect information from the persons above related to the current geopolitical context of the eastern Mediterranean, the way through which the ‘’triangle’’ Greece-Israel-Turkey is entangled, the latest energy developments and the intensification of contacts between the two countries. The author approached these people by communicating them through e-mails during April 2019 and held semi-structured interviews in order to gather the necessary information for the purpose of this thesis. Their prior knowledge on the subject under discussion and their experience on the topic, as well as their positions, helped in order to identify them, as I believe that they can provide me with useful data.

2.1.1 Strengths of this method

The interview is a means to collect data in which qualitative or quantitative questions can be addressed. Qualitative questions tend to be more ‘’open-ended’’, while quantitative are accustomed to being more ‘’closed’’. In the area of qualitative analysis, interviewing is a procedure which is very frequent. The dialogue that is taking place between the interviewer and the interviewee can turn out to be useful, as it gives them the chance to come up with incidents during their bio (Doody & Noonan, 2013: 28). Interviews are described as ‘’face to face’’ interactions during which someone wants to access data from and attain a grasp of his interlocutor. Via this process, a scientist is able to assemble ‘’facts’’, draw acumen into or comprehension of beliefs views, behaviors, processes and stances (Rowley, 2012: 261). In addition, interviews can be proven helpful when there is a great number of texts concerning a specific topic and they can ‘’reward’’ the researcher for the

(11)

11

absence as well as the restraints that of the evidence of documentation. The corroboration of what others say is also a positive thing that can be attributed to the interviewing process since this is a good opportunity to test the precision of the info that was gathered by other references (Tansey, 2007: 766-767). Qualitative research is a tool which if exploited in the right way, it can give the opportunity to a researcher to get to know other humans in a deeper manner and learn more about his experiences. Interviewing successfully can establish a connection with someone else at a very thorough degree. Consequently, it is important to respect and care for the offering of someone’s information, while using it according to its intentions (Donalek, 2005: 125).

2.1.2. Weaknesses of this method

A possible limitation is that the person who is going to be interviewed might show signs that the interviewer did not expect to happen. For instance, the participator can come late to the interview or the area in which this procedure is happening could not be the appropriate one due to unpleasant noises. In several cases, when forming the questions that are going to be addressed, it is common that a researcher affects the construction of his inquiries through the inclusion of his assumptions or beliefs in those. The way queries are phrased can have a negative impact on the outcome of a possible interview, because if they are not linked with the relevant topic under research appropriately, they might lead to information that is not desirable for the interviewer (Roulston et al., 2003: 648, 650, 653). Another thing that should be taken into account is the extent to which the other party of an interview is collaborating with the person who conducts it. This can happen because of the absence of trust among themselves or problems in the formulation of the questions. In some cases, the participants might provide with data that seem to have a big level of contradiction or they are trying to evade some of the questions being asked (Roulston, 2014: 278). Additionally, it is up to the person being interviewed to reveal everything that he or she feels more comfortable with sharing with the person sitting next to; the researcher would also show an interest in hearing more. In order for issues of ethics to be avoided, it is crucial for the interviewer to be allowed to move forward with this

(12)

12

process. It has to be acknowledged that everything that is mentioned in it might not be immediately controlled by the speechmaker. In addition, transcripts of the interview should be available to the participant in order for him to abolish part or parts of the interview for which the interviewee does not give his consent in their inclusion in the interpretation, analysis and research report (Nunkoosing, 2005: 702-703).

2.1.3. Semi-structured interviews as the type chosen for this purpose

As far as the typology of interviews is concerned, there are three main three categories: structured, semi-structured and unstructured. The design of the research is the most determinant factor in terms of the kind of interview that is going to be selected in order for the generation of data to give an answer to the research question to happen (Doody & Noonan, 2013: 28). Regarding this thesis, the category of interviews that is picked up by the author is the semi-structured ones. In the framework of semi-structured interviews, a common group of queries can be asked to the participants, while the level of flexibility in this procedure is high. This means that when it comes to the order of the questions, a predefined plan does not exist. Furthermore, the presence of ‘’open-ended’’ questions adds to the direction of encouragement of vitality and depth, while it gives room for the emergence of new ideas (Dearnley, 2005: 22).

The choice of semi-structured interviews allows the researcher to cut down topics or areas that he will address to his interlocutor. On the one hand, the interviewer is interested in particular fields and on the other there is the desire to learn more about his experiences and his background. This choice is better because compared to unstructured interviews it reduces the danger of not bringing out from the researcher the themes or topics linked with the research question(s) under examination (Rabionet, 2011: 564).

(13)

13

2.2 Secondary sources and literature used in the thesis

In the previous section, reference was made to the use of interviews as a way to gather information, their strengths and weaknesses, as well as the specific type of interviewing that, is adopted; in this case, ‘’semi-structured interviews’’ constitute the approach followed on behalf of the author. Apart from this though, secondary sources are part of the data exploited for the purpose of writing this dissertation. More specifically, academic book chapters, monographs and edited volumes, as well as articles published in academic journals, are the main forms of secondary sources that can be found throughout the thesis.

As far as the theoretical part of this research project is concerned, book chapters and articles of academic journals related to the neorealist theory of international relations, its main characteristics and critics are going to be used, as this theory along with the concept of alliance formation embodies the conceptual framework of this written piece. A number of theorists have made reference to the basic characteristics of this perspective and the way through which state entities function within a system of anarchy, where there is no supreme authority above them (e.g. Mearsheimer, 2006; Waltz, 1979; Waltz, 2000).

