Socio-psychological barriers and bridges to peace › sites › default › files... · Because the...
Transcript of Socio-psychological barriers and bridges to peace › sites › default › files... · Because the...
UniversiteitAntwerpen
FaculteitPolitiekeenSocialeWetenschappen
MasterSociologie
Academiejaar2015-2016
Socio-psychologicalbarriersandbridgesto
peacepoliticaldiscourseanalysisoftheIsraeliandPalestinianspeechestotheUnited
NationsGeneralAssemblybetween1988and2016
Promotor:Prof.dr.WalterWeyns
Medebeoordelaar:Prof.dr.GertVerschraegen
Scriptievoorgelegdmethetoogophetbehalenvan
degraadvanMasterSociologie
EvelineNieuwveld
Augustus2016
AbstractHet Israëlisch-Palestijns conflict is ‘intractable’, ‘complex’, ‘multi-layered’ en ‘insoluble’
genoemd.VeelvandeIsraëlischeenPalestijnsenarratievenbestondenalvoordeoprichting
vandeVerenigdeNaties.AandeIsraëlischezijdevanhetconflictiseenopkomstvanstudies
die de narratieven en metaforen analyseren die ingebed zijn in de Israëlische
maatschappelijke discourse. Echter, het Palestijnse onderzoek op dit gebied is marginaal
en comparatieve studies die beide zijden vergelijken is vrijwel onbestaand.Dit gebrek aan
onderzoekwordt in de thesis aangekaartmet de volgende onderzoeksvraag:Welke socio-
psychologischebarrièresenbruggennaarvredekunnengeïdentificeerdwordenintoespraken
doorIsraëlischeenPalestijnseleidersaandeUnitedNationsGeneralAssemblytussen1988en
2016?
Eenpolitiekediscourseanalysemeteen‘discoursedynamicsapproach’wasuitgevoerdmet
behulpvankwalitatievesoftwareprogramma’sNVivoenLeximancer.Deanalysetoondeaan
datmetaforenen thema’sdie voorheenbeschouwdwerdenals typisch Israëlisch,effectief
prominenter bleken te zijn in de Palestijnse toespraken. In contradictiemet de bestaande
literatuurwasdat Israëlische ‘culturalcodes’nietteruggevondenwerden indetoespraken
aandeVerenigdeNaties.De‘extendahandforpeace’metafoor,dieinbestaandeliteratuur
als Israëlisch wordt beschouwd, is veel frequenter gebruikt door de Palestijnse leiders.
Bovendien bleken Palestijnse leiders in hun toespraken vaker te refereren naar
veiligheidszorgendandeIsraëlischeleidersterwijlIsraëlzogezegdeen‘obsessie’zouhebben
metveiligheid.
Sleutelwoorden: socio-psychologischebarrières, vrede,politicaldiscourseanalysis,metaforen, Israëlisch-
Palestijnseconflict,UnitedNationsGeneralAssembly,toespraken
AcronymsCCDA CulturalapproachtoCriticalDiscourseAnalysis
CDA CriticalDiscourseAnalysis
EOC EthosofConflict
GPI GlobalPeaceIndex(measuresnegativepeace)
IEP InstituteforEconomicsandPeace
PDA PoliticalDiscourseAnalysis
PPI PositivePeaceIndex(measurespositivepeace)
UN UnitedNations
UNBIS UnitedNationsBibliographicInformationSystem
UNCLOS UnitedNationsConferenceonLawoftheSea
UNGA UnitedNationsGeneralAssembly
TableofContents1 Introduction...............................................................................................................................................11.1 InstituteforEconomicsandPeace–positiveandnegativepeace..............................................................11.2 Socio-psychologicalbarrierstopeaceintheIsraeli-Palestinianconflict.....................................................31.3 Researchgap.................................................................................................................................................41.4 Structurethesis.............................................................................................................................................4
2 Literaturereview.......................................................................................................................................52.1 Socio-psychologicalbarrierstopeace..........................................................................................................52.2 Researchingpeacediscourse........................................................................................................................6
2.2.1 DiscourseAnalysis....................................................................................................................................72.3 DiscourseanalysesfortheIsraeli-Palestinianconflict...............................................................................11
2.3.1 Israeliculturalcodesasabarriertopeace............................................................................................112.3.2 Palestiniansocio-psychologicalbarrierstopeace.................................................................................15
2.4 Conclusion...................................................................................................................................................16
3 Methodology...........................................................................................................................................173.1 Theoreticalframework...............................................................................................................................173.2 Researchmethods......................................................................................................................................18
3.2.1 Sample....................................................................................................................................................183.2.2 Transcripts..............................................................................................................................................183.2.3 EnglishtranslationsandtheUNGAplatform........................................................................................193.2.4 Speechesbyleadersbetween1988and2016.......................................................................................203.2.5 Datacollectionprocess..........................................................................................................................22
3.3 Dataanalysis...............................................................................................................................................223.3.1 Stage1:Macrolinguisticanalysis–keythemes...................................................................................223.3.2 Stage2:Microlinguisticanalysis–peacephrasesandreconciliationmetaphors...............................24
3.4 Qualityofthemethodology........................................................................................................................28
4 Results.....................................................................................................................................................304.1 Macrolinguisticresults...............................................................................................................................30
4.1.1 People(s).................................................................................................................................................314.1.2 Peace......................................................................................................................................................324.1.3 Justiceandsecurity................................................................................................................................334.1.4 Thescopeofidentification:the‘internationalcommunity’..................................................................354.1.5 Thescopeofidentification:theadversary.............................................................................................35
4.2 Microlinguisticresults................................................................................................................................374.2.1 Extendahandorolivebranch?.............................................................................................................374.2.2 Bilateralandunilateralpeace................................................................................................................394.2.3 Reconciliationmetaphors......................................................................................................................40
5 Discussion................................................................................................................................................415.1 Keythemesandunderlyingmeta-narratives..........................................................................................425.2 Scopeofidentification................................................................................................................................445.3 Barriersandbridges....................................................................................................................................48
6 Conclusion...............................................................................................................................................50
7 Bibliography.............................................................................................................................................52Appendix1........................................................................................................................................................57Appendix2........................................................................................................................................................58Appendix3........................................................................................................................................................59Appendix4........................................................................................................................................................60Appendix5........................................................................................................................................................61Appendix6........................................................................................................................................................65
ListoftablesTable1PeacephrasesusedintheIsraeliKnessetcategorisedbyGavriely-Nuri.....................12
Table2CodingscheduleforbilateralandunilateralusageofpeaceinspeechesbyIsraeliandPalestinianleaderstotheUNGAbetween1988and2016...............................................26
Table3WordsthatwereenteredintotheNvivotextquerytoidentifyareconciliationprocess............................................................................................................................................27
Table4ProminencescoresforfrequentwordsintheIsraeliandPalestinianspeechestotheUNGAbetween1988and2016.........................................................................................31
Table5PeacephrasesbythePalestinianandIsraelileadersintheUNGAspeeches1988-2015............................................................................................................................................33
Table6IsraelileadersmentioningPalestinianleadersintheirspeechestotheUNGAbetween1988and2016....................................................................................................................36
Table7PalestinianleadersmentioningIsraelileadersintheirspeechestotheUNGAbetween1988and2016....................................................................................................................35
Table8PalestinianleadersusingahandmetaphorintheUNGAspeechesbetween1988and2016....................................................................................................................................37
Table9PalestinianandIsraelileadersreferringtoanolivebranchortreeintheUNGAspeechesbetween1988and2016....................................................................................................38
Table10IsraelileadersusingahandmetaphorintheUNGAspeechesbetween1988and2016............................................................................................................................................38
Table11AllUNGAspeechesbetween1988and2016includedinthesample.......................57
Table12CallsupontheinternationalcommunitybyPalestinianleadersintheUNGAspeechesbetween1988-2016...........................................................................................................60
Table13Excerptsreferringtothereconciliationmetaphor'peaceasajourney'IntheUNGAspeechesofIsraeliandPalestinianleadersbetween1988and2016..............................61
Table14Excerptsreferringtothereconciliationmetaphor'peaceasbuilding/construction'IntheUNGAspeechesofIsraeliandPalestinianleadersbetween1988and2016.............62
Table15Excerptsreferringtothereconciliationmetaphor'peaceasaconnection'IntheUNGAspeechesofIsraeliandPalestinianleadersbetween1988and2016..............................63
Table16Excerptsreferringtothereconciliationmetaphor'peaceastalking/sittingtogether'IntheUNGAspeechesofIsraeliandPalestinianleadersbetween1988and2016.........63
Table 17 Excerpts referring to 'suffering' In the UNGA speeches of Israeli and Palestinianleadersbetween1988and2016.......................................................................................64
ListoffiguresFigure1MostfrequentwordsinthespeechesbyIsraeliandPalestinianleaderstotheUNGA
between1988and2016...................................................................................................30
Figure2Thepercentageofsentencescontainingtheterm'people'or'peoples'comparedtoallsentencesinthespeechestotheUNGAbyIsraeliandPalestinianleadersbetween1988and2016.............................................................................................................................31
Figure3Thepercentageofsentencescontainingtheterm'peace'comparedtoallsentencesinthespeechestotheUNGAbyIsraeliandPalestinianleadersbetween1988and2016............................................................................................................................................32
Figure4Percentageofsentencescontaining‘secure’or'securitycomparedtoallsentencesinthespeechestotheUNGAbyIsraeliandPalestinianleadersbetween1988and2016'.34
Figure 5 Percentage of sentences containing 'justice' compared to all sentences in thespeechestotheUNGAbyIsraeliandPalestinianleadersbetween1988and201618.....34
Figure 6 Frequencies of Israeli and Palestinian leaders referring to the 'internationalcommunity'intheUNGAspeechesbetween1988and2016..........................................35
Figure7Frequenciesofsentencescontaining'bilateralpeace'and'unilateralpeace'comparedtothetotalofsentencescontaining'peace'inspeechesattheUNGAbetween1988and2015...................................................................................................................................39
Figure8PercentageofbilateralandunilateralpeacesentencesofallpeacesentencesintheUNGAspeechesbyPalestinianandIsraelileadersbetween1988and2015...................40
Figure9IsraeliandPalestinianPrimeMinistersandPresidentsbetween1988and2016......57
1
1 IntroductionThe Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been called ‘complex’, ‘multi-layered’, ‘insoluble’ and
‘intractable’ (Bar-Tal & Teichman, 2005; Eisenberg & Caplan, 2010; Sherwood, 2013). The
PalestinianleaderYasserArafatcalledtheconflicttheoldestproblemoftheUnitedNations.
Furthermore,manyoftheIsraeliandPalestiniannarrativessurroundingtheconflictpredate
theUnitedNations1.ThisthesiswillarguethatlanguageusedbyIsraeliandPalestinianleaders
hasthepotentialtostrengthensocio-psychologicalbarriersthatpreventanongoingdialogue
betweentheadversaries.
ThetopicofthisthesisisinspiredbypeaceresearchdonebytheInstituteforEconomicsand
Peace(IEP).Firstly,theresearchbyIEPwillbebrieflyexplained,followedbytheresearchtopic
andanoverviewoftheexistingliterature.Secondly,theresearchquestionthatwillguidethe
thesiswillbeformulated.Andlastly,theintroductionwillconcludewithanoverviewofthe
structureofthethesis.
1.1 InstituteforEconomicsandPeace–positiveandnegativepeace
TheIEPistheglobalthinktankthatdevelopedtheGlobalPeaceIndex(GPI)thatrankscountries
accordingtotheirpeacefulness(IEP,2015a).Israelscoreslowontheindex(148from162).The
reasonforthelowscoreisbecausetheindexmeasurespeaceastheabsenceofviolenceand
thereforeignoresthepresenceofpeace.Forexample,acountrycanhavegoodinstitutionsto
promoteandensurepeacebutneverthelessexperienceongoingviolentclasheswithothers.
Toavoidconfusion,Galtungseparatedpeaceintotwodefinitions:hedefinedtheabsenceof
violenceas ‘negativepeace’andthepresenceofpeaceas ‘positivepeace’ (Galtung,1969).
Positive peace can be further explained as the attitudes, institutions and structures of
countriesthatarelikelytocontributetoamorepeacefulsociety(Galtung,1969;IEP,2015).
BecausetheGPIonlymeasuresnegativepeace,theIEPaddressedthemeasurementgapwith
1ThisisespeciallytruefortheIsraeli(Jewish)meta-narrativeofthe‘Jewishpeople’asdescribedintheBible.Ameta-narrativeisatermbyAuerbach(2010)basedonLyotard’sGrandNarrative.
2
aPositivePeaceIndex(PPI)in20152.ThePPIstatisticallymeasurestheattitudes,institutions
andstructuresofcountriesthatarelikelytocontributetoamorepeacefulsociety(IEP,2015b).
Theindexthusgivesanoverviewoftheexistinggroundforpeaceinquantitativeterms3.
Interestingly,Israelisrankedsignificantlyhigher(p<.0001)onthePPIcomparedtotheGPI
(37from162).Thedifferenceorgapbetweenthetwo indexesfor Israel is111ranks(148-
37=111). Israel has the largest gapbetween the two indexes compared toother countries
measuredbytheIEP.IsraelisfollowedbyLaoswithagapof98ranksbetweenthetwoindexes,
butintheoppositedirectionofIsrael,Laosscoreshigh(41)ontheGPI(negativepeace)and
low(135)onthePPI(positivepeace).
IftheIEPincludedthePalestineunder‘Israel’,isnotfurtherexplainedinthereportof2015.
Theinitialresearchquestionwas:howdoIsraelandPalestinescoreontheGPIandPPIwhen
separatedanddoesthegapbetweenpositiveandnegativepeaceincreaseordecreaseover
timeforthetwoparties?4Toanswerthisquestion,thecorrectmethodwouldbetoreplicate
IEP’sresearchandsplit‘Israel’into‘Israel’andthe‘Palestine’.Thisisacomplicatedtask,asthe
datausedbyIEPisnotfreelyavailableandsplittingthedataupintothetwoterritorieswould
notalwaysbepossibleduetotheaggregateddatacollection.Secondly,what isconsidered
Palestinehaschangedovertime.Andthirdly,IEP’sfocusismainlyonmacrolevelofnational
attitudes,perceptionsandstructureswhileotherimportantelementsforresearchingpeacein
conflictsituationsarethepeacenegotiations.
According to the anthropologist and sociologistMichael Agar (1996), peace research ‘has
moved from a concern withmacro-variables that describe conflict cases down toward the
actualdetailsofnegotiationprocesses’(p.424).FollowingAgar,thisthesistakesastepfurther
andwillarguethatresearchersarenowtakingalldiscoursebypoliticalfiguresinvolvedina
2AsSteveKillelea,thefounderoftheIEP,states:‘whenyouwanttounderstandwhatcreateslastingpeaceyouarenotgonnalearnfromstudyingconflict’(Killelea,2015,minute1:40).3Morespecifically,thePPIsummarizesinonescorehowstablethecircumstancesareforpeacetoendureinacertaincountrybycomparing:freeflowofinformation,governmentservices,economicconditions,distributionofresources,acceptanceoftherightsofothers,relationswithneighbouringcountries,levelsofhumancapitalandlowlevelsofcorruption(IEP,2015b).4InthelatestGPIreleasebytheIEPinJune2016,‘Palestine’wasincluded.Palestinescoresslightlylower(3ranks)ontheGPIcomparedtoIsrael(IEP,2016).ThePPIof2016hasnotbeenreleasedtodate.
3
peaceprocessasinfluencingtheoutcomesofthepeaceprocess.Languageisnotonlyshaped
byrealitybutalsoactivelyshapesreality(Halliday,1992).Languageinthepoliticaldiscourse
mightnotonlyinfluencetheoutcomesofapeaceprocessbutactuallydecidewhetherthere
isapeaceprocessatall.
1.2 Socio-psychologicalbarrierstopeaceintheIsraeli-Palestinianconflict
MostofthepotentialbarrierstoapeacefuldialoguebetweenIsraeliandPalestinianleaders
can be categorized as strategic, structural or socio-psychological barriers (Bar-Siman-Tov,
2010).Strategicbarriers involvesecurityrisks,unwillingnesstomaketerritorialconcessions
and postponing negotiations tomaximize potential gains (Bar-Siman-Tov, 2010). Structural
barriersarisefromcertainpoliticalstructures,andinstitutionalandbureaucraticconstraints
(Bar-Siman-Tov, 2010). Socio-psychological barriers are embedded in national narratives,
collectivememoriesandinterpretationsofevents(Bar-Siman-Tov,2010).
AccordingtoIsraelischolars,‘thelackofapeacefulresolution’totheIsraeli-Palestinianconflict
canlargelybeattributed‘tothefunctioningofverypowerfulsocio-psychologicalbarriersthat
inhibit and impede progress’ (Halperin, Oren, & Bar-Tal, 2010, p. 28). Sociological and
psychological barriers ‘promote the importance of absolute values – justice, fairness and
equality–andunderminewillingness tomakeconcessions, tocompromise,or to take risks’
(Bar-Siman-Tov2010p.17).The‘pillars’ofsocio-psychologicalbarriersarefunctionalsocietal
beliefs (Bar-Tal&Halperin,2013). Thesebeliefsarenecessary for the society in conflict to
survivehardship,dealwithstressfulsituationsandgivetheworldaroundthemmeaningeven
whenreliefoftheirsituationdoesnotseemplausibleontheshortterm(Bar-Tal,2014;Bar-Tal
&Teichman,2005).Functionalbeliefsaresupportedbynarratives,whichareinturnbasedon,
andinspiredby,functionalbeliefs.Analysinghowmetaphorsandtheterm‘peace’isusedin
thepolitical discourse canuncovernarratives (Gavriely-Nuri, 2010a).Narratives strengthen
functionalbeliefsofsocietiesinconflictandthereforeincreasethesocio-psychologicalbarrier
to allow for the story of the adversary to claim an existence in their reality. By creating
awarenessamongpeopleoftheirpsychologicalbiasininformationfilteringduetofunctional
beliefs, researchers found that ‘openness to [the] adversary’s narrative’ increased in an
experimentconductedwithIsraeliJewishandIsraeliPalestinianparticipants(Nasie,Bar-Tal,
Pliskin,Nahhas,&Halperin,2014,p.1549). This indicates that there is greatpotential and
4
relevancetoanalysingmetaphorsandtheassociatednarrativesthataresupportingbarriersto
peace.Theuseofmetaphorsbyadversariescanalsocontributetotheprocessofreconciliation
because conversation partners can slowly come to an agreement by using each other’s
metaphors andmaking adjustments (Cameron, 1999; 2007). Thus, thewaymetaphors are
usedindiscoursesurroundingconflictscandivideanduniteparties.
1.3 Researchgap
FortheIsraelisideoftheconflicttherehasbeenanemergenceoverthepastthreedecadesof
sociological, psychological, linguistic and anthropological research regarding the use of
languageandbarrierstopeace(Auerbach,2010;Bar-Siman-Tov,2010;Bar-Tal,2014;Bar-Tal
&Teichman,2005;Gavriely-Nuri,2010a,2010b,2010c,2012a,2012b,2014a,2014b,2015,
2016;Gavriely-Nuri,2009;Halperinetal.,2010;Halperin&Sharvit,2015;Nasieetal.,2014;
Reykowski, 2015; Tzoreff, 2010). For the Palestinian side this field is still under developed
(Baukhol,2015;Gavriely-Nuri,2010b; Jawad,2006).Unexpectedly, researchcomparing the
twosidesconsideringpsychologicalandsociologicalbarriers isvirtually inexistent (Baukhol,
2015).MostIsraeliresearchersprefertofocusonaculturetheyarefamiliarwith(Bar-Siman-
Tov,2010;Gavriely-Nuri,2012a)whilethePalestinianresearchersdonothaveaccesstoan
institutional framework and resources comparable to the Israelis (Haidar & Zureik, 1987;
Sowula,2015).Acomparativestudythatilluminateshowmetaphorsareconnectedtosocio-
psychologicalbarrierstopeaceforboththeIsraeliandPalestinianside,isthusmissingfrom
theliterature.Followingfromthis,theresearchquestionthatwillguidethisthesis is;What
socio-psychologicalbarriersandbridgestopeacecanbeidentifiedinthediscourseof Israeli
andPalestinianleaders?
1.4 Structurethesis
Thefirstpartofthisthesiswillbrieflyreviewtheexistingliteratureonpeace,reconciliationand
theIsraeli-Palestinianpeacediscourse.Thiswillinformthemethodsandsubsequentlyshape
the results. The thesis will then demonstrate that the political discourse of Israeli and
Palestinianleadersreferstosocio-psychologicalbarriersandbridgestopeace.Inconclusion,
directionsforfurthercomparativeresearchthatreviewstheuseofmetaphorsinthebroader
IsraeliandPalestiniandiscoursewillbeoutlined.