Moreover, when it comes to the distinction that exists within this theoretical approach, the academic literature on ‘’ defensive’’ and ‘’offensive’’ realism is used, in order for the reader to understand fully the principles of these views. Defensive realism emphasizes mostly on the efforts of states to maintain the current state of affairs, driven by fear perceptions, criticizes the choice of the nations that follow expansionist strategies and mentions the potential dangers that could be created from such actions and states that the above action plan can be compatible only when it serves the goal of preserving national security (Jervis, 1978; Jervis, 1999; Lynn-Jones, 1998). On the other hand, offensive realists highlight the limitless character of power that is behind states’ desire to expand and enhance their role in international arena, while their interest for being more powerful than their competitors and increase of their winnings

(14)

14

justifies the adoption of offensive actions (Schweller, 1994; Snyder, 2002; Zakaria 1998).

Moving on to the definition of alliances and their attributes, they can serve various purposes; they can be ‘’augmentative’’, ‘’preventive’’ or ‘’strategic’’, in accordance with the character that they have. The existence of a mutual external danger for two states motivates them to form a coalition in order to deal with it efficiently. Among the main aspects of what is an alliance and how useful is it are its ‘’value’’ as well as the way it is managed, not only internally but also with regards to the relationship with the adversaries. ‘’The ideology of the alliance’’ is a condition for its establishment, meaning that participating states are united ‘’ derivatively’’ against something, whilst nations decide to make this move when benefits outweigh costs. Last but not least, the nature of the international system as well as the number of poles of power affects states’ choice to proceed or not to ally structures, including the potential costs (Chiu, 2003; Fedder, 1968; Snyder, 1984; Snyder, 1990).

With regards to the empirical part of the thesis and the historical overview of the relationship between Israel and Greece, I am going to make use of articles published in academic journals, book chapters and articles from the media (newspapers from both countries) emphasizing on the main events and the reasons that signified the enhancement of the bilateral relations and contributed to the amelioration of the ‘’climate’’ among the countries (e.g. Athanassopoulou, 2003; Evaghorou, 2018; Murat Agdemir, 2015; Stergiou, 2015; Tziampiris, 2015; Tziarras, 2016).

Moreover, I am going to make use of the press releases issued by the governments of the states in order to gain insight regarding the content of meetings that took place especially over the last decade among Israeli and Greek statesmen. In addition, I will include series of articles from scientific journals and chapters of books that describe the dynamics in the Turkish-Israeli relationship and in particular the negative ones from 2008-09 onwards, which affects significantly the rapprochement between Greece and Israel, mostly in the post-2010 context (Altunisik, 2000; Altunisik & Martin, 2011; Ayturk, 2011; Bacik, 2001; Inbar, 2005; Sayari, 1997).

(15)

15

2.3 Case selection: why the Greek-Israeli relationship is important for the framework of alliance formation

Greece and Israel are two countries that belong to the region of the southeastern Mediterranean, a region in which balances are particularly fragile, with a great number of conflicts and a series of security challenges existing. While diplomatic relations were historically not developed, the recent discovery of hydrocarbons and natural gas in the Exclusive Economic Zones of Israel and Cyprus over the last years has created a new dynamic in the territory, while the cooperation in this context bilaterally and trilaterally through the inclusion of Greece has expanded significantly. The two states collaborate with each other in various areas of policy, such as trade, energy, and defense, an element that shows that they have deepened their relationship. The promotion of development and stability in the Eastern Mediterranean is the ulterior goal, whilst it should be mentioned that no one is excluded or there is no ‘’opponent’’ deriving from this cooperative scheme (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Hellenic Republic, 2019b). Among the most crucial events that highlight the high level of contacts between the contributing parties was the first ‘’Government-to-Government’’ meeting that took place in October 2013 in Jerusalem. A significant number of ministers accompanied the Greek Prime Minister Antonis Samaras in his trip to Israel and it is worth mentioning that 10 bilateral accords were signed, including several fields (Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2013). Furthermore, in November 2014, the Secretary Generals of the Ministries of Foreign Affairs of Greece, Israel, and Cyprus conducted political dialogue in Athens, so as to establish their forthcoming framework for collaboration. In the joint communique issued after the talks, the statesmen of the participating countries stressed their strong will to support actively their approach in all levels and add to the strengthening of prosperity, peace, and security in the territory of Eastern Mediterranean (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Hellenic Republic, 2014b).

On January 28th, 2016 the first trilateral summit between the heads of states Benjamin Netanyahu, Nikos Anastasiades, and Alexis Tsipras took place in Nicosia and someone would argue that this is the capstone of the efforts of Israel, Cyprus and

(16)

16

Greece to come closer to each other. Related to the major issues discussed, these were the potential collaboration in the gas sector, electricity and other issues of ‘’low politics’’, like tourism, agriculture and water management (Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2016).