5
2 LiteraturereviewTheliteraturereviewisdividedintothreepartsinordertopositionthetopicofthisthesisin
the existing frameworks. Firstly, the focus on socio-psychological barriers will be further
explained.Secondly,theIsraeli-Palestinianconflictwillbepositionedasan‘intractableconflict’
and‘identityconflict’.Andthirdly,theliteratureondiscourseanalysiswithafocusonpeace
and reconciliation will be reviewed. The third part consists of three parts, namely; 1) the
analysisof‘peace’asusedinpoliticaldiscourse;2)theuseofdiscourseanalysistouncover
barriers to peace and; 3) Israeli and Palestinian socio-psychological barriers to a peaceful
resolutionoftheconflict.
2.1 Socio-psychologicalbarrierstopeaceThereisawealthofresearchonbarrierstoconflictresolution.However,whennarrowingthe
searchtosocio-psychologicalbarriers,thenumberdecreasesvastlyandthekeyscholaristhe
Israelisocialpsychologist,DanielBar-Tal.5 Intractableconflicts inBar-Tal’sdefinitionarenot
necessarilyinsoluble,butinvolvesuchbarriersthat‘somepeople(ormanyofthem)havelost
theirhopeforfindingitssatisfactorysolution’(Reykowski,2015,p.11).TheIsraeli-Palestinian
conflictstartedasaclaimbytwonationalmovementstothesameterritory,butaccordingto
Reykowski,was‘notmereaconflictof interests’ (p.11).Fundamentalvaluesandexistential
needswereinvolvedfromthebeginningoftheconflict.Inordertotransformanintractable
conflictintoatractableone,thesocio-psychologicalinfrastructuresupportingtheconflictand
keepingitalivemustbealtered.Reykowskicallsthis‘an”unfreezing”oftheexistingsystemof
conflictrelatedbeliefs(...)thatbelongtotheethosofconflict’(Reykowski,2015,p.12).6
5IntheprefaceofTheSocialPsychologyofIntractableconflicts,Bar-Taliscelebratedbyhissuccessorsas‘oneofthemostinfluentialscholarsofintractableconflicts’(Halperin&Sharvit,2015,p.v).6Theethosofconflict(EOC)isatheorydevelopedbyBar-TalandthemajorityofhisresearchisabouttheIsraelipopulation’sbeliefsregardingtheirconflictandsociety.Bar-TalconsidersEOCasa‘relativelystableworldview’thatallowspeopleto‘organizeandcomprehendtheprolongedcontextofconflictinwhichtheyliveandtoacttowarditspreservation’(Bar-Taletal.,2012,p.42).EOCservesas‘amajorsocio-psychologicalbarriertopeacebuilding’(Bar-Taletal.,2012,p.43).AccordingtoBar-Tal,abetterunderstandingoftheethosofconflictultimatelymeansbetterunderstandinghowtobuildpeace(Bar-Taletal.,2012;Bar-Tal&Teichman,2005).
6
Theprevalenceofsocio-psychologicalstructures in the IsraeliandPalestiniansocietycause
Auerbach(2010)toframetheIsraeli-Palestinianconflictasan‘identityconflict’asopposedto
a‘materialconflict’.Anidentityconflictisa‘conflictinwhichatleastonesideseesthenational
identityoftheothersideasathreat,or(…)asadangertoitsindependentnationalidentity’
(Auerbach,2010,p.100).AccordingtoAuerbach,identityconflictsare‘anchoredinopposing
meta-narrativesandnationalnarratives,andarethereforedifficulttoresolve’(Auerbach,2010,
p.100).7Meta-narrativesarethe‘super-stories’thatAuerbachreferencestoLyotard’sGrand
narratives.Meta-narrativesestablish‘thenationalidentityofeachsideinanidentityconflict
andareveryhardtomodify’(Auerbach,2010,p.103).
Discourseanalysisisoftenusedastooltouncovernarratives.Nevertheless,asSchäffnerand
Wenden(1995)indicate,inthefieldofpeacestudies,discourseanalysisisunderrepresented.
Hoffman and Hawkins (2015) agree that although the acknowledgment of links between
communication andpeace are not new, ‘academic efforts (…) focus primarily on the links
betweencommunicationandconflict,ratherthanonpeace’(p.1).
2.2 ResearchingpeacediscourseUseofambiguousconceptssuchaspeacearescrutinizedintheacademicdiscourseforbeing
‘anemptyidol’(Biletzki,2007,p.352).Likewise,thefounderofPeaceStudies,JohanGaltung,
writesaboutpeaceinparticularthatfew‘wordsaresooftenusedandabused’andcontinues
toexplainthat‘'peace'servesasameansofobtainingverbalconsensus’because‘itishardto
be all-out against peace’ (Galtung, 1969, p. 167). Instead of being an end in itself, peace
becomesameaninthepoliticaldiscourse.ButasGaltungwrites,what‘happenswhen‘peace’
itself,that istosay,theword,theterm,theconceptof ‘peace’,becomesameans?Andthe
followingquestionis,ofcourse,ameanstowhat?’(Webel&Galtung,2007,p.353).Bar-Tal
andTeichman(2005)explainthatin‘ordertoreceivesupport,rivalpartiestrytoconvincethe
internationalcommunitythattheyarepursuingpeaceastheirultimategoal’(p.65).Toargue
theircase,peacenegotiators‘useargumentstogaininformation,toestablishprocedures,to
7However,asAuerbachcontinues, ‘thegapbetweenthetwosidescanbereducedbydistinguishingbetweenmeta-narrativesandnationalnarratives’(Auerbach,2010,p.99).Auerbachwritesthatdistinguishingbetweenthetwowillhelp‘loweringexpectationsfortherevisionofcontradictorymeta-narratives’andinsteadwillallowforfocusing‘oneffortstobridgeclashingnationalnarratives’(Auerbach,2010,p.99).
7
modify their adversary’s perceptions and expectations, and to shape favorable outcomes’
(Walker,1990,p.98).Thus,analysingtheirargumentsasstrategiestoachieveacertaingoal
canshedlightontheunderlyingintentionsofapeacespeech.Thereareseveraltheoretical
frameworkstoanalysediscourse, inthenextsectiontheonesrelevanttothisthesiswillbe
discussed.
2.2.1 DiscourseAnalysis
DiscourseisdefinedbyVanDijkas‘languageuse’anddiscourseanalysisisthenthe‘studyof
talkandtextincontext’(VanDijk,1997,p.3).Themaingoalofdiscourseanalysisingeneralis
to‘provideacriticalunderstandingofhowlanguageisdeployed’(Jacobs,2010,p.352).8After
abriefdiscussionoftwovarietiesofdiscourseanalysis,CriticalDiscourseAnalysisandPolitical
DiscourseAnalysis,thetoolsfordiscourseanalysiswillbereviewed.
2.2.1.1 CriticalandPoliticalDiscourseAnalysis
WithCriticalDiscourseAnalysis(CDA),Fairclough(1995)tookthepoliticsoflanguageastep
further by viewing it as a potentialmean tomaintain or enforce inequality. As Fairclough
writes, the ‘primary focus of CDA is on the effect of power relations and inequalities in
producing social wrongs, and in particular on discursive aspects of power relations and
inequalities’ (Fairclough, 1995, p.7). Peace scholars such as Anita Wenden are largely
influencedbyFairclough.AccordingtoWendenlanguagecontributestothedevelopmentand
persistenceofideologiesand‘areexpressedintextandtalk’,itistherefore‘essentialthatwe
learntolookcriticallyatdiscourseasameansofidentifyingtheseideologiesthatchallengethe
achievementofacultureofpeace’(Wenden,2003,p.171).
However, as Cobb identified, the ‘sharp dichotomy between passive (objects) and active
(subjects)’ that the theory of CDA proposes, fails ‘to provide accounts of action that can
simultaneouslydescribepersonsbothasagentsandasinscribedintoauniquemomentinsocial
8 Influences that led to many different varieties of discourse analysis were philosophers such as LudwigWittgenstein,MichelFoucaultandJ.L.Austin(Chouliaraki,2008;Fairclough&Fairclough,2012).Theyandmanyotherswiththem,broughtaboutamorepoliticalviewon languageanduncoveredthe inherent linkbetweenpowerandknowledge(Foucault&Gordon,1980;VanDijk,1993).Whattheseinfluentialthinkersclarifiedwasthatlanguageisnotaneutralmediumtodescribereality,butratheractivelycontributestotheconstructionofreality;‘languagehasthepowertoshapeourconsciousness’(Halliday,1992,p.145).
8
life’(Cobb,1994,p.136).OneoftherequirementsforusingCDAistoaddress‘socialwrongsin
theirdiscursiveaspectsandpossiblewaysofrightingormitigatingthem’(Fairclough,1995,p.
8).As theaimof this thesis is to identify socio-psychologicalbarriersandbridges topeace
instead of ‘social wrongs’ which require a passive recipient and active perpetrator (Cobb,
1994), CDA is not an appropriatemethod to use. However, Giddens (1981) notion of the
‘duality of structure’ that Fairclough used as an inspiration will shape this thesis and
subsequentlythemethodologysection.FaircloughexplainedGidden’snotionfurtherasthe
ideathatactionsat‘micro’level‘caninnosenseberegardedasofmerely“local”significance
tothesituationsinwhichtheyoccur,foranyandeveryactioncontributestothereproduction
of “macro” structures’ (Fairclough, 1995, p. 8). In other words, language is both ‘socially
shaped’and‘sociallyconstituent’(Fairclough,1995,p.135).
AnothertypeofdiscourseanalysisasproposedbyVanDijk(1997)isPoliticalDiscourseAnalysis
(PDA).PDAfocusesonpoliticaldiscourse,althoughwhatisconsideredpoliticaldiscourse,and
whatisnot,remainsundetermined(VanDijk,1997,p.1).VanDijkspecifiedtheobjectofstudy
forPDAas‘discoursestructures’(VanDijk,1997,p.23).Discoursestructuresconsistofseveral
elements9thatweredividedbyWenden(2003)intomacroandmicrolinguistics.Inthenext
section,Wenden’sdivisionofmacroandmicrolinguisticswillbefurtherexplainedbyexploring
researchconductedatbothlevels.
2.2.1.2 Linguisticmacrostructures
Linguisticmacrostructuresofatext(ortalk),arestructuresthatarisefromthecontentofa
textasawhole.Thesemacrostructuresaredecisionsbytheauthoronthestructureoftheir
text,thekindofinformationpresentedonthetopicandthescopeofidentification(Wenden,
2003,p.172).Thestructureofthetextortalkisthediscourseschemawhich‘definestheorder
oftheinformationpresentedinadiscourseand,therefore,itcanbeusedtohighlightwhatis
9DiscoursestructuresdefinedbyVanDijk(1997)are:topic,textualschemata(arguments,stories,newreports),local semantics (coherence, indirectness, presuppositions), lexicon and syntax (lexical choices), rhetoric(repetition, metaphor, deletion), expression structures (volume, pitch, intonation) and speech acts (pause,formalityetc.).
9
importantorrelevant’(Wenden,2003,p.173).Additionally,textschemacategoriesreferto
‘thekindof informationthatwillbeselectedtodevelopthetopicofthediscourseandsoto
shape the propositions’ (Wenden, 2003, p 174). And the third macro strategy to present
propositionsisthescopeofidentificationthatdefineshowauthorsseethemselves:‘asapart
ofthewholehumanfamilyorofcertainnationgroups’(Wenden,2003,p.174).10
2.2.1.3 Linguisticmicrostructures
Linguisticmicrostructuresarestructuresthatfunctionwithinthemacrostructureandentail
aspects at sentence or even word level. When analysing micro-structures, the researcher
focusesonmetaphors,arguments,andlexicalchoices.Awordisametaphorwhenitisused
referringtoadifferentmeaningthantheliteralmeaning(PragglejazGroup,2007).Thisdoes
notnecessarilyentailapoeticusageofwords;metaphorsareoftenused inourday-to-day
conversations (Lakoff&Johnson,1980).Take for instancethequestion: ‘doyouseewhat I
mean?’.Theverb‘seeing’inthisquestionisnotusedliterally,aswecannot‘see’whatsomeone
means (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980). In the next subsection, a review of the literature on
metaphorsinrelationtopeaceandreconciliationinspecificwillfollow.
2.2.1.3.1 Metaphors
ThebookMetaphorsweliveby,writtenbyGeorgeLakoffandMarkJohnsonin1980,brought
aboutashiftinthethinkingaboutmetaphors.Theideathatmetaphorsaremainlyadevicefor
poetryandamatterofaestheticsisfundamentallyflawedaccordingtoLakoffandJohnson.11
However,LakoffandJohnson’sclaimthatmetaphorsunderlieunderstandingisquestionedby
metaphoranalystssuchasNaomiQuinnandLynneCameron.Quinnexplainsthatspeakers
select particular metaphors ‘just because they provide satisfactory mapping onto already
10Inhisarticleof2005,VanDijkanalysedthediscoursestrategiesusedbythethenSpanishPrimeMinisterAznartojustifythewarinIraqinhisUNspeeches.OneoftherecurringpatternsfoundbyVanDijkrelatestothescopeofidentification.Aznarrepeatedlyreferredto‘theinternationalcommunity’(VanDijk,2005).AccordingtoVanDijk,Aznar’sgoalswerefirstly,to‘legitimatethewarandhissupportforit’and‘secondlytohidethatthewarinIraqwaspreciselynotsupportedbytheUNortheSecurityCouncil’(VanDijk,2005,p.86).11Onthecontrary,wecannotlivewithoutmetaphors,asour‘ordinaryconceptualsystem,intermsofwhichweboththinkandact,isfundamentallymetaphoricalinnature’(Lakoff&Johnson,1980,p.3).Metaphors‘structurewhatweperceive,howwegetaroundintheworld,andhowwerelatetootherpeople’(Lakoff&Johnson,1980,p.3).
10
existingculturalunderstandings’(Quinn,1991,p.65).Likewise,Cameron‘resists’the‘strong
assumptions about the pre-existence of conceptual metaphors in the minds/brains of
individuals’andislessconcernedwithunderstandingthenatureofmetaphorsthanwithusing
metaphorasa‘researchtoolinexploringdiscoursedata’(LynneCameron,2012,p.346).
AccordingtoCameron(2012),metaphor‘iswhatweturntowhenwehavetroubleexpressing
or capturingan idea in discourse’ (p. 351). Cameronexplains that ‘bymakinganalogies or
comparisonsbetweenwhatwearetryingtoexpresstosomeoneelseandsomethingtheyare
morefamiliarwith,wetrytogetthemtoseetheworldaswedo’(Cameron,2012,p.351).12
ResearchontheIRAconflictbyCameron(2007)hasshownthatthemorepartiesreiterated
eachothersmetaphors,themorebothpartieschangedtheirdiscourseabouteachother.In
steadofcriminalizingtheotherandvictimisingthemselves(VanDijk,2007),theadversaries
started humanizing each others’ actions by using ‘reconciliation metaphors’ (Cameron,
2007).13
2.2.1.3.2 Limitationsofmetaphoranalysis
AlthoughCameron’sanalysisiscertainlyinterestingtoreadandwillenrichthereaderwitha
feelingofinsightintotheprocessofreconciliation,Cameronalsoindicatesseveralissueswith
theanalysisofmetaphor.Forinstance,metaphorastheonlyfocusofanalysiswillnevercover
all that happens in a discourse event. The metaphor analysis should therefore be
complementedwithanalternativemethodofdiscourseanalysis.Also,researchersmust‘guard
[themselves]againstunwarrantedinterpretationsortoomuchidealizationofthecomplexity
andmessiness’(Cameron,2012,p.353).Additionally,addedtoCameron’sconcernsthereis
‘nosingletemplatefortheprocessofcombininganalysesofmetaphorsanddiscourseactivity’
(Cameron,2012,p.353)itishardtocompareresearchfindingsacrossstudies.Itistherefore
12MostofCameron’sresearchonreconciliationisbasedona‘dialogicviewofinteraction’whichshereferencestoBakhtin(1981).Thisviewseesinteractionnotasputtingideasintowordsbutas‘takingtheOtherintoaccount’andthusreachingoutinto‘the“alienterritory”oftheOtherandattemptingtoputthemselvesintotheOther’sperspective’(Cameron,2007,p.199).13CameronanalysedtheconversationsbetweenJoandPatandshowshowthespeakersstartrepeatingeachothersmetaphorswhilesometimesaltering,adjusting, takingawayelementsandaddingelementsandslowlycometoaconsensusonthemetaphorthatisappropriateforbothsidesofthestory.
11
necessarytoapplycertainstandardsorsystemsthatcanbereplicatedacrossstudies(Low,
1999,p.48;Shutova,2015,p.379;PragglejazGroup2007).Thenextsectionwilldiscussthe
literatureontheIsraeli-Palestiniandiscourseinspecific.
2.3 DiscourseanalysesfortheIsraeli-PalestinianconflictDaliaGavriely-NurihaswrittenextensivelyontheIsraelidiscoursewithaparticularfocuson
Israeliculturalcodes(Gavriely-Nuri,2010a,2010b,2010c,2012a,2012b,2014a,2014b,2015;
Gavriely-Nuri,2009).First,adiscussionofthemostrelevantaspectsofGavriely-Nuri’sworkin
thescopeofthisthesiswillbeprovided.Second,YohananTzoreff’sanalysisofthePalestinian
narrativewillbediscussed.
2.3.1 Israeliculturalcodesasabarriertopeace
Gavriely-Nuri’s theoretical framework and research methodology is based on Fairclough’s
CriticalDiscourseAnalysis(CDA).However,Gavriely-Nuri’sapproachdistinguishesitselfbya
‘culturalapproachtocriticaldiscourseanalysis(CCDA)whichaimsatexposingthevariousways
inwhichculturalcodesareembeddedindiscourse,andcontributetothereproductionofabuses
ofpower’ (Gavriely-Nuri, 2012a,p.77). Following sociologistPierreBourdieu,Gavriely-Nuri
(2014)writesthatwhenusingpeaceasameanstoreceivesupport,politicalactorsborrow
fromthe‘discursivecapital’ofaculture.AccordingtoGavriely-Nuri,‘discursivecapitalrefers
tothearsenalofverbalpractices(…)contributingtotheconstructionofaspecificdiscourse’(p.
6).Verbalpractisesare‘phrases,idioms,images,metaphors(…)aswellasculturalcodes(such
asethos,myths,historicalnarrativesandcollectivememories)’(p.6).Gavriely-Nuriclaimsthat
discursivecapitalisusedforthe’achievementofsocialdominanceandthepromotionofsocial
interests’(Gavriely-Nuri,2014b,p.6).
Nuri categorised peace phrases used by Israeli politicians into negative/positive,
abstract/concrete and unilateral/bilateral. A peace phrase consists of the term ‘peace’
partneredbyanoun(f.i.peaceandsecurity)oranadjective(f.i.justpeace,stablepeace,safe
peace) (Gavriely-Nuri, 2010a)(see table 1). While some of her categorisations might be
culturallyparticularfortheIsraelipoliticaldiscourseinHebrew,mostseemapplicabletoall
cultures.
12
Whenaspeakercombinespeacewithanadjectiveornounheorsheimpliesthatthereare
differentkindsofpeace.Forinstance,‘peaceandsecurity’impliesthatpeacebyitselfisnot
secure,‘justpeace’impliesthatthereissuchathingas‘unjustpeace’.Becauseasubstantial
amount of the peace phrases is implying that peace by itself is not good enough, Nuri
categorizedmostpeacephrasesasnegative(Gavriely-Nuri,2010a).Table1givesanoverview
ofhercategorisations for the Israelipeacediscourse that isdivided intoanoppressiveand
supportivepeacediscourse.
Table1PeacephrasesusedintheIsraeliKnessetcategorisedbyGavriely-Nuri
Supportivepeacediscourse Oppressivepeacediscourse
Positive Concrete Bilateral Negative Abstract Unilateral
WantpeaceLiveinpeacePeace-orientedbehaviour(idiom)PeacerelationshipsDesireforpeace/aspiretopeace
PeaceagreementNegotiationforpeacePeaceinitiative
PeacerelationshipsPartnerforpeace
TruepeaceJustpeacePeaceandsecurityObstacleforpeacePeacefor…[shalomtemurat]…[they]don’twantpeacesafepeacepeaceoftheworldpriceofpeacecoldpeacestablepeacevictimsofpeace
PeaceprocessTruepeaceAchievingpeaceMakingpeaceWantingpeaceJustpeacePeacearrangementPeaceseekersRoadtopeaceComprehensivepeaceTalkingaboutpeaceChanceforpeacePeace-orientedbehaviour(idiom)FullpeaceYearnedforpeacePursuepeaceHopeforpeaceSafepeacePeaceoftheworldDesireforpeaceStablepeace
PeaceseekersPeacefor..[shalomtemurat]…PursuepeacePriceofpeaceInternalpeaceVictimsofpeace
Source:Gavriely-Nuri(2010a)
13
Oneofthepeacephrasesinparticular,justpeace,wasdiscussedinaroundtableconversation
betweenYossiBeilin14andEdwardSaid15(Allan&Keller,2006).BothSaidandBeilinagreed
that ‘whereas itmay have appeared to the parties that notmaking peacewas justified, in
hindsightithadbecomeclearthatgreaterinjustice,infact,layinnotmakingpeace’(Allan&
Keller,2006,p.vii).Saidisaproponentofajustpeaceandinhisarticlethatfollowedtheround
tablediscussionheoutlinesseveralaspects16toachieveajustpeaceforthePalestinians(Said,
2006,p.193).
Opposite to Said, Beilin pleas strongly for ‘a search for peace first’ and views ‘justice’ as a
harmfuladditiontothetermpeace(Beilin,2006,p.146).‘JustPeace’legitimatesunjustpeace
accordingtoBeilin.BeilinclaimsthatboththeIsraelisandPalestinianshaverejectedpeace
agreementsorsettlementsbecausetheyfelttheconditionswereunjust.However,according
toBeilin‘ifpeacebringsforthreconciliationandpreventsthelossoflivesandpossessions,itis
just by definition’ (Beilin, 2006, p. 147). It does not matter if peace is imperfect, Beilin
continues,evenifitdamagesbothsides,itcouldbecalledanunjustsolutionbutitcannotbe
calledan ‘unjust’peace.Thestatement: ‘It iseither JustPeaceorNoPeace’,adds ‘just’ to
‘peace’ resulting in justifications for thechoiceofNoPeaceandthuscreatesabarrier toa
peacefulsolution(Beilin,2006).
Similar implications to Beilin’s description of Just Peace are identified by Gavriely-Nuri
(Gavriely-Nuri,2010b,2015).The‘extendahandforpeace’metaphorwasusedintheIsraeli
Knessetmorethan50timessince1980(Gavriely-Nuri,2010b).InGavriely-Nuri’sarticleIfboth
opponents“extendhandsinpeace”–Whydon’ttheymeet?shededucedfourIsraelimodels
thatmakeuseofthemetaphor.Thefourmodelsdifferinthelevelofwillingnesstowardsthe
14YossiBeilinisanIsraelistatesmaninvolvedinthepeacenegotiationswithAbbasduringRabin’sleadershipandservedastheMinisterofJusticeunderBarak.15EdwardSaid isaPalestinian intellectual, rightsadvocateandprofessorof literatureatColumbiaUniversityinfluencedbyFoucault.16Forinstance:rethinkingthehistoryofthetwopeoplescombinedinonenarrativebyconstructing‘anemergentcompositeidentity’thatisbasedonsharedhistoryandtheantinomies.Aroleforeducationwithanemphasisonthe Other. Additionally, Said referred to Palestinian rights and rethinking the Law of Return and states thatcitizenshipshouldbebasedon‘thejustsolidaritiesofcoexistenceandthegradualdissolvingofethnicline’(Said,2006,p.193).
14
Arabstonegotiatepeace.Gavriely-Nuridescribesthedifferentdiscoursestrategiesusedto
maintainthestatusquowithincertainperiodsoftheArab-Israeliconflict.
ThefirstmodelistheEuropeanmodel,whichreferstoIsraelileadersborninEuropeanduse
the metaphor to accentuate ‘the perceived moral asymmetry between the adversaries’
(Gavriely-Nuri,2010a,p.457).ThismodelisfollowedbytheSabramodelreferringtonative
Israelileadersbornbetween1930and1960that‘reflectsaunilateraluseofthemetaphor’(p.
457). Themostpositivemodel is thePeacemakermodel,which represents the timeframe
surroundingthepeaceagreementswithEgypt(1979)andJordan(1994).Inthismodel,leaders
usethemetaphorinareciprocalway17.
The fourthmodel is thePostmodernmodel, in thismodel ‘[t]heconcept “peace”hasbeen
emptiedofcontent;ithasbecomeillusory,somethingthatneithertheusernorthelistener
believesispossibletoachieve’(Gavriely-Nuri,2010a,p.460).ApartfromgivingIsraelileader
Ehud Olmert as an example, who uses themetaphor in a postmodern way, Gavriely-Nuri
mentionsthatPalestinianleaderYasserArafathasalsousedthemetaphorseveraltimes.By
usingthemetaphor,accordingtoGavriely-Nuri,‘Arafatdemonstratedhisrhetoricalproficiency
andthoroughknowledgeofIsrael’sculturalheritageasitisrelatedtopeace’(Gavriely-Nuri,
2010a,p.461).Gavriely-Nuriexplainsthatlike‘OlmertandotherIsraelileaders,(…)[the]slogan
wasmeant to improvehis international image’ (Gavriely-Nuri,2010a,p.461).Gavriely-Nuri
finishesherarticlestatingthat‘aparallelchallengeawaitsPalestinianpeaceresearch,which
can open a window to Palestinian cultural codes and the cultural heritage surrounding its
conceptionofpeace’(Gavriely-Nuri,2010a,p.463).Inthefollowingsectionexistingliterature
ofPalestiniannarrativeswillbediscussed.
17Insteadofusingthemetaphorunilaterallyandfromaperspectiveofmoralsuperiority,themetaphorwasusedwiththeintentionofsymmetry,‘readinessandincapacitytomakepeace’accordingtoGavriely-Nuri(2010,p.459). For instance, of positive useof themetaphor are ‘Let us join hands’ and ‘Let’s stretchout our hands’.However,asGavriely-Nuristates,these‘expressionsofmutualitywouldhavebecomeararityinfutureusesofthemetaphor’(2010a,p.460).
15
2.3.2 Palestiniansocio-psychologicalbarrierstopeace
AccordingtoIsraelischolarandformerAdvisoronArabAffairsattheIsraeliCivilAdministration
intheGazaStrip,YohananTzoreff(2010),Palestinianshavealongwaytogobeforetheycould
call themselves ready tobecomeastate.Firstly,because thecurrentPalestinian identity is
basedonthe‘sanctityofresistance’(Tzoreff,2010).Tzoreffexplainsthatbecauseresistance
intheMiddleEastpredominantlybecameaspecialisationofIslamicorganisations,resistance
obtainedaholystatus.Thosewhoresistcanargueagainsttheoppositionthattheyare‘“not
givingin”andmaintainingastrongposition,acompleteantithesistothecontinuingdefeatism’
(Tzoreff,2010,p.70).
Secondly,allingredientsforstate-hood,asTzoreffmentions,like:progress,‘newconstruction,
individual development, the state, the national interest, and society’ are absent in the
Palestinian culture (Tzoreff, 2010, p. 74). Tzoreff continues that ‘none of these is at the
forefrontofthisculture’sinterests’(p.74).TheformedAdvisorexplainsthatthePalestinians
viewtheexternal forcesas taking ‘advantageofourweakness,ofour resources... toextort
concessionsfromus...tomakeusapawnintheirhands...tocontrolus...”andsoon’(Tzoreff,
2010,p.74).ThenarrativesofthePalestinianpeopleasTzoreffdescribesarechargedwithan
internal ‘defeatism,excessive concession, submissiveness,andbetrayalanyonewho tries to
think differently or to reach an agreement with the “other”’ (Tzoreff, 2010, p. 74). The
narrativesparalyzechangeand‘blockanyleaderwhotriestotakethefateofhispeopleinto
hisownhandsandenterintonegotiationswiththenon-Arabother’(Tzoreff,2010,p.74).
ApartfromTzoreff’sdescriptionofthePalestiniansocio-psychologicalbarrierstopeace,there
islittleliteratureonthetopicavailableonhowPalestinianbarrierstopeaceareexpressedin
discourse. As Gavriely-Nuri indicated, a ‘parallel challenge still awaits Palestinian peace
research’(Gavriely-Nuri,2010,p.463).
16
2.4 ConclusionTheIsraeli-Palestinianconflictisanidentityconflictthatisintractablebecauseoftheintensity
ofsocio-psychologicalbarriersonbothsidesoftheconflict.Thereisanemergenceofresearch
for the Israeli side that analyses the ethos, narratives andmetaphors used in discourseor
embedded in societal beliefs. However, the Palestinian peace research is far behind and
comparativeresearchisvirtuallynon-existentwhenitcomestopoliticaldiscourseanalysis.As
VanDijk,Gavriely-Nuri,CameronandWendenhavedemonstrated,discourseanalysiscanbe
usedasatooltouncoverbarriersorstepstowardsapeacefulresolution.Discourseistheuse
of language and therefore political per definition. Although social reality shapes language,
languagealsoconstitutesthesocialreality.Politiciansaremastersindiscourseandinfluence
oursocialrealitywitheverywordtheyutterintheirrole.Speechesareapoliticians’platform
toconstitutewhatthesocialrealityshouldlooklikeandthereforeanexcellentstartingpoint
to identify potential socio-psychological barriers andbridges to a peaceful solution for the
Israeli-Palestinianconflict.
17
3 MethodologyDiscourseisspokenorwrittenlanguagedirectedtoanaudience(VanDijk,1997).Israeliand
Palestinian peace discourse in this thesis refers to the political discourse of Israeli and
PalestinianleadersthatspeakaboutpeaceattheUnitedNationsGeneralAssembly(UNGA)
between 1988 and 2016. The research question is:What socio-psychological barriers and
bridgestopeacecanbeidentifiedinspeechesbyIsraeliandPalestinianleaderstotheUNGA
between1988and2016?Toanswerthisquestion,threesub-questionsweredevelopedbased
onword frequencies that arose from the sample and concepts identified in the literature
review;
1. Whatkeythemesrecurthroughoutthespeecheswithregardstotheterm‘peace’?
2. Howdotheleadersgivingthespeechespositionthemselvesinrelationtotheother?
3. Howdotheleaderspositionthemselvesintheinternationalcommunity?
Firstthetheoreticalframeworkandtheoreticalconceptsthatguidedtheanalysisandshaped
themethodsapplied inthisthesiswillbediscussed.Thenthesub-sectionresearchmethod
summarizeshowtheunitsofanalysisweredeterminedandhowthedatacollectionprocess
was performed for all four sub-questions. The methodology section of this thesis is then
concludedwithanassessmentofthequalityoftheusedmethodology.
3.1 Theoreticalframework
Theepistemologyinthisthesisisbasedonpeacestudiesthatviewstheworldasflexibleand
as producing ‘equally flexible images of that world’ (Galtung, 1996, p. 22). A social
constructivist perspectivewill be applied, arguing that discourse plays a crucial role in the
construction of reality in general and for peace and reconciliation in particular. This study
focusesonsocio-psychologicalbarrierstopeaceinherentindiscourse.
FollowingLakoffandJohnson(1980),thisthesisrecognizesandadoptstheperspectivethat
metaphors are extremely powerful in shaping our world and cognition. By combining the
theoreticalconceptsofLazarandLazar,Bar-Tal,VanDijk,Wenden,Auerbach,Garviely-Nuri
18
andCameron,thepeacediscourseofIsraeliandPalestinianleaderswasanalysedattwolevels:
macroandmicrolinguisticlevel.
The empirical analysis was informed by findings of linguists, metaphor analysts, natural
languageprocessing,sociology,psychologyandanthropology.Themacroandmicrolinguistics
asproposedbyWendenandVanDijkaspoliticaldiscourseanalysiswereusedasamethodand
socialconstructionismandthediscoursedynamicsapproach(thiswillbefurtherexplainedin
section3.3.2)astheoreticalframework.However,atop-downapproachwasavoidedasmuch
aspossible.Toallowfornewfindingstoarisefromthesample,theanalysisstartedbottom-up
guidedbypatternsandwordfrequenciesarisingfromthedata.Theapproachwassimilarto
grounded theory, because patterns that arose in the coding phase refined the research
questionandsub-questions.Nevertheless,becausenoadditionaldatawassoughtafterthe
coding process, the analysis is not based on grounded theory but is rather an inductive
approach:whenthetheoryoftheresearcherismerelygroundedinthedata,then‘grounded
theoryismoreorlesssynonymouswithaninductiveapproach’(Bryman,2012,p.568).
3.2 Researchmethods
3.2.1 Sample
TheunitsofanalysisofthisstudyweretheverbatimtranscriptsofspeechesgivenbyIsraeli
and Palestinian leaders to the UNGA between 1988 and 2016. Five decisions resulted in
selectingthissample,namelydecidingtoanalyse;(1)transcriptsratherthanspokenlanguage,
(2)speechesmeantforaninternationalandEnglishspeakingpublic,(3)speechesgiventothe
sameinternationalplatform,UNGA,(4)speechesofleadersand(5)speechesbetween1988
until2016.Thebelowparagraphswillprovideajustificationandadiscussionofthesample.
3.2.2 Transcripts
The choice for analysing transcripts in stead of spoken or video recorded speeches was
influenced by finding a balance between the comparability of findings over time and the
richness of the data. In video recorded speeches the researcher can also take intonation,
pausesinthespeechandbodylanguageintoaccount.However,withthetimeandresources
19
availablethesamplewouldhavebeenmuchsmaller.Furthermore,workingwithtranscripts
allowsfortheuseofsoftwareprogramssuchasNVivo18andLeximancer19.
3.2.3 EnglishtranslationsandtheUNGAplatform
Twomajoraspectswereconsideredwhendecidingwhichspeecheswillbeanalysed.Firstand
foremost, most research analysing the peace discourse of Israelis concentrates itself on
nationaldiscourse(Gavriely-Nuri,2010c,2014a;Gavriely-Nuri,2009).Nationaldiscourseisthe
discoursebypoliticalactorstowardstheirownpeople.Theaimofthisstudyistoinvestigate
in what way and to what extend meta-narratives are upheld by political actors in an
internationalenvironment.Atanationalplatform,theleadersusuallymerelyneedtoreaffirm
themeta-narrative by using narratives andmetaphors.While at an international platform,
politicalactorsmightneedtoconvincetheaudiencefirstofthemeta-narrative.
AsecondconsiderationresultingintheUNGAsamplewascomparability.Becausetheaimof
thisstudyistocomparetheattitudestopeacebyIsraeliandPalestinianleadersovertimeitis
importantthatthedataiscomparablebetweengroupsandovertime.
Theceterisparibusassumptionwillnotholdinanydiscourseanalysisofnaturallanguage20,
because there are always factors that influence the comparability of two groups21.
Nevertheless,theresearchershouldalwaysaimtohavethemoststablebackgroundvariables
as possible. The UNGA platform is therefore ideal for the purpose of this study; it is an
internationalplatformthathasbeenrecordingtheirspeechessincethefoundingoftheUnited
Nationsanddocumentingthemonlinesince1983onwards.Thereby,allspeechestotheUNGA
aretranslatedintoEnglishbyprofessionaltranslatorsandthespeakersareawarethattheir
speechistranslatedintoEnglishastheyspeak.Inadditiontothis,theirspeechesaredirected
18NVivoisaqualitativedataanalysissoftwarethatallowstheanalysttocodetextbyhighlightingandsortingitundercategoriesorthemes,alsocalled‘nodes’.NVivocanalsocreatewordwebsandperformtextqueriesandwordfrequencies.19Leximancerisanautomaticcontentanalysissoftwareandcalculatesthelikelihoodofcertainwordsorconceptpairs tobeusedbycertaingroupscomparedtoothers.LeximancerusesBayesianstatisticsandalgorithmstoidentifythemesandcorrespondingconcepts.IwasgiventheopportunitytotrythissoftwarebyProf.AndrewMarkus.20Naturallanguageinlinguisticsislanguagethatwasnotstagedforthepurposeofresearch.21 For instance, the UN might have altered standards for the translation of speeches over time. Also, thePalestinianspeechesarealltranslatedfromArabic,whilemostoftheIsraelispeechesweregiveninEnglish.
20
toan internationalpublic.Thisuniquesituation improvesthecomparisonbetweenthetwo
groups for tworeasons.Firstly,because it takesaway issuesof subjective interpretationof
unprofessionaltranslatorsthatwillnotbecheckeduponbyanofficialbody.Secondly,because
thespeechesbytheIsraeliandPalestinianleadersarenotonlywrittenfor,andgivento,the
sameplatformbutalsotookplaceatthesamelocation,theUnitedNations(UN)headquarters
inNewYork.OnlyonespeechdidnottakeplaceinNewYork,the1988speechbyYasserArafat.
ThishappenedwhenArafatwasdeniedavisatoentertheUnitedStatesandtheUNvotedto
movetheassemblytoGeneva.
3.2.4 Speechesbyleadersbetween1988and2016
Thesamplewas limited to speechesgiven to theUNGAbetween1988and2016 for three
reasons. Firstly, it is only from 1988 onwards that a dialogue between the Israelis and
Palestiniansstartstodevelop.22Moreover,unlikeotherexistingresearch,thisthesisisfocused
on the dialogic level23 demonstrated by speeches of both the Israelis and Palestinians
(Cameronetal.,2009).Secondly,althoughIsraelispeechesattheUNstartfrom1947,thefirst
speechbyaPalestinianpoliticianataninternationallyrecognizedplatformonlywasgivenby
Arafat in 1974. However, because the United Nations Bibliographic Information System
(UNBIS) starts from1983, thespeeches in thesamplestart fromArafat’s secondspeech in
1988.BylimitingthesampletotheavailableUNBISspeeches,thecomparabilitybetweenthe
speechesimproves.
Thirdly,startingfrom1988alsoallowsforcomparisonwithresearchundertakenbyGavriely-
Nuri(2015)onpeaceinwarspeechesbetween1982-2008.Inthisthesishowever,asimilar
timeframe(1988-2016)willbeinvestigatedfromanoppositeperspective;peaceinspeeches
surroundingnegotiations.Although thisperiod comprises the first and second intifadaand
severalIsraelimilitaryoperations,itwasin1993thatthefirstpeacenegotiationsbetweenthe
twopartieswereheld,followedbyseveralmeetingsbetweentheadversaries.
22Until1988,asAuerbachstates,‘thePalestinianssawtheirstrugglewithIsraelasgearedtowardseliminatingIsraelasaJewishstate,asexpressedinthePalestinianCovenant’(Auerbach,2010,p.101).23Dialogiclevelofspeechescanbeunderstoodasthelevelofwillingnesstonegotiate,tobeindialoguewiththeadversaryandtowhatextendthediscourseshowsthatthespeakerrelatestotheotherparty(Cameronetal.,2009).
21
OnlyspeechesbyIsraeliandPalestinianleaderswereselected,morespecificallyspeechesby
PrimeMinistersandPresidents.AllspeechestotheUNGAbyotherUNrepresentativeswere
excludedfromtheanalysis.Thislimitationwasmadeforthreereasons.
Firstly,becausepoliticalleaderscomparedtoUNrepresentatives,liveclosertotherealityof
thepeopletheyrepresent.UNrepresentativesoftenliveandworkintheUnitedStatesand
their role from the perspective of their people ismuchmore in the background than the
leader’sroleis(Rosen,1984;Teltsch,1975).Furthermore,countryleadersarefoundtohave
agreatinfluenceontheattitudesoftheircountryatmacrolevel(Bar-Tal&Halperin,2013;
Bullock,2011)whilethisisyettobetestedforUNrepresentatives.
Secondly,mostof the speechesbyUN representatives addressdetailed issues thatdonot
alwaysentail the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,while the speechesby the leaders address the
mostfundamentalandurgentissuesfromamacrolevelperspective.Thirdly,becauseofthe
limitedtimeandresourceconstraintsformasterstudents;narrowingdownthesampletoonly
comprise leaders allowed for a longitudinal analysis of almost three decades (1988-2016).
Limitingthesampletoincludeonlyleaders,narrowedthenumberofspeechessince1988from
almost2500IsraeliandPalestinianspeechesto18speechesbyPalestinianleadersand22by
Israelileaders.
ForconsistencyofthesamplespeechesmadebyIsraeliandPalestinianpoliticiansthatwere
notPrimeMinisterorPresidentatthetimeofdeliveringthespeechwerealsoexcluded.For
example,BenjaminNetanyahugaveseveralspeechestotheUNGAbeforeandafterhewas
PrimeMinisterof Israel (NetanyahuwasPrimeMinister twice).This limitationresulted ina
dataset of 14 Israeli speeches and18Palestinian speeches. In order tomake the two sets
comparable,4PalestinianspeechestotheUNGAintheyearswhentherewasnospeechgiven
totheUNGAbyanIsraelileaderwereexcluded.Therefore,the1999and2001speechesby
Arafat,2007speechbyAbbasand2012speechbyFayyadwereexcluded.Consequently,the
corpus24fortheanalysisofthefirsttwostagescomprisesthetranscriptsof28entirespeeches.
24Inlinguistics,corpusisthesetoftextsonwhichtheanalysisisperformed.