Ever since, the above states have established regular talks and contacts, a component that signs their desire to further develop their relationship. Israel, Cyprus, and Greece are organizing their summits with high frequency, meaning that their leaders meet once or twice per year. It should be added that another summit took place in December 2016 in Cyprus; one more took place in 2017, two during 2018 and the most recent one, in Jerusalem on the 20th of March, 2019. Special reference should be made to the summit of Beer-Sheva on December 20th, 2018 as for the first time, the US welcomed this movement and the ambassador of the state to Israel expressed his support for the efforts of the trilateral summit while underlining the significance for the cultivation of prosperity and stability of Europe. A possible signature of the intergovernmental agreement among the states for the construction of ‘’EastMed’’ pipeline contributes to the establishment of a climate of peaceful coexistence in the eastern Mediterranean (Tzogopoulos, 2018c). The participation of the US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in the summit held on 20/03 shows the will of the Americans to promote cooperation in the energy sector, whilst sending a strong message that the 4 countries that participated ‘’will defend against external malign influences’’ (eKathimerini, 2019).

Additionally, senators Bob Menendez and Marco Rubio introduced in the US Senate in April a ‘’bipartisan’’ legislative act in order to adapt the strategy of the US in the region. The ‘’Eastern Mediterranean Security and Energy Partnership Act of 2019’’ backs up the trilateral summits between Israel, Greece and Cyprus via actions in the defense and security sector like the termination of the embargo on the transmission of arms to the Republic of Cyprus, recognizing the recent developments in the area (United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, 2019). During his visit to Athens at the end of April, Senator Menendez had a number of meetings with Greek officials, such as the Minister of Defense, Evangelos Apostolakis. Between the topics that were touched upon were the Greek-Turkish relations and the current state of affairs regarding energy in the Eastern Mediterranean (Karagiorgas, 2019).

(17)

17

Chapter 3: Literature review

In this chapter, the main theories that will guide this thesis will be presented and analyzed, as well as their criticism from various schools of thought. For the purpose of this thesis, the neorealist approach of international relations that comes from the realist tradition is used, accompanied by the theory that has to do with the alliance formation. As part of the alliance formation theory, ‘’quasi-alliance’’ is also going to be analyzed; it plays its own role regarding the characteristics that the relationship between Greece and Israel has. Critics of neorealist perspective will originate from neoliberalism and constructivism. Reference is also going to be made to specific categories of neorealism and to the basic assumptions that the realist theory has in general, as it has affected neorealism.

3.1. Realism as a major benchmark

The realist theory of international relations is a theory with a significant impact on this academic field, as it describes precisely a series of phenomena that take place in international politics. The term itself involves a confirmation regarding what should be considered as ‘’real’’, what belongs to the sphere of the real world. In its definition, realism mentions anything that can be described as undeniable, covering every single feature of our existence. Concerning the field of politics, reality along with utopia constitutes the main foundations of this process. The view expressed above can be applied to the human of the 20th century, as it can be used in various contexts and became part of the international theory (Wight, 1992: 16).

To begin with, of vital importance for the realist school of international relations is the changing power distribution between nations (Snyder, 2004: 53). The realist assumption believes that in the international arena, there is combat of states that are self-interested to strive for power (idem, 2004: 55). Among the types of realism that exist in the discussion of international relations, there is a differentiation related to their basic hypotheses. This means that they have diverging views on state preferences’ sources and particularly, the need to gather the necessary means for their

(18)

18

safety in a world of self-help or/and the aspiration of human beings for power (Elman & Jensen, 2014: 2). It is crucial to make a reference to some of the most important assumptions that the theory of realism has in its core. First of all, according to this set of beliefs, states constitute the dominant and the most effective form of social and political organization. This does not mean that they are the unique actors in international relations, but in any case, they play the most vital role, as they determine during their interaction the structure of the international system. Secondly, states present a rational political and strategic behavior, which derives from the element of anarchy that is part of the international system and the ‘’security dilemmas’’ that occur, in order to reassure their survival. This thing is taking place under the scope of ‘’cost-benefit estimations’’ (Tsirigotis, 2010: 46-47). The realist theory is also critical on the role that institutions play in the international arena, as it argues that they are not able to prevent states from trying to maximize their short-term power and they display calculation of nations as far as ‘’self-interest’’ is concerned (Mearsheimer, 1995: 82). Realism claims that the behavior of states is affected significantly by the international system’s ‘’ material structure’’ and the allocation of the respective capabilities between nations is the most important parameter in order to comprehend global politics (idem, 1995: 91).

Furthermore, the acquisition of power is a necessary precondition for the existence of security, while the second is important for the promotion of vital and essential national interests. National interests are a decisive variable as far as the creation of states’ ‘’grand strategy’’ is concerned, as they function in the framework of their self-serving national interest, defined in terms of power. In addition, they do not ‘’relegate’’ and restrict their national interest so as to serve the interests of third countries. Their basic priority is to establish and maintain balances of power and interests with their neighbors (Tsirigotis, 2010: 48-50).

What is more, power and interests are factors that can be characterized as built-in in ‘’human power’’ as Hans Morgenthau argues in his book ‘’In Defense of National Interest’’ (Pham, 2015: 189). Also, among the main features of this theory, is the use of the term ‘’power politics’’, which can be attributed to the realist paradigm of international relations, or in other words, ‘’Political Realism’’ incorporates the elements that were described above. Within the realist theory itself, there is a series of voices that highlight different components when it comes to the main part of their

(19)

19

analysis. For instance, several realists emphasize on the fact that there is no central authority in the international system, a ‘’government of the governments’’, as it was mentioned previously, while some others pay attention to the nature of humans and its implications on cases of war and conflict. As a consequence, the first category of theorists falls within ‘’structural realism’’, while the second into the group of ‘’classical realism’’, which are going to be described in detail below (Donnelly, 2005: 31). Last but not least, despite the absence of a central authority in the international system, the order is kept via ‘’balance of power’’ and the limitations in normative terms enforced by public opinion, morality and international law (Pham, 2015: 189).

3.2 Classical Realism

The roots of this approach can be found from the Thucydides’ text that describes the Pelopponesian War that describes the war between Athens and Sparta and portrays political power as an indispensable part of human behavior (Dunne & Schmidt, 2013: 121). The internal impulse of human for power and his will for domination are taken into account as necessary parts of his temperament. Furthermore, the selfish attitude of the state is taken into consideration simply as a reflection of the characteristics of the people of which any community is composed. In this sense, human nature is the one that explains why international politics is in essence ‘’ power politics’’ too (ibid, 2013: 121). Additionally, philosophers such as Baruch Spinoza pay significant attention to the role of the desires of humans, as they think that they are guided by those and this leads to conflicts (Waltz, 2011: 46). Furthermore, instead of helping each other, they behave in a way that is mutually destructive. Every person strives for excellence among his fellow beings and ‘’is more proud’’ of the damage he has caused to the others, rather than of the benefit he has done for himself. Also, Spinoza’s thought regarding social and political phenomena is based on the debate between logic and sentiments (ibid, 2011: 46)

Nicollo Machiavelli in his book states that it is within the mandate of the leader to ensure the safety of its society, as it is an issue of vital essence. In order for this to become successful, the ruler should have the necessary capacities to deal with domestic and foreign hazards. Also, Hans Morgenthau in his work that was published

(20)

20

in 1948 has contributed in this direction by stating that the field of politics is administered by rules that derive from the character of humans. What is more, he underlines the role of power and proposes that ethics have to be averted as far as the process of policymaking is concerned, whilst political activities should target the maintenance, increase or the creation of power. The presence of integrity can have a detrimental impact on the implementation of policies, as it can lead to deficiencies, or even worse, the devastation of a country by a competitive actor (Antunes & Camisao, 2017: 16).

Another theorist who belongs to the Classical Realist point of the theory is Edward H. Carr, whose book with the title ‘’The Twenty Years’ Crisis, 1919-1939’’ preoccupies itself among others with the role of human nature when it comes to its impact on politics (Carr, 2016: 91). Specifically, he argues that one of the ways that people behave towards their fellows is through egotist practices. The other way is via the need to collaborate with others. According to him, benevolence in societies constitutes bliss, highlighting that every activity in the political field is established by personal motives. What is more, he is making reference to the words of Dr. Catlin, who states that ‘’homo politicus’’ is someone who is trying to harmonize his desires with the respective ones of the people living next to him, in order to complete his goals as much as possible (ibid, 2016: 91-92).

Thomas Hobbes has made a significant contribution to the approach of classical realism, mentioning that ‘’the state of nature’’ was a prerequisite for the coexistence of humans before the establishment of formal and independent states (Jackson & Sorensen, 2013: 71). This argument is crucial because it emphasizes on the fact that every person is under threat and he should not feel safe at any time, as there are dangers coming from his neighbors or the people with whom he lives (Hobbes, 1997: 80). Furthermore, he claims that the creation of a state entity is the only sustainable way for human beings to avoid conflicts and live with each other in a peaceful manner. As far as the aforementioned is concerned, it can be applicable to the internal sphere; in the international arena, things are different, as Hobbes believes that there is no durable condition of peace between states and that the possibility of an intra-state armed conflict is on the table. In this context, the elements of ‘’security dilemma’’ in international terms and the ‘’international state of nature’’ should be considered very seriously (Jackson & Sorensen, 2013: 71-72).

(21)

21

3.3. Neorealism

The roots of neorealist approach can be traced back to the middle of the 80s and it is actually a ‘’product’’ of the realist theory. The term ‘’neorealism’’ can be used in order to describe a more recent or ‘’updated’’ version of realism, while when it comes to the field of security studies, when the discussion about neorealism is taking place, the terms ‘’ defensive realism’’ and ‘’offensive realism’’ are on the table (Lamy, 2013: 158). The aforementioned concepts are going to be described in detail in the following lines.

Firstly, neorealism argues the international system is characterized as anarchical, but this does not mean that it is chaotic or full of disorder. The realist definition of anarchy does not have to do with conflicts; it is an organizational principle, according to which the system is composed of independent states that do not have a central power beyond them (Mearsheimer, 2006: 79). The second major hypothesis is that states possess some offensive military capability, which makes them able to damage or possibly destroy one another (idem, 2006: 80). Countries are potentially dangerous among themselves, despite the fact that some have stronger military forces in comparison to others and consequently, they are more hazardous. Thirdly, states cannot be sure about the intentions of other states, as there is no certainty that any other country will use its military capacity in order to attack it. This does not necessarily mean that states always have hostile intentions; it is impossible though to make accurate estimations regarding national purposes (idem, 2006: 81).