22
3.2.5 Datacollectionprocess
All speecheswere collected from the Index of Speeches from thewebsite25 of theUnited
Nations Bibliographic Information System (UNBIS).26 After downloading the English pdf
versions of all transcribed (verbatim) speeches, the transcripts had to be cleaned from
irrelevantdata27andreformattedtoallowusagebysoftwareprogramsNVivoandLeximancer.
Afterafullqualitycheckofthe28entirespeeches,theworddocumentswereconvertedback
topdffilestoensureacorrectreadingbysoftwareprogramsNVivoandLeximancer.All28
speechesinthesamplearetabledinAppendix1.
3.3 DataanalysisInthissectionanoverviewwillbeprovidedofthemethodandtoolsusedforthedataanalysis.
Theanalysiswasperformedintwostages,thefirststagefocusedonmacrolinguisticstructures
inthespeecheswhilethesecondstagedelveddeepertosentenceandwordlevelbylooking
atmicrolinguisticstructures.
3.3.1 Stage1:Macrolinguisticanalysis–keythemes
Thetheoreticalconceptsthatshapedtheframeworkforstage1oftheanalysiswerebasedon
macrolinguistics(VanDijk,1997;Wenden,2003).Thekeyconceptsofmacrolinguisticsthat
were used to interpret the speeches were 1) text schema categories and 2) scope of
identification(Wenden,2003).
3.3.1.1 Textschemacategories
Text schema categories refers towhich information is used to present a topic. Recurring
information in the speeches was identified through word frequencies using the software
program NVivo. The default frequency settings of NVivo were maintained, therefore only
25TheUNBISwebsiteURLishttp://unbisnet.un.org:8080/.26Thefollowingsearchtermsresultedinthecollectionof28speeches:(shamirORrabinORperesORnetanyahuORbarakORolmertORsharon)AND.SC=(israel)AND(abbasORfayyadORArafatORhamdallahORduwaikORhaniyehORqureiORshaathORfattouh)AND.SC=(palestineORpalestinianauthorityORplo).Thesearchterms‘palestine’,‘palestinianauthority’and‘plo’arebasedonhowrepresentativeswereregisteredintheUNBIS.27AstheUNBISpdffilescomprisethetranscriptofthefullGeneralAssemblymeetings,severalstepshadtobetakentomakethespeeches‘analysis’ready.FirsttherelevantsectionsbyIsraeliandPalestinianleaderswerecopypastedintowordinordertoeditthem.Thentheworddocumentwascheckedforerrorsalongsidethepdffiles,somepdffilesdidnotcopyaccuratelyandhadtobeadjustedbyhand.
23
words of three characters ormorewere included and the default list of stopwords28 was
excludedfromtheanalysis.NVivocalculatesfrequenciesbasedonhowoftenthewordappears
withoutaccountingforwordsbeingusedtwiceormoreinthesamesentence.However,on
average,thePalestinianleadersused29wordspersentenceswhiletheIsraeli leadersused
only 18 words per sentence. Comparison at sentence level seemed therefore more
meaningful.BecauseNVivoisnotabletodothis,Leximancerwasusedtoextractspreadsheets
thatcalculatedthefrequenciesofwordsatsentencelevel.29Wheneverresultsinthisthesis
report on ‘percentage of sentences’, Leximancer was used. The default stopwords by
Leximancer (see Appendix 3) were all maintained except the word ‘just’. Normal word
frequencieswerecalculatedat‘wordlevel’andwereperformedwithNVivo.
Additionally,prominencescoresofcertainconceptsforoneofthetwogroupswerecalculated
byusingBayes’theorem.ThecalculationsweredonemanuallybutinspiredonLeximancer’s
calculations.Prominencescoresencapsulatehowlikelyitisthatasentencescontainsacertain
word foraparticulargroupandareusedby linguistsandNLPAnalysts (Bishop,2006).The
calculationoftheprominencescoresisfurtherexplainedinAppendix2.
For the term ‘peace’ additional analysis was performed by hand coding 505 sentences
containingpeaceintocommon‘peacephrases’.Peacephrasesconsistoftheterm‘peace’in
combinationwithanounoradjective(Gavriely-Nuri,2010),forinstance‘justpeace’or‘peace
andsecurity’.Thecodingwasperformedbyexportingall sentencescontainingpeace from
28NVivostopwordsfortheEnglishlanguageare:aaboutaboveafteragainagainstallamanandanyarearen'taren’t as at be because been before being below between both but by can can't can’t cannot could couldn'tcouldn’tdiddidn'tdidn’tdodoesdoesn'tdoesn’tdoingdon'tdon’tdownduringeachfewforfromfurtherhadhadn'thadn’thashasn'thasn’thavehaven'thaven’thavinghehe'dhe'llhe'she’dhe’llhe’sherherehere'shere’shersherselfhimhimselfhishowhow'show’sii'di'lli'mi'vei’di’lli’mi’veifinintoisisn'tisn’titit'sit’sitsitselflet'slet’smemoremostmustn'tmustn’tmymyselfnonornotofoffononceonlyorotheroughtouroursourselvesout over own said same say says shall shan't shan’t she she'd she'll she's she’d she’ll she’s should shouldn'tshouldn’tsosomesuchthanthatthat'sthat’sthetheirtheirsthemthemselvesthentherethere'sthere’sthesetheythey'dthey'llthey'rethey'vethey’dthey’llthey’rethey’vethisthosethroughtotoounderuntilupuponusverywaswasn'twasn’twewe'dwe'llwe'rewe'vewe’dwe’llwe’rewe’vewereweren'tweren’twhatwhat'swhat’swhenwhen'swhen’swherewhere'swhere’swhichwhilewhowho'swho’swhomwhosewhywhy'swhy’swillwithwon'twon’twouldwouldn'twouldn’tyouyou'dyou'llyou'reyou'veyou’dyou’llyou’reyou’veyouryoursyourselfyourselves29Leximancer’scalculationsarebasedon‘contextblocks’.ThedefaultsettinginLeximanceristwosentencespercontextblock,butbecausespeechesareshorttextscomparedtothekindoftextsLeximancerwasdevelopedfor,thecontextblockwassettoonesentenceintheanalysis.
24
NVivointoExcel.Thesentenceswerelistedinonecolumnindifferentrows.Eachsentence
wasmanuallycodedinExcelbygivingitacode,forinstance‘justpeace’or‘threatforpeace’.
Sometimesasentencecontainedmultiplenounsandadjectivesthatwere ‘partnering’with
the termpeace, themost importantword (closest to thewordpeace)was thenchosenas
code.ThecolumnwithcodeswasthenalteredintoanExcelpivottablewhichcalculatedthe
frequenciesforeachofthe‘peacephrases’.
Thefrequenciesofthewordsandprominencescoresthatarosefromthisanalysiswereused
toconsolidatetheinformationinthespeechesintokeythemesandaimedtoanswerthefirst
sub-question: What key themes recur throughout the speeches with regards to the term
‘peace’?
3.3.1.2 Thescopeofidentification
Thescopeofidentificationdefineshowthespeakerpositionshimselfinrelationtoothersand
theinternationalcommunity.Sentencesinthespeechesreferringtoascopeofidentification
were hand coded after reading the entire speeches and additionally identified through
automatictextqueriesinNVivobysearchingfor‘internationalcommunity’(asVanDijk(2005)
suggested)‘Palestine’‘Israel’andthenamesofallpoliticalactorsinvolved.Thismethodaimed
to answer the two sub-questions; 1) how do the leaders giving the speeches position
themselves in relation to theotherand;2)howdo the leadersgiving thespeechesposition
themselvesintheinternationalcommunity?
3.3.2 Stage2:Microlinguisticanalysis–peacephrasesandreconciliationmetaphors
Thesecondstagefurtherrefinedfindingsfromthefirststagebyanalysingthemicrolinguistics
ofthespeeches.ThisstagewasinformedbyresearchundertakenbyGavriely-Nuri(2010a)on
supportive and oppressive peace discourse and by Cameron’s reconciliation metaphors
(Cameron,2007;Cameronetal.,2009).Neitherofthestudieswerefullyreplicated,butrather
adjustedtothecontextoftheUNGAspeeches.Afterashortexplanationofbothstudiesthe
limitationsandadjustmentswillbediscussedbeforemovingontotheoperationalizationof
thetheoreticalframework.
25
Forher research,Gavriely-NuriusesCDAwithacultural twist;Culturalapproach toCritical
Discourse Analysis (CCDA). Decoding cultural code and heritage ‘requiresmore than literal
translation’,accordingtoGavriely-Nuriit‘demandsintimatefamiliaritywiththeentireculture’
(2010,p.453).BecauseoftherequiredfamiliaritywiththeIsraeliandPalestiniancultureand
for reasonsoutlined in the literature reviewabout theobjectivesofCDA (mitigating social
wrongs),theapproachinthisthesiswillnotbebasedonCCDA.Instead,thisthesisfocuseson
thegeneralizabilityandtransferabilityofGavriely-Nuri’sfindings.
Gavriely-Nuri devised a binary axis with an oppressive and supportive peace discourse.
Oppressive peace discourse is aimed at reaffirming barriers and obstacles to peace
negotiationsbetweentwoopposingparties.Ontheotherhand,supportivepeacediscourse
emphasizesthepossibilityofasuccessfulpeaceprocess.Supportivepeacediscoursehighlights
similaritiesinsteadofdifferencesbetweentheadversariesandhasasobjectivetorelateto
the ‘other’ insteadof victimizing oneself and criminalizing the other (Gavriely-Nuri, 2010a;
Lazar&Lazar,2004).ThethreecategoriesontheoppressiveaxisdevelopedbyGavriely-Nuri
are‘negative’,‘unilateral’and‘abstract.Thecategoriesonthesupportiveaxisare‘positive’,
‘bilateral’and‘concrete’.However,forthisanalysis,onlytheunilateralandbilateralcategories
devisedbyGavriely-Nuriwereconsidered.Thereasonforthislimitationistwofold.
Firstly,itwastheambiguityofthedividebetweenpositive/negativeandconcrete/abstractthat
ledtotheexclusionofthosefourcategories.InthecaseoftheUNGAspeechesanalysedinthis
thesis,sometimesasentencecontainingpeacewaspositive,butthesentencessurrounding
thepeacephrasewerecriminalizingtheotherpartytoagreatextend.Therefore,readingthe
sentence in itscontextandtakingthediscoursedynamicsofthespeeches(Cameronetal.,
2009)intoaccountoftenresultedinhavingtoconcludethatthesentenceisactuallynegative.
Secondly, another reason for focusing on two of the six categories was the supporting
theoretical framework developedbyCameron. Cameron (2009) uses a discourse dynamics
approachtometaphor inwhichshetakes the localcontext intoaccount.Morespecifically,
Cameronnotonlycontextualizesmetaphorsintheentiretext,butalsotheorderintimethat
metaphors appear. Ideas and perceptions changewhile the speakers speak or the author
writes (Cameron, 2009). This is a crucial element to reconciliation processes. Therefore,
26
Cameron takes thisas thekey focusof theanalysis.Cameronderived fourmetaphors that
particularlyframethereconciliationprocess.30Thespeakersintheconversationanalysedby
Cameron,framedtheprocessas1)‘ajourney’;2)‘connection’;3)‘changingadistortedimage’
and;4) ‘listening to theOther's story’ (2007,p.216).Thisallowedthespeakers togo from
sympathytoempathyandeventuallybeabletoimaginethemselvesintheothers’position.
ThediscoursedynamicsapproachandthereconciliationmetaphorsdefinedbyCameronare
embracedbytheanalysisinthesecondstage.
To summarize; in the second stageof the analysis,peacewas analysedas a1) journey, 2)
connection, 3) changing a distorted image and 4) as listening to the others’ position.
Additionally, Gavriely-Nuri’s categories were also incorporated; peace was analysed by
focusingonbilateralismanditsopponent,unilateralism.
3.3.2.1 Operationalization
The first stepof this stagecomprisedcodingall426 sentencescontaining ‘peace’ into two
categories;bilateral&unilateral.Forcodingpurposes, thedefinitionsasoutlined intable2
wereusedtocodeinstancesof‘peace’asuniorbi–lateral.
Table2CodingscheduleforbilateralandunilateralusageofpeaceinspeechesbyIsraeliandPalestinianleaderstotheUNGAbetween1988and2016
Bilateralusageofpeaceinsentence Unilateralusageofpeaceinsentence
The other side is mentioned as an equalpartyorpartnerinthepeaceprocess
The speakermentionedonly their sideandnottheothersideThe other side was mentioned, but in anegativeway
Someinstancesofpeacecouldnotbecodedintoeitherofthosecategoriesandweretherefore
coded in an ‘unclassifiable’ category. This was for instance the case when leaders were
30InherarticlesCamerondescribesingreatdetailhowsheanalysedreconciliationmetaphorsinseveralstudies(Cameron, 1999, 2003; Cameron, 2007; Cameron, 2012; Cameron et al., 2009; Cameron & Stelma, 2004).CameroninvestigatedtheconversationsrecordedovertwoandahalfyearsbetweenJoBerry,who’sfatherwaskilledinabombingbytheIRA,andPatMagee,whoperformedthebombing(Cameron,2007).
27
speakingofworldpeace,peacebetweenothernationsorwhenpeacewasmentionedwithout
anyconcretepartiesmentionedtryingtoachievepeace.
ThesoftwareprogramNVivowasusedtocodethesentencesintooneofthetwocategories.
A‘node’,wascreatedforthreecategories(unilateral,bilateralandother).Thenbyselecting
anddraggingthesentence intothecorrectnodethesentenceswascoded.Thisqualitative
methodofcodingthesentencesthenresultedinquantitativedata;theamountofsentences
codedtoeachcategory.ThisinformationwasexportedfromNVivointoExceltocomparethe
quantitativedataovertimeandbetweenleaders.
Thesecondstepofthemicrolinguisticanalysisconsistedoftextqueriestoidentifytheuseof
peaceasajourney,connection,listeningtotheotherandchangingadistortedimage.Inother
words,thisanalysisaimedtoidentifyusageofwordsasreconciliationmetaphorsthatcould
bridgethegapbetweenthetwosidesoftheconflict.Table3providesanoverviewofthewords
thatwereusedinthetextquery.
Table3WordsthatwereenteredintotheNvivotextquerytoidentifyareconciliationprocess
Journey Connection Listeningtotheother Changedistortedimage
stepwaypathjourneytravel
bridgecrossingdistancesbreakingdownbarrierssharingstoriescloseness
exchangingstorieslistensitdownandtalk
seeingahumanbiggerpicturetruelightsetstraightsufferingoftheotherrectify
This stageof theanalysisaimedtoanswer thesub-questions inmoredetailwithaspecific
focusonthequestion:Howdotheleadersgivingthespeechespositionthemselvesinrelation
to the other?Additionally, the analysis had as objective to consolidate all results together
towardsanswering theresearchquestion:Whatsocio-psychologicalbarriersandbridges to
peace can be identified in speeches to the UNGA between 1988 and 2016 by Israeli and
Palestinianleaders?
28
3.4 Qualityofthemethodology
Thetwostagesoftheanalysisaimedtoanswerthethreesub-questions.Sub-questions2and
3, on the scope of identification, answering with the proposedmethodology seems fairly
reasonable.Namely,byqualitativelyanalysinghowadversariesrefertoeachotherandtothe
internationalcommunity,thetwosub-questionscanbeanswered.Furthermore, identifying
keythemes(sub-question1)byreadingthespeechesandrunningwordfrequenciesalsoseems
straightforward.However,interpretingtheanswerstothequestionsrequiresamoreintricate
approach. This requires an extensive background knowledge of the Israeli and Palestinian
history and a thorough familiarity with the cultural codes as Gavriely-Nuri (Gavriely-Nuri,
2012a)indicated.Nevertheless,becausethisthesisaddressestheresearchgapofcomparative
studies,thethoroughfamiliaritywithculturalcodesisalesserpriority. Instead,theanalysis
baseditselfonliteratureonnarrativesbyIsraeliandPalestinianscholarsandthekeythemes
thatarosefromthesampleitself.Theunfamiliaritywiththeculturalcodesisalimitationofthis
studybutatthesametimealsoanadvantagefortworeasons.
Firstly,byhavinganoutsiderperspectiveonthe Israeli-Palestinianconflictmypositionasa
researchermightbelessbiased.Becausemydailylifeisnotdirectlyaffectedbythisconflictin
thewayit isfor IsraeliandPalestinianresearchers.However, itmustbetakenintoaccount
thatmypartnercomesfromaJewishbackgroundandhasfamilylivinginIsrael,althoughheis
notaZionist.Thismightresultinmyperspectivebeingmorepro-Israeli,asIheardnarratives
fromtheJewish-Israeliperspective,whileIhavenotheardthePalestinianperspectiveapart
fromthoseonsocialmedia.Mypersonalpoliticalstandpointisthatbothpeopleshaveequal
rightsto live inthecontestedterritoryandIsupportatwostatesolution. Idonothavean
opiniononhowthis shouldwork inpractisebecauseof thecomplexityofequal rightsand
securityforthepeoples.Aboveall,myaimisnottofavourorsupportonesideovertheother
inthisthesis. Iwillnotfocusonsocialwrongswithaperpetratorandrecipient,butinstead
chooseapragmaticapproachby lookingathowtheuseof languagecaneitherstagnateor
progressthedialoguebetweenthetwoparties.
Secondly,becausethefocusofthisthesisismoregeneralthanIsraeliorPalestiniancultural
codes,themethodandresultsare likelytobemoretransferrabletoothercontexts.Asthe
29
insightsthatarisefromtheanalysisarenotbasedonparticularculturalcodestheycaninform
discourseanalysisfordifferentconflicts.
Additionally, replicabilitywasvery important indevelopingthemethodologyfor this thesis:
nothingthatwascodedwasarbitraryorbasedonthesubjectiveinterpretationoftheanalyst.
Alloftheresultsobtainedbythemethodsdescribedinthissectionwerebasedonobjective
wordfrequencies.Thosewordfrequenciesinsomecasesresultedintextqueries.However,
textquerieswereonlyperformedwhenthewordscameupasfrequent.Thiswastoavoidthe
‘findingwhatyoulookingfor’selffulfillingprophecies.Additionally,allstatementsonlikelihood
arebasedoncalculatedprobabilitiestominimisesubjectivecomparison.
30
4 ResultsFirstly,anoverviewwillbeprovidedoftherelevantresultsobtainedthroughmacrolinguistic
analysis. Two aspects ofmacro linguistic structures were considered for the analysis, text
schema categories and the scope of identification. The focus on text schema categories
resultedinfourkeythemes,namely;people,peace,justiceandsecurity.Byanalysingthescope
of identification, three recurring themes were identified; referring to the international
communityandtheextendingahandforpeacephrase.Thelatterwasfurtheranalysedinthe
sub-sectiononthemicro linguisticanalysis.Duringthemicro linguisticanalysis,keythemes
werefurtherexploredbytextqueries.Inthisstage,theterm‘peace’wascodedasbilateralor
unilateralandreconciliationmetaphorswereidentified.
4.1 Macrolinguisticresults
‘Peace’ is the secondmost frequentword in theUNGAspeechesby Israeli andPalestinian
leaders. ForPalestinian leaders ‘people’ or ‘peoples’ is themost frequentword in all their
speechescombined,whileforIsraelileadersthisis‘Israel’.Thetenmostfrequentwordsare
showninfigure2forPalestiniansontheright(orange)andIsraelisontheleft(blue).
Figure1MostfrequentwordsinthespeechesbyIsraeliandPalestinianleaderstotheUNGAbetween1988and2016
InthespeechesbyPalestinianleaderstherewaslessvarietyofwordscomparedtotheIsraeli
speeches.Therefore,higher frequenciesamongwordsweremore likely tobe found in the
PalestinianspeechescomparedtotheIsraelispeeches31.Thetablebelowprovidesanoverview
31LessfrequentwordsintheIsraelispeecheswerealsoexaminedtoidentifywhethersimilarwordscombinedwouldresultinhigherfrequenciesforthespeechesinthesample.Thiswasnotthecaseandforallkeythemesidentified.
134 137 158229 230 249
291 302 340 377360270
221 180 139 136 135 128 128 118
31
ofthewordswithaprominencegreaterthan132.Ascoreabove1indicatestheconceptismore
likelytobefoundinthespeechesofthatgroupcomparedtothespeechesoftheothergroup.
Table4ProminencescoresforfrequentwordsintheIsraeliandPalestinianspeechestotheUNGAbetween1988and2016
secur(e)(ity) just(ice)33 rights recognition respect suffering threat
Palestinian Frequency 64 111 66.5a 20 16 29.5a 3
Prominence 1.3 1.6 2.1 1.3 1.5 2.3 0.3
Israeli Frequency 53 52.5a 9.5a 17 9 1 22
Prominence 0.8 0.5 0.2 0.8 0.6 0.1 1.5aBecausein2008,twospeechesweregivenforboththeIsraeliandPalestinianleaders,anaverageofthetwospeecheswascalculatedinthefrequencyscores.Therefore,.5or½frequenciesarepossible.