Furthermore, it should be added that survival is the major goal of state entities, as they try to maintain their territorial integrity and the autonomy of their internal political order. This element is crucial for the accomplishment of other national aims, as they cannot take place without the existence of survival and under the fear of a possible conquest by another state (idem, 2006: 82). The number of strong states is a determining factor for the international system, as for instance, a bipolar system tends to be less competitive than a multipolar. This is happening because concerns regarding provisional capacities of states decrease and estimations of the strength and the cohesiveness of affiliation are easier to be made (Waltz, 2000: 6). What is more, states show similarities in terms of demands, but there are differences among them as

(22)

22

far as the capacities for fulfilling them are concerned (Waltz, 1979: 105). The position of states with regards to their capabilities influences the allocation of competences, something that has an impact on collaboration with other states, as the issues of ‘’relative gains’’ and dependency from others show up in the forefront. In this sense, the ambition and analogous intelligence of states to augment their strength restrain one another, leading to the so-called ‘’balance of power’’ (idem, 1979: 105-107). In order for this harmony to be carried out, nations have at their disposal two ways: the first one is through practices of internal arrangements, meaning that they strive for economic development or they increase their expenditure in the military sector and the second is via their participation in ally structures, so as to deal with the power of other nations effectively (idem, 1979: 118).

3.3.1 Defensive Realism

Defensive realism emphasizes needlessness that warfare has as a way in order for a nation to augment its power and draws our attention at the element of security, especially when it comes to states that are against one another. In this context, perceptions of fear drive the behavior of nations, as they want to ensure their survival in the international arena. As a consequence, they want to maintain the current state of affairs and they don’t have offensive aspirations, which will possibly lead to more winnings. What is more, defensive realists have the conviction that a clash is inevitable only in cases in which security is under serious threat and in circumstances where controversies among states turn out to be unresolvable (Jervis, 1999: 49). Also, when a nation is pursuing to implement an expansionist policy, on the one hand, it leads to power extension, on the other hand though, commitments and responsibilities increase and consequently, more power is needed (Jervis, 1978: 169).

Moreover, the leaders of states implement policies of expansion due to false beliefs that offensiveness is the exclusive manner for their protection. Nevertheless, the best way to reassure national security is the designing of strategies that are moderate (Taliaferro, 2000/2001: 129). Among the main axioms of defensive neorealism is that states try to enlarge whenever this enlargement meets the goal of security. In cases of danger, a nation will use strategies of extension only under specific prerequisites: the

(23)

23

existence of actual risk, the success of the method of expansion in terms of dealing effectively with the aforementioned hazard and the possession of necessary ability to implement a plan like this. It can be said that when these circumstances are existent, a state can follow a strategy that will incorporate expansionist elements; if they do not exist, it is better to draw a more passive plan of action. At the same time, threat perceptions constitute an important part of this theory, as they contribute in their own way to the states’ respective policymaking process (Lynn-Jones, 1998: 170-171).

3.3.2 Offensive Realism

According to offensive realism, there are a few nations that want to maintain the current state of affairs, as there are serious motives for them to seek for chances that will lead to more winnings against other states. The latter is applicable when conditions are favorable; when profits offset losses, this can promote more efficiently offensive strategies. The main goal for a state is to become predominant in its geographical territory and simultaneously, deter other states that have such aspirations from doing so or, counterbalance them. Also, nations are never contented with the power they have and they keep on searching for more, which as a consequence can bring about more easily a conflict (Snyder, 2002: 151-153). The major claim of defensive realism is that the increasing insecurity of a state is leading to the establishment of expansionist policies. As a consequence, nations have to follow strategies of expansion, compared to the classical realist perspective, which states that nations can expand (Zakaria, 1998).

Apart from this though, reference should be made to national options (e.g. alliances) that back up the increase of winnings and not solely serve the purpose of deterrence. In theory, nations feel ready to do whatever it takes to preserve their security, while on the contrary, they do not want to undertake initiatives and actions that will ameliorate their status in the international system. The expansion of political interests externally can take place when national relative power gets increased; this is the main assumption of Classical Realism. Consequently, the benefits coming from the implementation of an expansionist strategy are bigger than the respective losses when there is an increase in the power of a state (ibid, 1998). The ’true interests’’ of a

(24)

24

nation constitute a constant effort for acquisition of strength and enlargement. States with the ambition to revision are dissatisfied with their current situation and they do not want just to maintain their principles, but augment them and make themselves more powerful. Therefore, when a state is not appeased with its ongoing position in the international arena, it is more likely to become for example to become part of an allied structure that is driven by profit-maximization motives (Schweller, 1994: 86-88).

3.3.4. Critics of neorealism

The roots of neoliberalism which criticizes neorealism can be found during the decades of the ‘40s and ‘50s, when studies of functional integration appeared, as well as in the study of regional integration in the ‘60s, which highlight the concession of their sovereignty in order for integrated communities that would bring peace and prosperity to be created. The institutional liberal theory developed in the 70s’ emphasized internationalism and complex interdependence. Among their ideas were that there is no actual distinctions between issues of ‘high’’ and ‘’low’’ politics, the increasing interaction between state and non-state actors and the reduction of the efficiency of military power as a tool of the art of politics (Lamy, 2013: 166-167). In general, liberals argue that institutions in the economy with a transnational orientation and talks between governments can ameliorate the intra-state connection. Furthermore, the establishment of an accessible system of trade can give a nation the chance to enhance its role in the international scene via economic development and exchange of goods, without relying exclusively on military means for this purpose. As a consequence, new schemes of collaboration and harmonious contest can be created between states. Neoliberalism stresses out that regulations and institutional structures are able to reduce the probability of a dispute, have an impact on nations’ behavior and set up the basis for a pluralist and diverse international arena (Tarzi, 2004: 119-120).

In a globalized world like the existing one, new forms of threats have started to exist, for instance, terrorism, drug trafficking and widespread diseases, such as the HIV/AIDS virus which lead to the conclusion that not all threats can be confronted

(25)

25

unilaterally by states. The successful reaction to hazards towards safety requires the foundation of sectional or possibly universal regimes that promote states’ common action and the configuration of the policies designed as a response to these new menaces against security (Alisson, 2000: 83-84). When it comes to the foundation of an effective framework against terrorist groups specifically, the attacks in the US in 2001 made the coalition of a great number of states, global and regional organizations a necessity and according to the neoliberal perspective of international relations, multilateral cooperation can provide with solutions to such problems, while showing disapproval towards unilateral actions, such as unilateral or preemptive use of violence from the US in this context, as shown from George Bush’s doctrine in 2002 (Keohane, 2002: 278, 280).

Another theory that is criticizing the neorealist framework of analysis is constructivism. To begin with, the constructivist approach of international relations has as ‘’ midwives’’ on the one hand neorealism and neoliberalism and on the other, sociological and critical theory (Barnett, 2013: 206). Despite their differences, both of them believe that states have stable and innate interests such as power and wealth, while critics base on sociological and critical theory in order to claim that social powers like ideas, knowledge, standards, and rules affect the identity and the interests of the state. Both neorealism and neoliberalism do not see any possibility for ideas and norms to determine national interests and believe that national interests remain steady and consistent (ibid, 2013: 206). Structural realism emphasizes on three main elements describe international structure: the major organizational foundation which is anarchy, the functional non-discrimination of members and the extent of aggregation or dispersal of capacities (Ruggie, 1983: 265). In order for a substantial systemic transformation to take place, the transition from disorder to order is a necessary provision; this is something though that never happened throughout the existence of the contemporary organization of nations (idem, 1983: 271). Nevertheless, emphasis should be given to the element of discernment and its impact on the creation of the current system of states. In contrast to what Waltz claims, the fundamentals through which the basic entities are distinct from each other differentiate the existing system from its predecessor, the feudal one (idem, 1983: 274). The most important element that led to this change is the one of supremacy, which is translated to the accumulation of power in the present-day state and the

(26)

26

changeover from heteronomy and the authorities that overlap themselves to the feature of national sovereignty (idem, 1983: 275).

In addition, neorealism remains attached to the meaning of state, that it cannot see a world that is ‘’inhabited’’ by non-state actors (Ashley, 1984: 238). Moreover, the neorealist view is absorbed in the concept of individualism and in the assumption that the person is coming before society instead of the society creating the individuals, making a situation in which it does not see that historical powers are responsible for the establishment of the identities, interests, and capabilities of the nations. Utilitarianism is an essential part of the neorealist approach to such an extent, that when it comes to the international system, it does not take into account notions such as ideas, rules, and beliefs (idem, 1984: 243, 245).

3.4 Alliance formation theory

As mentioned previously, in order for a state to maintain the balance of power with other states or its neighboring ones, it can follow two strategies: either to maximize its domestic factors of power or to become a member of an allied structure so as to confront the power of other nations.

First of all, an allied structure can serve the following purposes: it can augment the strength of a state against an external enemy, it can be preventive and lastly, diplomatic, which means that a nation wants to make use of the land of its counterpart (Fedder, 1968: 67). One of the most important prerequisites of an alliance is according to Hans Morgenthau the mutuality in terms of aid between the participating states against a common enemy (idem, 1968: 71). Also, when both of them are threatened, they unite with each other and deal with this danger efficiently. George Liska in his work ‘’Nations in Alliance’’ stresses out the importance of a common external hazard as a very serious motive behind which two nations decide to ally with themselves, while the feeling of affinity between them becomes secondary (idem, 1968: 78).

With regards to the reciprocal hopes about assistance in times of need, the formation of alliances constitutes an essential part of the phenomenon of ‘’alignment’’, while

(27)

27

the existence of mutual profits adds to the creation of such hopes. There are several types of alliances, for example, the ones that are created within warfare situations or during times of peace, impromptu or durable, defensive or offensive (Snyder, 1990: 106). In addition, in cases like a collective defense arrangement, the major ‘’areas of policy’’ would be the following: allocation of responsibilities, choices regarding actions and the usage of communication patterns in order to maneuver the anticipations of the other side related to forthcoming practices. A crucial question in this point is how someone can measure the valuation of an ally pattern; its ‘’obligation’’, the extent to which eventual partner(s) rise up to this ‘’commitment’’ and the substantial conditions of this contract of the alliance. Furthermore, another aspect that should be taken into account when examining intra-state alliances is the way they get managed. Their control has to take into consideration the relationship not only between the members of the alliance but also with the opponents. In this context, there is an adjacent interaction amid affinity and competitor ‘’ competition’’ (idem, 1990: 107, 110, 115).