4.1.1 People(s)
Frequencies for the term ‘people’ or ‘peoples’ at sentence level were calculated with
Leximancer. Figure 3 provides an overview of the percentage of sentences containing
‘people(s)’intheUNGAspeechesbyIsraeliandPalestinianleadersbetween1988and2016.
Figure2Thepercentageofsentencescontainingtheterm'people'or'peoples'comparedtoallsentencesinthespeechestotheUNGAbyIsraeliandPalestinianleadersbetween1988and201634
32SeeAppendix2forthecalculationofprominencescores.33Theusageoftheterm‘just’onlyincludesreferencestoa‘moral’just.Forinstance,thesentence‘letusjustmakepeace’wasexcludedfromthefrequencyandprominencecalculations.34Thecategoriesonthex-axisrepresentyearsinwhichaspeechwasgiven,thex-axisisthereforenotcontinuesasaspeechwasnotgiveneveryyear.Therefore,cautionmustbetakenwheninterpretingthelinesinthegraph.Lineswerechosenabovedotpointstoallowforaneasierinterpretationofthegraph.However,alineinbetweentwoyearsmerelyindicatesiftherewasanincreaseordecreaseinpercentagecomparedtothepreviousspeechgiveninthesample.
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Palestinianleaders Israelileaders
32
4.1.2 Peace
Intotal,approximately15%ofthesentencesinthespeechesofthesample(505)contained
theterm‘peace’.Infigure4,theorangelinerepresentstheuseofpeacebyPalestinianleaders
comparedtothetotalsentencesintheirspeeches,whilethebluelinereflectstheusageof
peacebyIsraelileaders.
Figure3Thepercentageofsentencescontainingtheterm'peace'comparedtoallsentencesinthespeechestotheUNGAbyIsraeliandPalestinianleadersbetween1988and201635
35Thecategoriesonthex-axisrepresentyearsinwhichaspeechwasgiven,thex-axisisthereforenotcontinuesasaspeechwasnotgiveneveryyear.Therefore,cautionmustbetakenwheninterpretingthelinesinthegraph.Lineswerechosenabovedotpointstoallowforaneasierinterpretationofthegraph.However,alineinbetweentwoyearsmerelyindicatesiftherewasanincreaseordecreaseinpercentagecomparedtothepreviousspeechgiveninthesample.
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Palestinianleaders Israelileaders
33
Table5providesanoverviewofallpeacephrasesusedfourormoretimesinthespeechesby
IsraeliandPalestinianleaders.Thepercentagesarecalculatedbycomparingthefrequencies
tothetotalamountofpeacephrases,forthePalestinianleadersthiswas257peacephrases
and for the Israeli leaders 221peace combinationswith 478peacephrases in total. Some
sentencescontaining‘peace’were‘unclassifiable’becausenonounoradjectivewascombined
with‘peace’.
Table5PeacephrasesbythePalestinianandIsraelileadersintheUNGAspeeches1988-2015
Palestinianpeacephrases Freq % Israelipeacephrases Freq %just(ice)(and)peace 34 13.2% (unclassifiable) 17 7.7%
peaceprocess 29 11.3% peacewithEgypt 10 4.5%securityandpeace 17 6.6% securityandpeace 8 3.6%(unclassifiable) 13 5.1% wantpeace 8 3.6%landfor/ofpeace 9 3.5% peaceagreement 7 3.2%comprehensivepeace 8 3.1% negotiatepeace/peacenegotiation(s) 6 2.7%freedomandpeace 7 2.7% handofpeace 5 2.3%internationalpeace 6 2.3% worldpeace 5 2.3%achievepeace 5 1.9% achievepeace 4 1.8%occupationandpeace 5 1.9% advancepeace 4 1.8%peaceagreement 4 1.6% comprehensivepeace 4 1.8%cultureofpeace 4 1.6% desire(for)peace 4 1.8%peaceinourregion 4 1.6% genuinepeace 4 1.8%loveandpeace 4 1.6% seek(s)peace 4 1.8%- theydon'twantpeace 4 1.8%- threattopeace 4 1.8%
4.1.3 Justiceandsecurity
SecurityisfrequentlymentionedintheIsraelispeeches,especiallywhenpairedupwithpeace.
Infigure4and5,wordfrequenciesoftheterms‘security’,‘secure’and‘justice’and‘just’for
alloftheUNGAspeechesoftheleadersbetween1988and2016arevisualised(thetermsin
figure5and6arenotnecessarilypairedwith‘peace’).
34
Figure4Percentageofsentencescontaining‘secure’or'securitycomparedtoallsentencesinthespeechestotheUNGAbyIsraeliandPalestinianleadersbetween1988and201636
Figure5Percentageofsentencescontaining'justice'comparedtoallsentencesinthespeechestotheUNGAbyIsraeliandPalestinianleadersbetween1988and201618
36Thecategoriesonthex-axisrepresentyearsinwhichaspeechwasgiven,thex-axisisthereforenotcontinuesasaspeechwasnotgiveneveryyear.Therefore,cautionmustbetakenwheninterpretingthelinesinthegraph.Lineswerechosenabovedotpointstoallowforaneasierinterpretationofthegraph.However,alineinbetweentwoyearsmerelyindicatesiftherewasanincreaseordecreaseinpercentagecomparedtothepreviousspeechgiveninthesample.
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
8%
9%
10%
Palestinianleaders Israelileaders
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
8%
9%
10%
Palestinianleaders Israelileaders
35
4.1.4 Thescopeofidentification:the‘internationalcommunity’
In the UNGA speeches by Israeli and Palestinian leaders between 1988 and 2016, the
internationalcommunitywasaddressed66times.Theinternationalcommunityismentioned
moreoftenbythePalestinianleadersthanbytheIsraelileadersinthesample.
Figure6FrequenciesofIsraeliandPalestinianleadersreferringtothe'internationalcommunity'intheUNGAspeechesbetween1988and2016
SometimesPalestinianleadersmentiontheinternationalcommunityinrelationtoworldpeace
ortheUnitedNations.Butmostlytheinternationalcommunityiscalledupontopressurethe
Israeliside(seeAppendix4foranoverview).
4.1.5 Thescopeofidentification:theadversary
ThePalestinianleadersdonotaddressIsraelileadersdirectlyintheirspeeches,butmention
themoccasionally.Of the Israeli leaders,NetanyahuaddresseshisadversaryAbbasdirectly
onlyonce.Table6and7provideanoverviewofIsraeliandPalestinianleadersmentioningthe
adversarybyname.
Table6PalestinianleadersmentioningIsraelileadersintheirspeechestotheUNGAbetween1988and2016
Speech Mentioningthe‘Other’
Arafat1998 assassinationofthelateYitzhakRabin,mypartnerinthepeaceWhentheGovernmentofBenjaminNetanyahutookofficeinIsrael,abytheGovernmentofMr.Netanyahuhavecausedthecurrent
Abbas2013 leader,YasserArafat,andYitzhakRabin,thelateIsraeliPrime
Abbas2015 lateIsraeliPrimeMinisterYitzhakRabinin1976,whenhestatedcancer.ThatiswhatYitzhakRabinsaid.Whydotheydo
3 14
6
1 14
14 3
53 1 1 3 3
75
2 1 1
6
36
Table7IsraelileadersmentioningPalestinianleadersintheirspeechestotheUNGAbetween1988and2016
Speech Mentioningthe‘Other’
Rabin1995 IwishtocongratulateChairmanArafatonbeingourpartnerin
Netanyahu1998 thePalestinianAuthorityandChairmanArafatagreedtodismantlethe
Barak2000 IcallouttoChairmanArafattojoinmeinthis
Peres2008 anagreement.AndknowingPresidentAbbasaswell,Iamsure
Netanyahu2011 allthePalestiniandemands.ChairmanArafatrejectedit.Theevenmoresweepingoffer.PresidentAbbasdidnotevenrespondtokeysofGazatoPresidentAbbas.workedout,andthatPresidentAbbasandthePalestinianAuthority. PresidentAbbasjustsaidfromthisrostrumIexplainedthistoPresidentAbbas.HeansweredthatifaPresidentAbbasjuststoodhereandsaidBank.So,ifwhatPresidentAbbasissayingwastrue,thenIwouldaskPresidentAbbastostopwalkingaroundthiscontinuetohopethatPresidentAbbaswillbemypartnerindirectnegotiationswithoutpreconditions.PresidentAbbasdidnotAmericanideas.WhydoesPresidentAbbasnotjoinme?Wehavecourtofpublicopinion.PresidentAbbashasdedicatedhislifetoandahalfyears,PresidentAbbasandIhavemetinpeacewithoutaninterlocutor.PresidentAbbas,Iextendmyhand—
Netanyahu2012 PresidentAbbasjustspokehere.Isay
Netanyahu2014 crime.IsaytoPresidentAbbas,thesearethecrimes—the
Netanyahu2015 Unfortunately,PresidentAbbassaidyesterdaythatheisagainonlyyesterdayfromPresidentAbbas.HowcanIsraelmakewouldliketotellPresidentAbbasthatIknowitisagoodplaceforPresidentAbbastobegin.Heshouldstopstatusquothere.WhatPresidentAbbasshouldbespeakingout
Whenaddressingtheirspeechtotheadversaryindirectly,bothpartiesoftenusemetaphors.
One of themetaphors thatwas a recurring trendwas the ‘extendingmy hand for peace’
metaphor.Thenextsub-sectiononmicrolinguisticstructuresprovidesanoverviewofhand
metaphorsandthevarietiesofhandmetaphorsthatwerefoundintheUNGAspeeches.
37
4.2 Microlinguisticresults
4.2.1 Extendahandorolivebranch?
Table8providesanoverviewofthePalestinianusageofthe‘extendahand’metaphor.Itwas
foundthatthePalestinianleadersusedthehandmetaphortogetherwith‘anolivebranchfor
peace’.Palestinianleadersreferredtotheolivebranchandolivetrees15timesintheirUNGA
speechesastable9shows.IsraeliPresidentPeresreferredoncetoolives.
Table8PalestinianleadersusingahandmetaphorintheUNGAspeechesbetween1988and2016
Speech Extend/handforpeace
Arafat1988 placeamongyoutojoinhandswithyouinconsolidatingtheententeberaised.LetallhandsjoinindefenseofanofmyPeople,offeringmyhandsothatwecanmake
Abbas2006 olivebranchfallfrommyhand”(A/PV.2282,para.82olivebranchfallfrommyhand.Irepeat:donotletolivebranchfallfrommyhand.Themeetingroseat8.40
Abbas2008 committedtointernationallegitimacy.Weextendourhandsfordialogueinternationallegitimacy.Weextendourhandsfordialogueand
Abbas2010 willnotdiminish.Ourwoundedhandsarestillabletocarryforpreservingourcauseandextendingahelpinghandtoourcauseandextendingahelpinghandtoourpeoplethroughits
Abbas2011 olivebranchfallfrommyhand.”(A/PV.2282,para.82PalestineLiberationOrganizationthatweextendourhandtotheIsraeliOrganizationthatweextendourhandtotheIsraeliGovernmentand
Abbas2012 disappointment,wecontinuetosincerelyextendahandtotheIsraelicontinuetosincerelyextendahandtotheIsraelipeopleto
Abbas2015 Court.Allthatnotwithstanding,myhandremainsoutstretchedforthe
38
Table9PalestinianandIsraelileadersreferringtoanolivebranchortreeintheUNGAspeechesbetween1988and2016
Speech Olivebranch
Arafat1988 themainstreamsthatwateredtheolivebranchIcarriedthatdayabilitytoprotectourgreenolivebranchinthehotbedsof
thosewhoarefortheolivebranch,peacefulcoexistence,andinternationalIfweoffertheolivebranchofpeaceitis
Arafat1995 andpeace,nowthattheolivebranchhasbeenraisedover
Abbas2006 call:“Donotlettheolivebranchfallfrommyhandcall.Donotlettheolivebranchfallfrommyhand
repeat:donotlettheolivebranchfallfrommyhandFayyad2008 PresidentYasserArafat,raisedanolivebranch,asymbolofpeace
thelandofpeace.TheolivebranchisdeeplyrootedinPeres2008 thesametrees—theoldolivesandtalldates.Theirdeclaration
Abbas2010 stillabletocarrytheolivebranchpickedfromthesplinters
Abbas2011 stating:“Donotlettheolivebranchfallfrommyhandlandsanduprootandburnolivetreesthathaveexistedin
Abbas2013 ourmosquesandchurches,ourolivetrees,ouragriculturalfieldsand
Abbas2014 land,mosques,churches,propertyandolivetrees.Againasusual,the
ApartfromBarakin2000andNetanyahuin1998and2011,noneoftheIsraelileadersinthe
sampleusedahandmetaphorwhilereferringtothePalestinians.Table10outlinesBarakand
Netanyahu’sreferences.
Table10IsraelileadersusingahandmetaphorintheUNGAspeechesbetween1988and2016
Speech Extend/handforpeace
Netanyahu1998 ofIsraelstretchedoutthehandofpeacetoourneighbours
Barak2000 life.Itisinourhands.
Netanyahu2011 Mr.Netanyahu(Israel):IsraelhasextendeditshandinpeacefromIsrael):Israelhasextendeditshandinpeacefromthemoment
andtheJewishpeople,Iextendthathandagaintoday.IJewishpeople,Iextendthathandagaintoday.Iextendit
thathandagaintoday.Iextendittothepeopleofwehavemadepeace.Iextendittothepeopleof
withrespectandgoodwill.Iextendittothepeopleofbuildademocraticfuture.Iextendittotheotherpeoples
forgeanewbeginning.IextendittothepeopleofMostespecially,IextendmyhandtothePalestinian
Mostespecially,IextendmyhandtothePalestinianpeople,withonecannotapplaudwithonehand.Well,thesameistrue
aninterlocutor.PresidentAbbas,Iextendmyhand—thehandofPresidentAbbas,Iextendmyhand—thehandofIsrael—in
Iextendmyhand—thehandofIsrael—inpeace.Ithathewillgraspthathand.Weareboththesons
39
4.2.2 Bilateralandunilateralpeace
Thissub-sectionprovidesanoverviewoftheresultsobtainedfromcoding426sentenceswith
thetermpeaceintotwocategories;unilateralandbilateral.Ofthetotalamountofsentences
containingpeace(505),79sentenceswereexcludedbecausepeacewasreferredtoasaname
of something (for instance: theArabPeace Initiative). Somepeace sentences couldnotbe
codedineitherofthecategoriesandwerethereforenotconsideredforthisanalysis,intotal
52.3%ofthepeacesentences(223)werecodedinoneofthetwocategories.
Figure 7 Frequencies of sentences containing 'bilateral peace' and 'unilateral peace' compared to the total of sentencescontaining'peace'inspeechesattheUNGAbetween1988and2015
05
10152025303540455055
1988arafat1988shamir
1995arafat
1995rabin
1998arafat
1998netanyah
2000arafat
2000barak
2005sharon
2006abbas
2008abbas
2008fayyad
2008peres2008peres2
2009abbas2009netanyah
2010abbas
2010peres
2011abbas
2011netanyah
2012abbas
2012netanyah
2013abbas
2013netanyah
2014abbas
2014netanyah
2015abbas2015netanyah
Unilateral Bilateral Total
40
Figure8 shows the relative frequencyofbilateralandunilateralpeacesentencesoutofall
peacesentencesinaparticularspeech.Forinstance,inthe1998speechbyArafat,noneofthe
peacesentenceswasunilateral,whileonlyonesentence(thisis3.2%ofallpeacesentences)
wascategorizedasbilateral.Theremaining96.8%ofthesentencescontainingpeacewasnot
classifiableineitherofthecategories.
Figure8PercentageofbilateralandunilateralpeacesentencesofallpeacesentencesintheUNGAspeechesbyPalestinianandIsraelileadersbetween1988and2015
4.2.3 Reconciliationmetaphors
Cameron (2007) identified four reconciliation metaphors, namely: peace as a journey,
connection,listeningtotheotherandchangingadistortedimage.Onlythreewerefoundin
theUNGAspeechesandanoverviewisprovidedinAppendix5forpeaceasajourney,peace
asaconnection,peaceaslisteningtoeachother.Inaddition,‘peaceasbuildingorconstruction
process’wasidentifiedinthespeeches.Furtheritwasfoundthat‘suffering’wasmentioned
mostofteninthePalestinianspeeches.Ofallmentionsof‘suffering’onlyonewasreferring
the‘others’suffering,thiswasbyNetanyahuinhis1998speech.
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1988arafat
1988sh
amir
1995arafat
1995ra
bin
1998arafat
1998netanyah
2000arafat
2000barak
2005sh
aron
2006abb
as2008abb
as2008fayyad
2008peres
2008peres2
2009abb
as2009netanyah
2010abb
as2010peres
2011abb
as2011netanyah
2012abb
as2012netanyah
2013abb
as2013netanyah
2014abb
as2014netanyah
2015abb
as2015netanyah
41
5 DiscussionAlmost every sixth sentence of the UNGA speeches, analysed in this thesis, by Israeli and
Palestinian leaders between 1988 and 2016 contains the term ‘peace’. As stated in the
literaturereview,peaceisoften(mis)usedinpoliticaldiscoursetogaininternationalsupport
(Bar-Tal, 2014; Galtung, 1996; Gavriely-Nuri, 2010a). Because ‘peace’ is used in 15% of
sentencesspokenattheUNGAoverseveraldecades,itbecamemeaninglessandan‘empty
idol’ (Biletzki, 2007, p. 352). Gavriely-Nuri articulated more clearly that ‘peace’ became
‘somethingthatneithertheusernorthelistenerbelievesispossibletoachieve’(Gavriely-Nuri,
2010a,p.460).
However,understandinghow ‘peace’asa ‘mean’ isused to support certainnarratives can
uncoverthesocio-psychologicalbarrierstoadialoguebetweentwoparties.Additionally,itcan
shed light on positive developments, such as an increasing ‘openness’ to the other that
adversaries express in their speeches. Themethod and framework applied in this thesis−
inspired by discourse analysis, linguistics, metaphor analysis, natural language processing,
sociology,psychologyandanthropology−hasshowntobeausefulapproach.IntheUNGA
speechesbyIsraeliandPalestinianleadersbetween1988and2016,bothsocio-psychological
barriers and bridges to reconciliation or a peaceful solution were identified. Bridges to a
peaceful solution are considered calls for a dialogue between the adversaries as equal
partners.BridgestoadialogueintheUNGAspeecheswereoftenestablishedthroughtheuse
ofmetaphorsandonrareoccasionsbyconnectingtogetherthemeta-narrativesofthetwo
peoples by the speakers. Before concluding with the barriers and bridges that could be
identifiedinthelanguageoftheUNGAspeeches,thenexttwosub-sectionswillanswerthe
followingthreesub-questions:
1. Whatkeythemesrecurthroughoutthespeecheswithregardstotheterm‘peace’?
2. Howdotheleaderspositionthemselvesintheinternationalcommunity?
3. Howdotheleadersgivingthespeechespositionthemselvesinrelationtotheother?
42
5.1 Keythemesandunderlyingmeta-narratives
Some of the prior findings on the usage of the term ‘peace’ in the Israeli discoursewere
confirmedintheresultssectionofthisthesis(Auerbach,2010;Bar-Tal,1998;Gavriely-Nuri,
2010a,2010b,2015).However,unlikepreviouslyconductedstudies, thefindingsalsoshow
thatthePalestiniansapplysimilarstrategiestotheIsraelisintheirusageoftheterm‘peace’as
described by Gavriely-Nuri (2010a, 2010b, 2015). In addition, this thesis found three new
recurringtrendsintheUNGAdiscoursewithregardstotheIsraeli-Palestinianconflict:
1. thetheme‘people’
2. referencestothe‘internationalcommunity’,and
3. ‘extendinganolivebranchforpeace’metaphor.
After linking the identified key themes ‘people’, ‘peace’, ‘justice’ and ‘security’ toprevious
findingsmentionedintheliteraturereview,referencestothe‘internationalcommunity’and
the‘olivebranch’willbediscussedinthesub-sectiononthescopeofidentification.
ItisimportanttonotethatallinferencesmadeinthisthesisapplytothelanguageintheUNGA
speechesbyIsraeliandPalestinianleadersbetween1988and2016.Therefore,nogrounded
statementscanbemadeabouttherealityoftheconflictitself,whichisfarmorecomplexthan
languageusedinthespeeches.AsCameronstates,researchersmustbewaryofidealisations
when interpreting ‘the complexity and messiness’ of language (Cameron, 2012, p. 353).
Nevertheless,inthediscussionthatfollowssomeofthekeythemeswillbelinkedbacktothe
literaturereview,andresultswillbeinterpretedandpresentedinameaningfulcontextwithin
thescopeofthisthesis.