Moreover, an allied structure can serve the purpose of balancing a distinct state or an association of states so as to preserve stability and security. When it comes to the capacities of an allied group, they ought to be as many as needed in order to achieve the aim of balance, leading to the creation of a ‘’ minimum winning coalition’’. Lastly, nations take the decision to set up or become part of an alliance when they realize that the respective benefits are more than the relevant costs (Chiu, 2003: 124). Additionally, under conditions of security dilemmas, nations have two basic choices: either to search for associates or to refrain from becoming a member of a coalition. This should be bored in mind when the system is multipolar, as for instance the one that lasted till 1945. Assuming that there is equality in terms of power between all nations and they have an interest just in the sector of safety, all of them are well-off if they pass up, as everyone possesses balanced protection from the others, whilst allied structures include several expenses, like decreased liberty of activities, engagement to fight for the well-being of a partner, etc. Despite this, coalitions will rise because of the need of a number of countries that are dissatisfied with their level of insurance to enhance their level of security conceding that other nations forgo and due to their desire to prevent desolation under the fear of participation of others in alliances (Snyder, 1984: 462).

(28)

28

Various representatives of the neorealist school of international relations have made reference to the way through this it has an impact on the formation of alliances. Kenneth Waltz (2010a: 118) for example in his book ‘’Theory of International Politics’’ claims that within an environment of anarchy, nations have as a minimum target to reassure their survival and maximum to augment their strength. As mentioned earlier on, measures of external balancing can add to these, interpreted into an expansion or the enhancement of a coalition. Waltz mentions the most important condition that should be fulfilled in order for an alliance to be efficient: it has to be composed of two or three states. As a consequence, the number of participants is a determining factor in this case (ibid, 2010a: 118).

What is more, the presence of common pursuits functions as a link for nations that are willing to set up an alliance and in many circumstances diachronically, the existence of a common ‘’enemy’’ motivates them to act in this direction (idem, 2010b: 166). Hans Morgenthau (1997: 203-204) highlights the importance that ideological interests have an important role among others concerning the decision of states to seek for allies, while this process has a deterrent character and at the same time, a possible alliance is targeted against a group of states (idem, 1997: 202). Also, his views converge with the opinion expressed by Waltz, stating that the anarchical nature of the system is the driving force behind the construction of allied groups (idem, 1997: 201). Furthermore, coming back to the accomplishment of the goal of survival, under warfare situations, a state is going to stand by the most powerful bloc, as this increases the possibility of meeting it. The second vital reason why nations come up with the decision to build an alliance is that they can maximize their profits via their participation in the coalition that gets the better of a war. In the aftermath of a war, they take their share, a situation which proves that their choice turned out to be the right one. Therefore, profits and power constitute the most essential motives behind the formation of alliances (Schweller, 1994: 82).

The threats coming from the international community stimulate nations to make an alliance and activate the reflexes of the states, demonstrating the need to organize with each other accordingly. In the aforementioned context, components like proximity in geographic terms, the offensiveness of the other side and anticipated prepositions affect the extent of potential risk (Walt, 1987: 5).

(29)

29

Special reference has to be made to the term of ‘’quasi-alliance’’, as it concerns directly the partnership between Greece and Israel, as well as the trilateral coalition with the Republic of Cyprus. This should not be considered as a typical alliance, because of the fact that these states have not signed among themselves an official pact with regards to the military sector (Tziarras, 2016: 410). Concerning the definition of ‘’quasi-alliance’’, it is a relation between two states that have not formed an alliance with one another but have as a partner in common a ‘’third great power patron’’ (Cha, 2000: 262).

Another definition that can be attributed to the ‘’quasi-alliance’’ term is that it constitutes an ad hoc or permanent unofficial agreement in collaboration in the field of security, which has its basis on implicit accords between two or more national governments. Furthermore, they are managed through memoranda, joint declarations, and communiques that count on reciprocal intentions, whilst having a third party as a target and serving the purpose its deterrence (Sun, 2009: 68). A ‘’quasi-alliance’’ can also be described as ‘’a marriage without certificate’’ and it is the third alternative between forming an alliance and implementing a strategy of neutrality (Sun & Zoubir, 2014: 10).

The Greek-Israeli-Cypriot partnership as going to be discussed below can be characterized as a ‘’quasi-alliance’’ as several criteria are fulfilled, despite this though there is no military dimension yet in their collaboration and the parties involved downplay this aspect in their talks (Tziarras, 2016: 410). In various statements, leaders and officials coming from Israel and Greece have underlined that their rapprochement is not targeted against anyone and remains open for all states of the Eastern Mediterranean. For instance, Israel has the aim to follow a multidimensional foreign policy regionally that is going to maximize the benefits and minimize the costs. As a consequence, it sees separately from one another its relationship with Greece, Cyprus, and Turkey, nevertheless acknowledging the importance of establishing a concrete partnership with Cyprus and Greece (Tziarras, 2015: 39-40).

(30)

30

Chapter 4: ‘’Cold’’ bilateral relations, the involvement of Turkey

and the initial steps in Greek-Israeli approach

In this chapter, reference is going to be made to the evolution of the relationship between Israel and Greece, focusing on two major periods: the one after the end of the World War II and in particular after the ‘’ de facto’’ recognition of the State of Israel in 1949 by Greece, till 1990 when it recognized the country ‘’ de jure’’ and started to ameliorate its status of relations. This is the second period under discussion. Another element that will be touched upon is the presence of Turkey in this process. A number of things will be mentioned related to Turkish foreign policy in the region, the dynamics in relations with Israel, as well as the bilateral conflicts with Greece. Lastly, the first efforts undertaken by Israel and Greece to upgrade significantly their relations will be examined, especially under the framework of the deterioration of Turkish-Israeli relations from 2009-2010 onwards till almost nowadays.