‘People(s)’37 was the most frequent word in the Palestinian speeches, Palestinian leaders
referredtotheirpeopletwiceasoftencomparedtoIsraelileaders.ItcanbearguedthatIsraeli
leaders have an advantage over the Palestinian leaders when referring to their ‘people’
becauseofaJudeo-Christiandiscursivecapital38.Nothavingawrittenhistoryincontrasttothe
37Thisincludesreferencestoother‘peoples’andtotheIsraelipeople.However,over80%ofthereferencesbyPalestinianleadersaretotheirownpeople.38 The insight of thediscursive advantageof the Jewishpeople over the Palestinianpeople is by EmmanuelGruzman.
43
Israelipeople,couldpotentiallyexplainwhythePalestinianleadersrefertotheirpeoplehood
moreoftenwhentheyspeakattheUNGA(Tzoreff,2010,p.76).39
Thepeacephrasesidentifiedandpresentedintable5wereverysimilartothepeacephrases
identifiedbyGavriely-Nuri(2010a)asshownintable1.Infact,inthisthesis,thethreemost
frequentlyusedphrasesbythePalestinianleadersactuallyreplicatedpeacephrasesidentified
by Gavriely-Nuri to be specifically an Israeli peace discourse. This opposite finding might
indicatethatthephrasesarenotnecessarilyculturallyspecificashermethodofCCDAimplies.
However, to better understand the link between cultural codes and peace phrases when
spokenataninternationalplatformsuchastheUNGA,furtherresearchisnecessary.
ForthePalestinianspeeches,inmorethan1outof8peacephrases(13.2%),peacewaslinked
to‘just’or‘justice’whiletheIsraelismentioned‘justpeace’onlyonce.Thiscouldpotentially
be explained by the difference between the Israelis and Palestinians: an existing and
recognisedstatelikeIsraeldoesnotneedtocallforjusticeandfreedomcomparedtoapeople
under occupation and is still struggling for autonomy and official recognition by theUN40.
Thereby,thePalestiniansarealsoweakercomparedtoIsraelconsideringtheirmilitaryabilities.
Israelasastate,ontheotherhand,needstoprotectwhatitalreadyhasandisoftencalled
‘obsessed’withsecurity(PalestinianObserver,1992;Sakofsky,2015).Intable4,theonlyterm
thatcouldbeinterpretedasconfirmingthissupposedIsraelisecurity‘obsession’comparedto
thePalestinianspeeches,istheterm‘threat’withaprominencescoreof1.5.Thisindicatesa
dependent relationship between the term ‘threat’ and the Israeli speeches in the sample.
However, more than half of thementions of the term ‘threat’ by the Israelis referred to
(Iranian)nuclearthreats.
39FortheIsraelileaders,theexistenceofaJewishpeoplewithalinktotheterritorynowcalledIsraelandthePalestinianterritoriescanbereferencedtothebible. Israelandthe linkof theJewishpeopletothe landwasalreadywrittenaboutinthebookofExodus,whichisdatedover2000yearsold(Meyers,2005).Thereby,contrarytotheJewishpeople,thereisnohistorywrittenbyPalestiniansthemselves(Tzoreff,2010,p.76).AccordingtoTzoreff,LebaneseauthorEliasKhouri,‘claimedthatthePalestinianshavenotwrittentheirownhistorybecausetheydonotwanttorecognizewhathashappened’andthatthePalestiniansareindenialofeverything‘thatcametobeafter1948’(p.76).40Palestineisrecognisedby135memberstatesoftheUnitedNations,however,theUS,mostofEuropeandAustraliadonotrecognisePalestineasastate.
44
Nevertheless,thepeacephrasesintable5showatrendoppositefromthesupposedIsraeli
obsession:‘securityandpeace’isusedrelativelymoreoftenbythePalestinianleaders(in6.6%
ofthepeacephrases)comparedtotheIsraelileaders(3.6%).Furthermore,whenanalysingthe
term‘security’separatelyfrom‘peace’(seetable4andfigure4),thetermisnotonlyused
moreoftenby thePalestinians, it is alsomoreprominent in thePalestinian speeches (1.3)
compared to the Israeli speeches (0.8).Moreover, theprominencescoreof1.3 indicatesa
dependentrelationshipbetweenthetermsecureorsecurityandthePalestinianspeechesin
the sample. This means that although ‘rights’ and ‘just(ice)’ are more frequent than
‘secur(e)(ity)’ in the Palestinian speeches, security is still more frequently used by the
Palestinians compared to the Israelis. The next sub-section will discuss how the leaders
positionthemselves,firstlyinrelationtotheinternationalcommunity,secondlyinrelationto
theotherpeaceparty.
5.2 ScopeofidentificationOf the Israeli leaders, only Rabinmentions the international community in relation to the
Israeli-Palestinianconflict.Netanyahumerelycommentson the international community in
relationtoIran’spotentialnuclearcapacity.Onthecontrary,thePalestinianleadersmention
it on average almost 3 times in their speeches (2.85). The international community is
mentionedbythePalestinianleadersmostlyasacalltopressuretheIsraelis(seeAppendix2).
ThiscouldpotentiallybeexplainedinlinewithwhatwasarguedonthePalestinianusageof
theterm‘justice’:becausethePalestiniansaremilitarilyweaker,theyaddresstheinternational
communityforsupport.
Netanyahuontheotherhand,approachesitdifferentlybymentioningAbbashimselfasakey
figureinthepeacenegotiations(seetable10).WhilePalestinianleadersdonotaddressIsraeli
leadersdirectlyintheirspeeches.However,afterRabin’sassassination,Rabinismentionedin
a positiveway by bothArafat andAbbas in contrast toNetanyahuwho ismentioned in a
negativewaybythePalestinianleaders(seetable6).Alldirectandindirectreferencesbythe
IsraelileaderstoPalestinianleadersareoutlinedintable7.
45
Whenaddressingtheirspeechtotheadversaryindirectly,IsraeliandPalestinianleadersoften
usemetaphors.AsshowninCameron’s(2007)study,thisindicatesthattheirrelationshipto
the other is not clearly defined and open for interpretation and alteration. One of the
metaphorsthatwasarecurringtrendwasthe‘extendmyhandforpeace’metaphor,thisisin
linewithGavriely-Nuri’s(2010b)findings.However,the‘extendmyhandforpeace’metaphor
identified by Gavriely-Nuri as an Israeli metaphor is in fact used more extensively by the
PalestinianleadersintheUNGAsample.ItispossiblethatGavriely-Nuriiscorrectinreferring
tothemetaphorasprofoundly Israelibefore1988(Gavriely-Nuri,2010b),but in theUNGA
speeches the likelihood of using the metaphor was much higher for the Palestinians
(prominencescoreof1.4)comparedtotheIsraelis(0.7).Additionally,thePalestinianleaders
modifiedthe‘extendahand’metaphorfurtherbyapplyingittoasymbolthatisnotonlyclosely
relatedtoaPalestiniansymbolbutalsounderstoodbytheinternationalcommunity:theolive
branch41forpeace.
SimilartoOlmertandArafat,asdescribedbyGavriely-Nuri(2010)(seesection2.3.1),manyof
thereferencesbyleaderstothe‘extendedhand’wereintendedtoimprovetheinternational
imageoftheirownpeopleratherthanshowingawillingnesstotheiradversarytonegotiate
(see table 8, 9 and Appendix 6). However, some references to themetaphor did show a
willingness to negotiate. For instance, the formerMinister ofDefence, Israeli leader Barak
statedinabilateraltone;‘[i]tisinourhands’,referringtobothparties.Unilateralexamplesof
themetaphor arewhen Abbas (2008) speaks of the Palestinian people as extending their
‘handsfordialogueandnegotiations’.ThePalestinianpeoplearewaitingfortheadversaries
to grasp that hand. Likewise, Netanyahu’s 2011 speech employs a perspective of moral
superiority,suggestingthatheisonthepeacefulsideextendinghishandtoasidethatisyet
to become peaceful. However, in the same speech, Netanyahu also mentions similarities
betweenhimandhisadversary.Byspeakingofthesimilaritiesbetweenthetwopeoples,and
emphasisingacommonAbrahamicbackground(seeAppendix6).
Gavriely-Nuri’s model of postmodern peace can also be applied to the ‘extend a hand’
metaphor.Netanyahustartshisspeechin2011withmentioningtheextendedhand8timesin
41TheolivebranchisaPalestiniansymbolbutalsointernationallyrecognizedasasymbolforpeace.
46
hisfirst8sentences.InsteadoffocusingmerelyonthePalestinianpeople,Netanyahuextends
hishandtoEgypt,Jordan,Turkey,NorthAfricaandtheArabianPeninsula.Heisnotextending
hishandtooneparty, insteadheinvolvesallthecountriesinhisregionintothemetaphor.
Netanyahu’s repeatedly extended hand becomes rather illusory and therefore fits a
postmodernusageofthemetaphor(Gavriely-Nuri,2010a).
InsteadofextendingahandArafatextendsanolivebranchforthefirsttimeinhis1974speech
totheUNGAandrepeatsthisinhis1988speech.Theolivebranchbecomessomethingworth
nurturingandprotectinginArafat’sspeech:‘wearefullyconfidentofourabilitytoprotectour
green olive branch in the hotbeds of political confrontation’. Offering an olive branch is
referringtobeingthepeaceful‘victim’and‘thefighterforfreedomandpeace’.Arafatlinksthe
olivebranchtohispeopleandbydoingthat,he linkspeacefulnesstohispeople.42Arafat’s
1995speechusesbilateraltermssuchas‘livingsidebyside’and‘mutualrespect’.However,in
2006thischangeseemstobereversedagaininAbbas’speech.Attheclosingofhisspeech,
AbbasmentionsArafat’solivebranchfrom1974,butwithoutmentioningthepeaceandlove
of1995.Arafat’s1974‘donotlettheolivebranchfallfrommyhand’soundsmorelikeathreat
thananofferforpeace.In2014,Abbasmentionstheolivetreesbriefly;‘[a]tthesametime,
armedgangsofracistsettlerspersistedintheircrimesagainstthePalestinianpeopleandtheir
land, mosques, churches, property and olive trees’. The olive tree is a highly politicised
commodity in the Israeli-Palestinianconflict: landcoveredwitholive treescannotbe taken
overbyIsraelisettlers.Protectingtheolivetrees isthereforenotonly importantonlyasan
income to Palestinian farmers, but also territorially (Bowen, 2014). However, Abbas’
symbolisationoftheolivebranchismorelikeathreattowardsIsrael(‘donotletitfallfrommy
hand’)thanassomethingworthwhileprotectingasArafatportrayedthesymbol.
Similartothe‘extendahand’metaphor,themajorityofreferencestopeacewereunilateral.
Only22%ofthecodedsentencesreferredtotheotherasapartnerforpeaceoranequalin
thepeaceprocess(seefigure7and8).Asfigure8shows,abilateralusageofpeaceinmore
42TheolivebranchisusedtoimprovetheinternationalimageofthePalestinianpeople.‘Ifweoffertheolivebranchofpeace’Arafatexplains,‘itisbecauseitsproutsinourheartsfromthetreeofourhomeland,thetreeoffreedom’.
47
than25%ofthepeacesentencesoccursinBarak’s2000speech,the2005speechbySharon,
the2006speechbyAbbasand2013speechbyAbbas.Alsoof interestarethespeechesby
Netanyahuin1998,2011and2012withmorethan20%ofbilateralpeacesentences.Peres’
secondspeechin2008likewisecontainsmorethan20%bilateralsentences.However,Peres’
speechwasdirectedmainlyattheArabPeaceInitiativeinsteadofthePalestiniansasapartner
forpeace.Thereisnoclearupwardordownwardtrendvisibleovertimeforeitherofthesides
intheUNGAspeeches.
Additionally,fourreconcilingpeacemetaphorswereidentified,namely,peaceasa journey,
connection,building/constructionandlisteningtotheother.AsCameronshowed,metaphors
allowfora‘re-humanizationofindividualsawayfromthelimitedstereotypesas'enemy'and
offersaffordances forempatheticunderstandingof theOther’ (Cameron,2007,p.219).The
reconciliationmetaphorsarethereforeunderstoodassocio-psychologicalbridgestopeacein
theIsraeli-Palestinianconflict.Table13and14inAppendix5provideanoverviewofpeaceas
a‘journey’andas‘building’ora‘constructionprocess’.Asshownintable14,theIsraeliside
spokeofbuildingpartnershipswhilethePalestiniansidereferredto‘pavingthewayforpeace’
andmentioned‘pillars’and‘foundations’forpeace.
Thereconciliationmetaphorpeaceasaconnectionwaslesscommon.ThePalestinianleader
Abbasmentions‘bridgesinsteadofwalls’in2013.Althoughhiscalltobuildbridgesisastep
towards reconciliation, the reference towalls is to contrast Israeli ‘wall building’ with the
Palestinian ‘bridge building’. In linewithGavriely-Nuri’s argument, it seems therefore that
Abbasusesthemetaphortoimprovehisownimage.Nevertheless,inhis2014speechAbbas
doesreferto‘buildingbridges’withoutreferringnegativelytoIsrael.The‘bridge’metaphoris
notusedbyIsraelileaders,exceptforonceinthe2008speechbyPeresas‘thebridgewebuild
(…)willrenderthebarriersuseless’.
ThestrongestreconciliationmetaphorthatshowsawillingnesstounderstandtheOther’sstory
(Cameron,2007)isnotusedbyPalestinianleadersinreferencetotheadversary.OftheIsraeli
leaders,Shamirmentionsitonce;‘[l]etuslistentoeachotherdirectly’butonlyafterfirststating
clearlythatitisthePalestiniansthatdonotwantpeace.However,in2011Netanyahurepeats
Shamir’scallwithoutreferringtothePalestiniansastheonesnotwantingpeace:‘Isuggestwe
48
talkopenlyandhonestly’.SimilartoAbbas’withthe‘extendingahand’metaphor,Netanyahu
emphasizesthathesuggeststotalk(seeAppendix6).However,contrarytoAbbas,Netanyahu
makesadirectoffertonegotiatepeace:‘Nowwe[referringtoAbbas]areinthesamecity;we
are in the same building. So let us meet here today, at the United Nations’. After 2011
Netanyahudoesnotmentiontalkinganymorebut insteadstates ‘[w]ehavetosit together,
negotiate together..’ and repeats this call in 2015 as: ‘negotiations with the Palestinian
Authoritywithoutanypreconditionswhatsoever’.Yet,nonegotiationstookplacebetweenthe
adversariestodate.Thelastsectionofthediscussionwillsynthesisethefindingsdiscussedand
attempt toanswer the researchquestion:Whatsocio-psychologicalbarriersandbridges to
peace can be identified in speeches to the UNGA between 1988 and 2016 by Israeli and
Palestinianleaders?
5.3 BarriersandbridgesPeoplefromdifferentculturesuseandareconvincedbydifferentarguments(Walker,1990).
WalkerfoundthatduringtheUNCLOS,firstworldcountriesusedfactsandconcreteproposals,
secondworldcountriesaccusationsand thirdworldcountriesmoralappeals toargue their
case.43ApplyingWalker’sinsighttothefindingsoftheIsraeliandPalestinianspeecheswould
directthisthesistoarguethatthePalestiniansspeechesinthesamplewereculturallymore
likely to usemoral appeals and are thereforemore similar to thirdworld countries in this
aspect.WhiletheIsraelisinthesampleweremorelikelytoproposeaconcreteplanandsum
upfactsandarethereforemoresimilartofirstworldcountries.However,Walker’sfindings
can also be interpreted differently. Instead of viewing argumentation differences as only
culturalfirst/second/thirdworlddifferences,itcanbearguedthatthereisalsoapowerrelation
atplay.Thosewhoareontheweakerside,economically,militarilyandsocially,needsupport
from their surrounding.Whereas those on the stronger side are arguing from a stronger
positionandarethereforemorelikelytoconfronttheotherdirectlywithaconcreteproposal.
43WalkerreferredtofirstworldasWesternEurope,UnitedStates,Canada,AustraliaandNewZealandwhilethesecondworld is considered Eastern Europe, Slavic states and the richer countries of Asia. The thirdworld isreferredtoaspredominantlycountriesfromtheAfricancontinent.
49
TherelationshipbetweentheIsraelisandPalestiniansisasymmetrical.Thiscouldbeidentified
inthespeechesbasedonwordfrequencieswithhighrankersinthePalestinianspeechessuch
as ‘justice’, ‘freedom’, ‘occupier’, ‘victim’, ‘suffering’, and the frequent calls upon the
internationalcommunitytoputpressureontheIsraelis.Thefindingsinthisthesisshowthat
thereisnoclearupwardordownwardtrendinabilateralapproachofspeechtotheotheras
apartnerforpeace.However,theuseofreconciliationmetaphorsandcallsfornegotiations
canbeviewedassocio-psychologicalbridgestowardsappeasementbetweenthetwoparties.
50
6 ConclusionGroundedinliterature,thisthesisrecognisesthattheIsraeli-Palestinianconflictisintractable
and an identity conflict. To shed light on the socio-psychological barriers and bridges to
reconciliation, a political discourse analysis was performed on the speeches by Israeli and
Palestinian leaders to the UNGA between 1988 and 2016. The analysis confirmed already
existing literature on the Israeli side of the conflict and addressed the discrepancy in the
literaturebyaddingtotheliteratureonthePalestiniansideoftheconflict.
Inadditiontoexistingliterature,threerecurringtrendsintheUNGAsamplewereidentified:
referencesto‘people’,‘theinternationalcommunity’and‘theolivebranchforpeace’.Three
findingscontradictedexistingliterature.Firstly,thethreemostfrequentlyusedphrasesbythe
Palestinian leadersreplicatedpeacephrases identifiedbyGavriely-Nuritobespecificallyan
Israelipeacediscourse.Theresultsshowedthatthe‘rhetoricalproficiency’44ofthePalestinian
leaderspeerswiththeIsraelileaders.Secondly,thePalestinianusageofthe‘extendahand’
metaphorsurpassedthatoftheIsraelileadersinthesample.Thereby,inapplyingapreviously
usedmetaphortoPalestine’snationalsymbol,theolivebranch,thePalestinianleadersshow
a ‘rhetorical creativity’ that fits well with their territorial concerns. Adding to this is the
flexibilityofthemetaphorasdemonstratedbythePalestinianleaders:‘theolivebranch’was
used uni and bilaterally and has the potential to ‘build’ socio-psychological ‘bridges’ and
‘barriers’ (see Appendix 6). Thirdly, a trend opposite from the supposed Israeli security
‘obsession’wasidentified:‘securityandpeace’isusedrelativelymoreoftenbythePalestinian
leaders (in6.6%of thepeacephrases)compared to the Israeli leaders (3.6%).The findings
show that although ‘rights’ and ‘just(ice)’ are more frequent than ‘secur(e)(ity)’ in the
Palestinianspeeches,securityisstillmorefrequentlymentionedbythePalestinianscompared
totheIsraelis.
44AsnotedbyGavriely-Nuri(2010a,p.461),seesection2.3.1inthisthesis.
51
As Fairclough (1995) rightly noted, language is not only shaped by social reality, but also
constitutessocialreality.Metaphorshaveaparticularlystrongroleineithermaintainingthe
status quo or in the establishment of a new order. Metaphors can also help facilitate
reconciliationandallowforadversariestoindirectlyaddresseachotherandtoeasepainful
issues.Byanalysinghowacertainuseoflanguagestrengthensbarriersorbridgestoadialogical
relationship, this thesiswishes to add to the literature that promotes a ‘culture of peace’
(Gavriely-Nuri,2015,p.3).Cameron’s(2007)findingsshowthatindialogueadversariescan
form an understanding of each other’s story by exchangingmetaphors. This could lead to
reconciliation and a peaceful solution to the conflict. To better understand the role of
metaphors in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, further research that compares both
internationalandnationalIsraeliandPalestiniandiscourseisnecessary.Thiswouldalsoallow
furtherresearchtotheexistenceofculturalcodes.Inaddition,situatingthemetaphorusage
ingeneralinthehistoricalcontextsofdifferentconflictswouldallowforabetterunderstanding
ofthepotentialpowerofmetaphorsintheprocessofreconciliation.
52
7 BibliographyAgar,M.(1996).LINGUISTICPEACEWORK.Peace&Change,21(4),424-437.
doi:10.1111/j.1468-0130.1996.tb00281.x
Allan,P.&Keller,A.(2006).Whatisajustpeace?Oxford,NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.
Auerbach,Y.(2010).NationalNarrativesinaConflictofIdentity.InY.Bar-Siman-Tov(Ed.),BarrierstopeaceintheIsraeli-PalestinianConflict(pp.99-134).Jerusalem:JerusalemInstituteorIsraelStudies.
Bakhtin,M.M.&Holquist,M.(1981).Thedialogicimagination:fouressays.Austin:UniversityofTexasPress.