4.1 Historical overview

4.1.1 The Greek-Israeli relationship after World War II and during Cold War

Greece, due to its geographical position maintained even from the times of antiquity good relations with all peoples of the Middle East. Ties are particularly strong when it comes to culture and history and someone could argue that they are long-lasting. This region is part of Greece’s wider neighborhood and as a consequence, constitutes one of the priorities of Greek foreign policy (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Hellenic Republic, 2014a). Israel is a country that among others belongs to this territory and because of its conflict with the Palestinians for instance, is a state affected by Greek policies towards the region. In this context, the strategy followed by Greece was friendly towards Palestine, something that lasted for many years. For example, the Hellenic Republic did not vote in favor of the ‘’Partition Plan’’ of 1947 that would

(31)

31

lead to the creation of Israeli state, while for approximately four decades, it did not establish diplomatic relations fully. What is more, many Greek politicians accused Israel of pursuing policies of ‘’expansion’’, calling upon a ‘’fair’’ resolution of the Palestinian conflict that would acknowledge the rights of the citizens. As a result, relations between the countries were more than suspicious and this affected their evolution (Agnantopoulos, 2007: 359).

According to some observers, Greece was not that keen on enhancing its relations with Israel. This happened because of the backing of Arab states as far as the resolution of the Cypriot issue is concerned. Secondly, the state was constantly worrying about the living conditions of its populations and minorities in the Arab world, while it was heavily dependent on investments and oil coming from the region. In addition, Greeks were a bit ‘’indifferent’’ when it comes to Israel and Jews, whilst it existed even during the Holocaust caused by Nazis (Abadi, 2000: 41). Relations at consulate level kicked-off in 1952 and Greece tended to vote in the UN in accordance with what its Arab interlocutors did, abstaining though from voting resolutions that were totally against Israel (idem, 2000: 42-43).

The situation remained more or less the same during the upcoming decades, with Greece seeming reluctant to move forward with the process of upgrading relations with the State of Israel for the reasons mentioned above. Things also did not change when the restoration of democracy took place in 1974, with the respective governments following a policy that had many similarities with the one adopted by their predecessors. Konstantinos Karamanlis who served as a prime minister of Greece until 1981 was the first head of the Greek state after the termination of the military coup that tried to follow a multidimensional foreign policy, beyond the margins of a pro-Western orientation but it did not mean that its fundamental principle that ‘’Greece belongs to the West’’ was abandoned. In this context, he strived to expand economic and political collaboration between states of the Balkans and the Arab World, while achieving the goal of Greek membership in the European Community, which was his major accomplishment (Koufoudakis, 1988: 59).

The most important stint in which Greek-Israeli relations remained cold and without significant alterations was when the Panhellenic Socialist Movement (PASOK) came into power in 1981, under the leadership of Andreas Papandreou. The rhetoric

(32)

32

developed by the party incorporated ‘’pro-Palestinian’’ and ‘’anti-American’’ sentiments, being close to the ideology that was adopted by the states of the so-called ‘’Third World’’. Papandreou criticized Israel so harshly also in the context of serving political expediency, meaning that he had his mind the internal audience, an element that should be taken into account (Athanassopoulou, 2003: 111). Moreover, the government of PASOK was more than interested in upgrading the relations with Palestinians and enhancing the cooperation with the ‘’radical’’ regimes in the Arab World. Socialist and anti-imperialistic ‘’guidelines’’ were behind this choice of Greece, while blaming the United States for the main problems that the country faced in the economy as well as politics. Meetings with heads of states were on the agenda, such as with the Syrian president Hafez al-Assad, a person who comes from a country that suffers from the imperialism of the West. Additionally, there was no condemnation of extreme forms of protest coming from Palestine; this went hand-in-hand with the attitude of Greek citizens in this period which was supportive towards the fight of the Palestinians (Athanassopoulou, 2010: 222). Despite the existence of the element of geographical proximity which would add to the establishment of good and fruitful relations, Greece and Israel till 1990s had more things that divided them than connecting them (Murat Agdemir, 2015: 49).

4.1.2. The beginning of normalization in Greek-Israeli relations

Things started to change gradually when Greece became a member of the European Economic Community in 1981, but the rhythm with which the overall situation altered was not that fast. The upgrade of diplomatic relations with Israel took place in 1987, without being accompanied by recognition of the state in full terms (Tziampiris, 2016: 239). Greece aimed to enhance its relationship with the states of the Arab world, as well as Israel within the framework of the policies followed at the European level. In addition, the interest of Greeks regarding the conflict in Cyprus was shifted from the international to the European level, as the perspective of Cypriot accession to the European Union started to emerge (Tziampiris, 2015h: 49).

Also, Greece and Israel cultivated their collaboration from 1983 till 1985 in the sectors of science and culture. It incorporated exchanges of texts, schooling staff, and

Greece and Israel : a new emerging alliance in the eastern Mediterranean