Bar-Siman-Tov,Y.(2010).BarrierstopeaceintheIsraeli-PalestinianConflict.Jerusalem:JerusalemInstituteorIsraelStudies.
Bar-Tal,D.(1998).Therockyroadtowardpeace:beliefsonconflictinIsraelitextbooks.JournalofPeaceResearch,35(6),723-742.
Bar-Tal,D.(2014).CollectiveMemoryasSocialRepresentations.PapersonSocialRepresentation,23(5),1-26.
Bar-Tal,D.,&Halperin,E.(2013).Thenatureofsocio-psychologicalbarrierstopeacefulconflictresolutionandwaystoovercomethem.Conflict&CommunicationOnline,12(2),1-16.
Bar-Tal,D.,Halperin,E.,Sharvit,K.,&Zafran,A.(2012).EthosofConflict:TheConceptandItsMeasurement.JournalofPeacePsychology,18(1),40-61.
Bar-Tal,D.,&Teichman,Y.(2005).StereotypesandPrejudiceinConflict:RepresentationsofArabsinIsraeliJewishSociety.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Baukhol,I.(2015).SecurityandFearinIsraeliandPalestinianConflictNarrativesASocial-PsychologicalStudy.(Masterthesis),UniversityofGothenburg.
Beilin,Y.(2006).JustPeace:ADangerousObjective.InP.Allan&A.Keller(Eds.),Whatisajustpeace?(pp.130-148).Oxford,NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.
Biletzki,A.(2007).Thelanguage-gamesofpeace.InC.Webel&J.Galtung(Eds.),HandbookofPeaceandConflictStudies(pp.345-354).NewYork:Routledge.
Bishop,C.M.(2006).PatternRecognitionandMachineLearning.Springer.
Bowen,J.(2014).IsraelandthePalestinians:Aconflictviewedthrougholives.BBConline.Retrievedfromhttp://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-30290052
Bryman,A.(2012).Socialresearchmethods.Oxford,NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.
Bullock,J.G.(2011).EliteInfluenceonPublicOpinioninanInformedElectorate.AmericanPoliticalScienceReview,105(3),496-515.
Cameron,L.(1999).Identifyinganddescribingmetaphorinspokendiscoursedata.InG.Low&L.Cameron(Eds.),Researchingandapplyingmetaphor(pp.105-134).Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
53
Cameron,L.(2003).Metaphorineducationaldiscourse.London;NewYork:Continuum.
Cameron,L.(2007).Patternsofmetaphoruseinreconciliationtalk.Discourse&Society,18(2),197-222.
Cameron,L.(2012).Metaphorinspokendiscourse.InJ.P.Gee&M.Handford(Eds.),TheRoutledgehandbookofdiscourseanalysis(pp.342-355).London,NewYork:Routledge.
Cameron,L.,Maslen,R.,Todd,Z.,Maule,J.,Stratton,P.,&Stanley,N.(2009).TheDiscourseDynamicsApproachtoMetaphorandMetaphor-LedDiscourseAnalysis.MetaphorandSymbol,24(2),63-89.
Cameron,L.,&Stelma,J.(2004).Metaphorclustersindiscourse.JournalofAppliedLinguistics,1(2),107-136.
Chouliaraki,L.(2008).DiscourseAnalysis.InT.Bennett&J.Frow(Eds.),TheSagehandbookofculturalanalysis.LosAngeles:Sage.
Cobb,S.(1994).ACritiqueofCriticalDiscourseAnalysis:DeconstructingandReconstructingtheRoleofIntention.CommunicationTheory,4(2),132-152.
Darby,J.,&MacGinty,R.(Eds.).(2003).Contemporarypeacemaking:conflict,violenceandpeaceprocesses.NewYork:PalgraveMacmillan.
Eisenberg,L.Z.,&Caplan,N.(2010).NegotiatingArab-IsraeliPeace:Patterns,Problems,Possibilities.Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress.
Fairclough,N.(1995).Criticaldiscourseanalysis:thecriticalstudyoflanguage.London,NewYork:Longman.
Fairclough,N.,&Fairclough,I.(2012).Politicaldiscourseanalysis.NewYork:Routledge.
Foucault,M.,&Gordon,C.(1980).Power/knowledge:selectedinterviewsandotherwritings,1972-1977.NewYork:PantheonBooks.
Galtung,J.(1969).Violence,Peace,andPeaceResearch.JournalofPeaceResearch,6(3),167-191.
Galtung,J.(1996).Peacebypeacefulmeanspeaceandconflict,developmentandcivilization.London:SagePublications.
Gavriely-Nuri,D.(2009).Friendlyfire:war-normalizingmetaphorsintheIsraelipoliticaldiscourse.JournalofPeaceEducation,6(2),153-169.doi:10.1080/17400200903090252
Gavriely-Nuri,D.(2010a).TheidiosyncraticlanguageofIsraelipeace:ACulturalApproachtoCriticalDiscourseAnalysis(CCDA).Discourse&Society,21(5),565-585.
Gavriely-Nuri,D.(2010b).Ifbothopponentsextendhandsinpeace;Whydon'ttheymeet?MythicmetaphorsandculturalcodesintheIsraelipeacediscourse.JournalofLanguageandPolitics,9(3),449-468.
Gavriely-Nuri,D.(2010c).Saying“War,”Thinking“Victory”—TheMythmakingSurroundingIsrael's1967Victory.IsraelStudies,15(1),95-114.
Gavriely-Nuri,D.(2012a).CulturalapproachtoCDA.CriticalDiscourseStudies,9(1),77-85.doi:10.1080/17405904.2011.636484
54
Gavriely-Nuri,D.(2012b).Culturalcodesandmilitaryethics:ThecaseoftheIsraeliPOWs.JournalofMulticulturalDiscourses,7(3),213-226.doi:10.1080/17447143.2012.711333
Gavriely-Nuri,D.(2014a).Collectivememoryasametaphor:ThecaseofspeechesbyIsraeliprimeministers2001–2009.MemoryStudies,7(1),46-60.doi:10.1177/1750698013497953
Gavriely-Nuri,D.(2014b).‘TALKINGPEACE–GOINGTOWAR’:PeaceintheserviceoftheIsraelijustwarrhetoric.CriticalDiscourseStudies,11(1),1-18.doi:10.1080/17405904.2013.835979
Gavriely-Nuri,D.(2015).Israelipeacediscourse:aculturalapproachtoCDA.Philadelphia:JohnBenjaminsPublishingCompany.
Gavriely-Nuri,D.(2016).TheoutbreakofpeaceinIsraelichildren'speriodicals,1977–1979.JournalofMulticulturalDiscourses,11(2),214-228.doi:10.1080/17447143.2016.1153643
Giddens,A.(1981).Acontemporarycritiqueofhistoricalmaterialism(Vol.1).London:Macmillan.
Haidar,A.,&Zureik,E.(1987).ThePalestiniansSeenThroughtheIsraeliCulturalParadigm.JournalofPalestineStudies,16(3),68-86.doi:10.2307/2536790
Halliday,M.A.K.(1992).NewWaysofMeaning:AChallengetoAppliedLinguistics.InM.Putz(Ed.),Thirtyyearsoflinguisticevolution:studiesinhonourofReneDirvenontheoccasionofhissixtiethbirthday.Philadelphia:JohnBenjaminsPublishingCompany.
Halperin,E.,Oren,N.,&Bar-Tal,D.(2010).Socio-PsychologicalBarrierstoResolvingtheIsraeli-PalestinianConflict:AnAnalysisofJewishIsraeliSociety.InY.Bar-Siman-Tov(Ed.),BarrierstopeaceintheIsraeli-PalestinianConflict(pp.28-57).Jerusalem:JerusalemInstituteorIsraelStudies.
Halperin,E.,&Sharvit,K.(2015).Thesocialpsychologyofintractableconflict:celebratingthelegacyofDanielBar-Tal.(Vol.1).Cham:Springer.
Hansel.(2010).BarrierstopeaceintheIsraeli-PalestinianConflict.Jerusalem:JerusalemInstituteorIsraelStudies.
Hoffmann,J.,&Hawkins,V.(2015).Communicationandpeace:mappinganemergingfield.London,NewYork:Routledge.
IEP.(2015a).GlobalPeaceIndex2015.RetrievedfromInstituteforEconomicsandPeace:http://economicsandpeace.org/reports/
IEP.(2015b).PositivePeaceIndex2015.RetrievedfromInstituteforEconomicsandPeace:http://economicsandpeace.org/reports/
Jacobs,K.(2010).InM.Walter(Ed.),Socialresearchmethods.Melbourne:OxfordUniversityPress.
Jawad,S.A.(2006).TheArabandPalestinianNarrativesofthe1948WarInR.I.Rotberg(Ed.),IsraeliandPalestiniannarrativesofconflict:history'sdoublehelix(pp.72-114).Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress.
55
Lakoff,G.,&Johnson,M.(1980).Metaphorsweliveby.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.
Lazar,A.,&Lazar,M.M.(2004).TheDiscourseoftheNewWorldOrder:'Out-Casting'theDoubleFaceofThreat.Discourse&Society,15(2/3),223-242.
Low,G.(1999).Validatingmetaphorresearchprojects.InG.Low&L.Cameron(Eds.),Researchingandapplyingmetaphor(pp.48-68).Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Mededovic,J.,&Petrovic,B.D.(2013).Predictorsofpartyevaluationinpost-conflictsociety-thecaseofserbia.Psihologija,46(1),27-43.doi:10.2298/PSI1301027M
Meyers,C.L.(2005).Exodus.Cambridge,NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Nasie,M.,Bar-Tal,D.,Pliskin,R.,Nahhas,E.,&Halperin,E.(2014).Overcomingthebarrierofnarrativeadherenceinconflictsthroughawarenessofthepsychologicalbiasofnaiverealism.Personality&socialpsychologybulletin,40(11),1543-1556.doi:10.1177/0146167214551153
PalestinianObserver.(1992).Israel'sObsessionWith"Security"IsthePrincipalObstacletoPeace.Retrievedfromhttp://www.wrmea.org/1992-november/israel-s-obsession-with-security-is-the-principal-obstacle-to-peace.html
PragglejazGroup.(2007).MIP:AMethodforIdentifyingMetaphoricallyUsedWordsinDiscourse.MetaphorandSymbol,22(1),1-39.
Quinn,N.(1991).TheCulturalBasisofMetaphor.InJ.W.Fernandez(Ed.),Beyondmetaphor:thetheoryoftropesinanthropology(pp.56-93).Stanford,CA:StanfordUniversityPress.
Reykowski,J.(2015).IntractableConflicts—HowcantheybeSolved?TheTheoryofDanielBar-Tal.InE.Halperin&K.Sharvit(Eds.),Thesocialpsychologyofintractableconflicts:celebratingthelegacyofDanielBar-Tal.(Vol.1).Cham:Springer.
Rosen,J.(1984).TheP.L.O.'sindluential[sic]voiceattheU.N.TheNewYorkTimes.Retrievedfromhttp://www.nytimes.com/1984/09/16/magazine/the-plo-s-indluential-voice-at-the-un.html?pagewanted=all&pagewanted=print
Said,E.(2006).AMethodforThinkingaboutJustPeace.Oxford;NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.
Sakofsky,A.(2015).OPINION:Israel’ssecurityobsessionneglectsitspovertyproblem.JewishNewsOnline.Retrievedfromhttp://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/opinion-5/
Schäffner,C.,&Wenden,A.(1995).Languageandpeace.Aldershot,Hants,England;Brookfield,USA:Dartmouth.
Sherwood,H.(2013).NaftaliBennettinterview:'Therewon'tbeaPalestinianstatewithinIsrael'.TheGuardian.Retrievedfromhttps://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jan/07/naftali-bennett-interview-jewish-home
Shutova,E.(2015).DesignandEvaluationofMetaphorProcessingSystems.ComputationalLinguistics,41(4),579-623.doi:10.1162/COLIa00233
Sowula,T.(2015).WhyPalestinianuniversitiesarelookingabroad[Pressrelease].Retrievedfromwww.britishcouncil.org
56
Teltsch,K.(1975).PalestinianattheU.N.TheNewYorkTimes.Retrievedfromhttp://nyti.ms/1iJ5aO3
Tzoreff,Y.(2010).BarrierstoResolutionoftheConflictwithIsrael–ThePalestinianPerspective.InY.Bar-Siman-Tov(Ed.),BarrierstopeaceintheIsraeli-PalestinianConflict(pp.58-98).Jerusalem:JerusalemInstituteorIsraelStudies.
VanDijk,T.A.(1993).Principlesofcriticaldiscourseanalysis.Discourse&Society,4(2),249-283.
VanDijk,T.A.(1997).Discourseassocialinteraction.London:SAGE.
VanDijk,T.A.(1997).WhatisPoliticalDiscourseAnalysis?InJ.Blommaert&C.Bulcaen(Eds.),Politicallinguistics.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.
VanDijk,T.A.(2005).Warrhetoricofalittleally:PoliticalimplicaturesandAznar’slegitimatizationofthewarinIraq.InL.Chouliaraki(Ed.),Thesoftpowerofwar:LegitimacyandcommunityinIraqwardiscourses(pp.65-91).Amsterdam,Philadelphia:JohnBenjaminsPublishingCompany.
Walker,G.B.(1990).CulturalOrientationofArgumentInternationalDisputes:NegotiatingtheLawoftheSea.InF.Korzenny&S.T.Toomey(Eds.),CommunicatingforPeace:DiplomacyandNegotiation(pp.96–117).NewburyPark,CA:SagePublications.
Webel,C.,&Galtung,J.(Eds.).(2007).HandbookofPeaceandConflictStudies.NewYork:Routledge.
Wenden,A.L.(2003).AchievingaComprehensivePeace:TheLinguisticFactor.Peace&Change,28(2),169-201.doi:10.1111/1468-0130.00258
57
Appendix1Figure9IsraeliandPalestinianPrimeMinistersandPresidentsbetween1988and2016
Table11AllUNGAspeechesbetween1988and2016includedinthesample
MeetingRecord Speaker Date Language WordCount
A/S-15/PV.11 Shamir,Yitzhak 7/06/1988 English 2050A/43/PV.78 Arafat,Yasser 13/12/1988 Arabic 6603A/50/PV.35 Arafat,Yasser 22/10/1995 Arabic 914A/50/PV.39 Rabin,Yitzhak 24/10/1995 English 733A/53/PV.13 Netanyahu,Benjamin 24/09/1998 English 2836A/53/PV.18 Arafat,Yasser 28/09/1998 Arabic 3592A/55/PV.3 Arafat,Yasser 6/09/2000 Arabic 948A/55/PV.3 Barak,Ehud 6/09/2000 English 569A/60/PV.5 Sharon,Ariel 15/09/2005 Hebrew 1688A/61/PV.15 Abbas,Mahmoud 21/09/2006 Arabic 1540A/63/PV.7 Peres,Shimon 24/09/2008 English 1532A/63/PV.11 Abbas,Mahmoud 26/09/2008 Arabic 2294A/63/PV.47 Fayyad,Salam 12/11/2008 Arabic 2306A/63/PV.46 Peres,Shimon 12/11/2008 English 1630A/64/PV.5 Netanyahu,Benjamin 24/09/2009 English 2720A/64/PV.7 Abbas,Mahmoud 25/09/2009 Arabic 1478A/65/PV.3 Peres,Shimon 20/09/2010 English 816A/65/PV.16 Abbas,Mahmoud 25/09/2010 Arabic 2303A/66/PV.19 Abbas,Mahmoud 23/09/2011 Arabic 3590A/66/PV.19 Netanyahu,Benjamin 23/09/2011 English 4005A/67/PV.44 Abbas,Mahmoud 27/09/2012 Arabic 3303A/67/PV.12 Netanyahu,Benjamin 27/09/2012 English 3343A/68/PV.12 Abbas,Mahmoud 26/09/2013 Arabic 2982A/68/PV.23 Netanyahu,Benjamin 1/10/2013 English 3054A/69/PV.12 Abbas,Mahmoud 26/09/2014 Arabic 3365A/69/PV.17 Netanyahu,Benjamin 29/09/2014 English 3537A/70/PV.19 Abbas,Mahmoud 30/09/2015 Arabic 3808A/70/PV.22 Netanyahu,Benjamin 1/10/2015 English 3830
1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016
YitzhakShamirYitzhakRabinShimonPeres
BenjaminNetanyahuEhudBarakArielSharonEhudOlmert
BenjaminNetanyahuYasserArafat
MahmoudAbbasAhmedQureiRawhiFattouh
MahmoundAbbasNabilShaath
MahmoudAbbasAhmedQurei
IsmailHaniyehSalamFayyadAzizDuwaik
RamiHamdallah
58
Appendix2Leximancerprominencescores
Prominence scoresof certainconcepts foroneof the twogroupswerecalculatedbyusing
Bayes’ theorem. The calculations were done manually (using Excel) but inspired on
Leximancer’scalculations.Prominencescoresencapsulatehowlikelyitisthatacertainword
wasusedbyacertaingroupinthecorpusanalysed.
Forinstance,whenthecorpusforgroupAconsistsoutof50sentencesbyspeakersandin10
ofthosesentencestheword‘justice’ismentioned,thelikelihoodforasentenceinthisgroup
tocontain‘justice’is10dividedby50(10/50=0.2).Likewise,thelikelihoodofthe‘justice’to
bementionedinbothgroupsisthencalculatedbydividingthetotalamountofsentences,for
instance50,000,bythetotalamountofsentencesthatcontain‘justice’,forinstance6,000;
6,000/50,000=0.12. The prominence score for ‘justice’ in group A is then 0.2/0.12=1.67.
Whenevertheprominencescoreisgreaterthan1,thelikelihoodofthewordorwordpairfor
aparticulargroupishigherthanbothgroupstakentogether.Theformulabelowwasusedfor
thecalculations,P(A|B)istheprobabilityoftheconceptAtoappearingroupBandP(A)isthe
probabilityoftheconceptAinthetotalsample.
𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝑃 𝐴 𝐵 𝑃 𝐵𝑃 𝐴 𝑃 𝐵 =
𝑃 𝐴 𝐵𝑃 𝐴
𝑖𝑓𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 > 1, 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑛𝐴𝑎𝑛𝑑𝐵𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑜𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑡
Whenevertheprominencescoreisgreaterthanone,theconceptandgroupareconsidered
notindependent;thereisahigherlikelihoodfortheconcepttoappearinthatgroupcompared
totheothergroup.
59
Appendix3Leximancerstopwords
remove="REMOVE">a</word>remove="REMOVE">about</word>remove="REMOVE">above</word>remove="REMOVE">according</word>remove="REMOVE">across</word>remove="REMOVE">actually</word>remove="REMOVE">add</word>remove="REMOVE">after</word>remove="REMOVE">again</word>remove="REMOVE">against</word>remove="REMOVE">ago</word>remove="REMOVE">ah</word>remove="REMOVE">al</word>remove="REMOVE">all</word>remove="REMOVE">almost</word>remove="REMOVE">along</word>remove="REMOVE">already</word>remove="REMOVE">alright</word>remove="REMOVE">also</word>remove="REMOVE">although</word>remove="REMOVE">always</word>remove="REMOVE">am</word>remove="REMOVE">among</word>remove="REMOVE">an</word>remove="REMOVE">and</word>remove="REMOVE">another</word>remove="REMOVE">any</word>remove="REMOVE">anything</word>remove="REMOVE">apr</word>remove="REMOVE">april</word>remove="REMOVE">are</word>remove="REMOVE">around</word>remove="REMOVE">as</word>remove="REMOVE">ask</word>remove="REMOVE">at</word>remove="REMOVE">aug</word>remove="REMOVE">august</word>remove="REMOVE">away</word>remove="REMOVE">b</word>remove="REMOVE">back</word>remove="REMOVE">basically</word>remove="REMOVE">be</word>remove="REMOVE">because</word>remove="REMOVE">been</word>remove="REMOVE">before</word>remove="REMOVE">began</word>remove="REMOVE">begin</word>remove="REMOVE">being</word>remove="REMOVE">below</word>remove="REMOVE">between</word>remove="REMOVE">big</word>remove="REMOVE">bit</word>remove="REMOVE">both</word>remove="REMOVE">but</word>remove="REMOVE">by</word>remove="REMOVE">c</word>remove="REMOVE">call</word>remove="REMOVE">came</word>remove="REMOVE">can't</word>remove="REMOVE">can</word>remove="REMOVE">cannot</word>remove="REMOVE">cant</word>remove="REMOVE">cent</word>remove="REMOVE">close</word>remove="REMOVE">com</word>remove="REMOVE">come</word>remove="REMOVE">could</word>remove="REMOVE">couldn't</word>remove="REMOVE">couldnt</word>remove="REMOVE">d</word>remove="REMOVE">dec</word>remove="REMOVE">december</word>remove="REMOVE">definitely</word>remove="REMOVE">did</word>remove="REMOVE">didn't</word>remove="REMOVE">didnt</word>remove="REMOVE">do</word>remove="REMOVE">does</word>remove="REMOVE">doesn't</word>remove="REMOVE">doesnt</word>remove="REMOVE">don't</word>remove="REMOVE">done</word>remove="REMOVE">dont</word>remove="REMOVE">e</word>remove="REMOVE">each</word>remove="REMOVE">eat</word>remove="REMOVE">eg</word>remove="REMOVE">eh</word>remove="REMOVE">eight</word>remove="REMOVE">either</word>remove="REMOVE">else</word>remove="REMOVE">end</word>remove="REMOVE">enough</word>remove="REMOVE">er</word>remove="REMOVE">especially</word>remove="REMOVE">et</word>remove="REMOVE">etc.</word>remove="REMOVE">etc</word>remove="REMOVE">even</word>remove="REMOVE">ever</word>remove="REMOVE">every</word>remove="REMOVE">exactly</word>remove="REMOVE">f</word>remove="REMOVE">far</word>remove="REMOVE">feb</word>
remove="REMOVE">february</word>remove="REMOVE">few</word>remove="REMOVE">find</word>remove="REMOVE">going</word>remove="REMOVE">gone</word>remove="REMOVE">got</word>remove="REMOVE">h</word>remove="REMOVE">had</word>remove="REMOVE">hadn't</word>remove="REMOVE">hadnt</word>remove="REMOVE">hard</word>remove="REMOVE">has</word>remove="REMOVE">hasn't</word>remove="REMOVE">hasnt</word>remove="REMOVE">hast</word>remove="REMOVE">hath</word>remove="REMOVE">have</word>remove="REMOVE">haven't</word>remove="REMOVE">havent</word>remove="REMOVE">he'd</word>remove="REMOVE">he'll</word>remove="REMOVE">he's</word>remove="REMOVE">he</word>remove="REMOVE">hear</word>remove="REMOVE">hed</word>remove="REMOVE">hell</word>remove="REMOVE">hello</word>remove="REMOVE">help</word>remove="REMOVE">her</word>remove="REMOVE">here</word>remove="REMOVE">herself</word>remove="REMOVE">hes</word>remove="REMOVE">hey</word>remove="REMOVE">hi</word>remove="REMOVE">high</word>remove="REMOVE">him</word>remove="REMOVE">himself</word>remove="REMOVE">his</word>remove="REMOVE">hm</word>remove="REMOVE">how</word>remove="REMOVE">however</word>remove="REMOVE">huh</word>remove="REMOVE">i'd</word>remove="REMOVE">i'll</word>remove="REMOVE">i'm</word>remove="REMOVE">i've</word>remove="REMOVE">i</word>remove="REMOVE">id</word>remove="REMOVE">if</word>remove="REMOVE">ill</word>remove="REMOVE">im</word>remove="REMOVE">in</word>remove="REMOVE">indeed</word>remove="REMOVE">into</word>remove="REMOVE">is</word>remove="REMOVE">isn't</word>remove="REMOVE">isnt</word>remove="REMOVE">it'd</word>remove="REMOVE">it'll</word>remove="REMOVE">it's</word>remove="REMOVE">it</word>remove="REMOVE">itd</word>remove="REMOVE">itll</word>remove="REMOVE">its</word>remove="REMOVE">its</word>remove="REMOVE">itself</word>remove="REMOVE">ive</word>remove="REMOVE">j</word>remove="REMOVE">jan</word>remove="REMOVE">january</word>remove="REMOVE">jul</word>remove="REMOVE">july</word>remove="REMOVE">jun</word>remove="REMOVE">june</word>remove="REMOVE">just</word>remove="REMOVE">k</word>remove="REMOVE">keep</word>remove="REMOVE">kind</word>remove="REMOVE">kinda</word>remove="REMOVE">know</word>remove="REMOVE">l</word>remove="REMOVE">last</word>remove="REMOVE">later</word>remove="REMOVE">less</word>remove="REMOVE">let's</word>remove="REMOVE">let</word>remove="REMOVE">lets</word>remove="REMOVE">like</word>remove="REMOVE">little</word>remove="REMOVE">lot</word>remove="REMOVE">m</word>remove="REMOVE">made</word>remove="REMOVE">make</word>remove="REMOVE">many</word>remove="REMOVE">may</word>remove="REMOVE">maybe</word>remove="REMOVE">me</word>remove="REMOVE">mean</word>remove="REMOVE">might've</word>remove="REMOVE">might</word>remove="REMOVE">mightve</word>remove="REMOVE">mon</word>remove="REMOVE">monday</word>remove="REMOVE">more</word>
remove="REMOVE">most</word>remove="REMOVE">move</word>remove="REMOVE">much</word>remove="REMOVE">must've</word>remove="REMOVE">must</word>remove="REMOVE">mustve</word>remove="REMOVE">my</word>remove="REMOVE">myself</word>remove="REMOVE">often</word>remove="REMOVE">oh</word>remove="REMOVE">ok</word>remove="REMOVE">okay</word>remove="REMOVE">on</word>remove="REMOVE">once</word>remove="REMOVE">one</word>remove="REMOVE">only</word>remove="REMOVE">onto</word>remove="REMOVE">or</word>remove="REMOVE">other</word>remove="REMOVE">our</word>remove="REMOVE">out</word>remove="REMOVE">over</word>remove="REMOVE">own</word>remove="REMOVE">p</word>remove="REMOVE">part</word>remove="REMOVE">particularly</word>remove="REMOVE">per</word>remove="REMOVE">perhaps</word>remove="REMOVE">pl</word>remove="REMOVE">please</word>remove="REMOVE">point</word>remove="REMOVE">pretty</word>remove="REMOVE">put</word>remove="REMOVE">q</word>remove="REMOVE">quite</word>remove="REMOVE">r</word>remove="REMOVE">rather</word>remove="REMOVE">really</word>remove="REMOVE">right</word>remove="REMOVE">run</word>remove="REMOVE">s</word>remove="REMOVE">said</word>remove="REMOVE">same</word>remove="REMOVE">saw</word>remove="REMOVE">say</word>remove="REMOVE">says</word>remove="REMOVE">second</word>remove="REMOVE">see</word>remove="REMOVE">seem</word>remove="REMOVE">seen</word>remove="REMOVE">sep</word>remove="REMOVE">sept</word>remove="REMOVE">september</word>remove="REMOVE">set</word>remove="REMOVE">seven</word>remove="REMOVE">shall</word>remove="REMOVE">shalt</word>remove="REMOVE">shan't</word>remove="REMOVE">shant</word>remove="REMOVE">she's</word>remove="REMOVE">she</word>remove="REMOVE">shes</word>remove="REMOVE">should</word>remove="REMOVE">shouldn't</word>remove="REMOVE">shouldnt</word>remove="REMOVE">show</word>remove="REMOVE">side</word>remove="REMOVE">since</word>remove="REMOVE">six</word>remove="REMOVE">small</word>remove="REMOVE">so</word>remove="REMOVE">some</word>remove="REMOVE">something</word>remove="REMOVE">sometimes</word>remove="REMOVE">soon</word>remove="REMOVE">sort</word>remove="REMOVE">state</word>remove="REMOVE">still</word>remove="REMOVE">such</word>remove="REMOVE">sunday</word>remove="REMOVE">t</word>remove="REMOVE">ten</word>remove="REMOVE">th</word>remove="REMOVE">than</word>remove="REMOVE">that's</word>remove="REMOVE">that</word>remove="REMOVE">thats</word>remove="REMOVE">the</word>remove="REMOVE">thee</word>remove="REMOVE">their</word>remove="REMOVE">them</word>remove="REMOVE">themselves</word>remove="REMOVE">then</word>remove="REMOVE">there's</word>remove="REMOVE">there</word>remove="REMOVE">therefore</word>remove="REMOVE">thereof</word>remove="REMOVE">theres</word>remove="REMOVE">these</word>remove="REMOVE">they'll</word>remove="REMOVE">they're</word>remove="REMOVE">they've</word>remove="REMOVE">they</word>remove="REMOVE">theyll</word>remove="REMOVE">theyre</word>
remove="REMOVE">theyve</word>remove="REMOVE">thine</word>remove="REMOVE">thing</word>remove="REMOVE">think</word>remove="REMOVE">this</word>remove="REMOVE">those</word>remove="REMOVE">thou</word>remove="REMOVE">though</word>remove="REMOVE">three</word>remove="REMOVE">through</word>remove="REMOVE">thu</word>remove="REMOVE">thur</word>remove="REMOVE">thurs</word>remove="REMOVE">thursday</word>remove="REMOVE">thy</word>remove="REMOVE">to</word>remove="REMOVE">together</word>remove="REMOVE">too</word>remove="REMOVE">took</word>remove="REMOVE">toward</word>remove="REMOVE">towards</word>remove="REMOVE">tu</word>remove="REMOVE">tue</word>remove="REMOVE">tues</word>remove="REMOVE">tuesday</word>remove="REMOVE">turn</word>remove="REMOVE">two</word>remove="REMOVE">u</word>remove="REMOVE">uh</word>remove="REMOVE">uhhuh</word>remove="REMOVE">um</word>remove="REMOVE">under</word>remove="REMOVE">until</word>remove="REMOVE">unto</word>remove="REMOVE">up</word>remove="REMOVE">upon</word>remove="REMOVE">us</word>remove="REMOVE">v</word>remove="REMOVE">very</word>remove="REMOVE">w</word>remove="REMOVE">want</word>remove="REMOVE">was</word>remove="REMOVE">wasn't</word>remove="REMOVE">wasnt</word>remove="REMOVE">way</word>remove="REMOVE">we'd</word>remove="REMOVE">we'll</word>remove="REMOVE">we're</word>remove="REMOVE">we've</word>remove="REMOVE">we</word>remove="REMOVE">wed</word>remove="REMOVE">wednesday</word>remove="REMOVE">well</word>remove="REMOVE">well</word>remove="REMOVE">went</word>remove="REMOVE">were</word>remove="REMOVE">were</word>remove="REMOVE">weve</word>remove="REMOVE">what's</word>remove="REMOVE">what</word>remove="REMOVE">whatever</word>remove="REMOVE">whats</word>remove="REMOVE">when</word>remove="REMOVE">where</word>remove="REMOVE">whether</word>remove="REMOVE">which</word>remove="REMOVE">while</word>remove="REMOVE">who's</word>remove="REMOVE">who</word>remove="REMOVE">whom</word>remove="REMOVE">whos</word>remove="REMOVE">whose</word>remove="REMOVE">why</word>remove="REMOVE">will</word>remove="REMOVE">with</word>remove="REMOVE">within</word>remove="REMOVE">without</word>remove="REMOVE">won't</word>remove="REMOVE">wont</word>remove="REMOVE">would've</word>remove="REMOVE">would</word>remove="REMOVE">wouldn't</word>remove="REMOVE">wouldnt</word>remove="REMOVE">wouldve</word>remove="REMOVE">x</word>remove="REMOVE">y</word>remove="REMOVE">ye</word>remove="REMOVE">yeah</word>remove="REMOVE">years</word>remove="REMOVE">yep</word>remove="REMOVE">yes</word>remove="REMOVE">yet</word>remove="REMOVE">you'd</word>remove="REMOVE">you'll</word>remove="REMOVE">you're</word>remove="REMOVE">you've</word>remove="REMOVE">you</word>remove="REMOVE">youd</word>remove="REMOVE">youll</word>remove="REMOVE">your</word>remove="REMOVE">youre</word>remove="REMOVE">yourself</word>remove="REMOVE">youve</word>remove="REMOVE">z</word>
60
Appendix4
Table12CallsupontheinternationalcommunitybyPalestinianleadersintheUNGAspeechesbetween1988-2016
Speech Addresstotheinternationalcommunity
Arafat1998‘…toeffectivelyandtangiblypressuretheIsraeliside’
Abbas2006 ‘…providetangibleevidencethatitwillsupportanunconditional’
Fayyad2008
‘…respondfirmlytoalltheabhorrentphenomenathatundermine’‘…giveJerusalemanditsinhabitantstheprotectiontheydeserve’ ‘…provideurgentandeffectiveassistancetoputanendtotheoccupation’
Abbas2009
‘…upholdinternationallawandinternationallegitimacyandtoexertpressureonIsraeltoceaseitssettlementactivities,tocomplywiththeagreementsithassigned,toceaseitspoliciesofoccupationandcolonialsettlement’
Abbas2010
‘…[assume]themainresponsibilityforendingtheIsraelioccupation,thelongestoccupationinmodernhistory’
Abbas2012
‘…compeltheGovernmentofIsraeltorespecttheGenevaConventionsof1949andtoinvestigatetheconditionsofdetentionofPalestinianprisonersanddetainees’
Abbas2013
‘…condemnandputanendtoanyactionsonthegroundthatwouldunderminenegotiations’
Abbas2015‘…Isitnottimeforthelongestoccupationinhistory,whichissuffocatingourpeople,tocometoanend?Thesearethequestionsweasktheinternationalcommunity.’
61
Appendix5
Table13Excerptsreferringtothereconciliationmetaphor'peaceasajourney'IntheUNGAspeechesofIsraeliandPalestinianleadersbetween1988and2016
Peaceasajourney
Year Israelispeeches Palestinianspeeches
1988 andseektogetheranewpaththatwillleadusaway shallhavecomealongwaytowardajustsolution,and
1995 theentireMiddleEast.Theroadisstilllong.However, -
1998 tookthewell-knownhistoricalstepleadingtotheOslo
05/06 conflictandembarkonthepathwhichleadstopeacethatitistherightpathforthefutureofIsraelourpolicy.Afterthelongjourneyofwanderingandthe
ourstrategicchoiceandthepathwhichwerelentlesslyadoptionofnegotiationsasthepathtowardsreachingaaqualitativeachievement—notastepbackwardsoraalimitedregressionfromthepathtowhichwehaveprovidesthemwithadignifiedpathtoasecurefutureso
2008 thecountryandcuttheroadtopeace.regressionandfailureinourjourney,todayIcanidentifyaroadleadingintherightdirectiontodothis;theinitialstepsarepromising.TheJewishfriendandpartnerinourjourney,whowasmurdered
undermininganyachievementontheroadtopeace.Thesolutionmustobstaclesthatstandinitsway.Ialsowishtocommendcontinuetofollowthatsamepathwithfirmdeterminationandresolve
2009 - ourrightsandopeningthewaytowardsgenuinepeacefulrelationswith
2010 Iamconfidentthatourpathisavailabletoeveryone.
2011 godownthissameperilouspathagain.Wereadwhatresponse.Itooktheunprecedentedstepoffreezing
apainfulandverydifficultstepforallofus,especiallyinapioneeringandleadingwaytothecultural,wedecidedtoadoptthepathofrelativejustice,justice1967.Bytakingthathistoricstep,whichwaswelcomedtoadoptdialogueasapathtotherestorationofour
62
Table14Excerptsreferringtothereconciliationmetaphor'peaceasbuilding/construction'IntheUNGAspeechesofIsraeliandPalestinianleadersbetween1988and2016
Peaceasbuilding/construction
Year Israelispeeches Palestinianspeeches
1988 - positivewayinordertopavethewayforpeaceandupthelayingofthefoundationsofajustpeacebasedofwarandfightingandpavethewaytopeacefulresponsibleresolutionswhichpavethewayforustotheoccupationandlaythefoundationsofpeaceintheirsupportedbymanystates—topavethewayforthesothatwecanbuildpeaceinthelandof
1998 canproducetheimportantbuildingblocksofpeace.
05/06 todeveloptheireconomyandbuildapeace-seekingandweshallcontinuetobuildituntilitiscompleted
2008 inIsrael’sdynamicrealities:thebuildingofsecurity;thepast;however,wecanbuildandshapeanewpeacethantowagewar.Buildingismoredifficultthanallpeoples,thebridgeswebuildwillrenderthe
the1967borders.Thiswillpavethewayforendingthe1967borders.ThiswouldpavethewayforrealnobleandpeacefulobjectivesofbuildingofanewMiddleEast
2010 whichconstituteanunshakeablefoundationforpeace.
2011 admirationforthosetryingtobuildademocraticbuttoenslave;nottobuild,buttodestroy.ThatthePalestinianAuthoritycouldnowbuildapeaceful
tothem:letusurgentlybuildtogetherafutureforoursecurityandprosperity.Letusbuildbridgesofdialoguewallsofseparation.Letusbuildcooperativerelations
2012 resolutioncomprisingthepillarsandfoundationsfora
2013 achievingahistoricreconciliationandbuildingJewishhomelandandhelptobuildafuturefortheJ
referenceandthebasisandfoundationsofthepeacetoteardownwalls,tobuildbridgesinsteadofwallsand
2014 aproductivepartnershipthatwouldbuildamore Statelivinginpeaceandbuildingbridgesofmutual
2015 Ihopethatwewillbuildlastingpartnershipsfor
63
Table 15 Excerpts referring to the reconciliation metaphor 'peace as a connection' In the UNGA speeches of Israeli andPalestinianleadersbetween1988and2016
Peaceasaconnection
Year Israelispeeches Palestinianspeeches
1988 toterroristattacks.Weallsharethepainandagonyofwar.Weallshareanoverwhelming
1995 tellustodo,thatdistancewouldbereducedwouldbereducedtothedistancebetweenthis
1998 owingusjusthowcloseweareinourhopes
2000 haveagreedtoshareitandtoeliminatebarriersshareitandtoeliminatebarriersandborders
2008 feltlikesorrowhadshatteredbarriers.daughtersofallreligions.Oursharedagonyagonyshedlightonoursharedhopes,ourresultinginaregionofbarriersandwallsthatandhigheranddestroyinganybridgesthatwiththePalestiniansandthesharingofthewidentheabyssanderectbarriers;thosewhoourchildren,letusbreakthebondsofandforallpeoples,thebridgeswebuildwillebuildwillrenderthebarriersuseless.LetusoftheMiddleEast.Oursharedhistoryhas
andtrends,sharesthatdesirewithme,andnotbywallsandbarriers.Iamcertainthatandmostpainfulofthosebarriersarethosethat
2011 Wesharethesamepatriarch.Wedwell buildbridgesofdialogueinsteadofcheckpoint
2013 tobuildbridgesinsteadofwallsandto
2014 livinginpeaceandbuildingbridgesofmutual
2015 IsraelisworkingcloselywithourArabpeace
Table16Excerptsreferringtothereconciliationmetaphor'peaceastalking/sittingtogether'IntheUNGAspeechesofIsraeliandPalestinianleadersbetween1988and2016
Peaceasatogether,talkingandlisteningtoeachother
Year Israelispeeches Palestinianspeeches
1988 andreasontogether.Letuslistentoeachotherdirectly. -
2011 Isuggestthatwetalkopenlyandhonestly.LetLetuslistentooneanother.LetussayintheMiddleEast,talkdugri.Thatmeans“straightforward”.
themfeelthatsomeoneislisteningtotheirnarrativeandthat
2012 ofstatehood.Wehavetosittogether,negotiatetogetherandreach
-
2015 totry.Ifweactuallysitdowntogether,ifwenegotiation,andifweactuallysitdowntotrytoresolve
-
64
Table17Excerptsreferringto'suffering'IntheUNGAspeechesofIsraeliandPalestinianleadersbetween1988and2016
Suffering
Year Israelispeeches Palestinianspeeches
1988 experiencedvirtuallyallthesufferings,ravages,brutalitiesandatrocitiesthat
assurancetoeverypeoplethatsuffersinjustice,oppressionbyhistorytowardsourlong-sufferingpeople,whoonlywantconsideringourlongyearsofsufferingandtheharshawitnesstotheimmensesufferingofourpeopleandtheir
1995 awitnesstotheimmensesufferingofourpeopleandtheir
1998 aroundus.NopeoplehavesufferedmorefromwarandthePalestinianpeople,whoseprolongedsufferinghasbeenoneof
thePalestinianpeopleandthesufferingtheyendureasaNakba,thedispossessionandthesufferingofthePalestinianlandstillsuffersunderoccupationandcolonialsettlementdespitethelongandgravesufferingandpain,andwithlongcontributionsaimedatalleviatingthesufferingofourpeople
2000 ofthepainandlengthysufferingthathaslastedfor52
05/06 effortstorectifywrong,alleviatesuffering,andsettheweaktheexperiencesofwarandsufferingthatwehavebeen
2008 theages,andwhosepeoplesuffertodayfromthepainofmistrust.Ourworldisstillsufferingfromallformsofthroughouttheworldcontinuetosufferfromthepainofirrationalhim.TheHolyCityhassufferedfromoccupationforoverfortyThisisourresponsibility.ThesufferingofthePalestinianpeopleinallregionsthataresufferingcrisesandthatposethreatsoutstandingrole,wewouldhavesufferedevenmoresevereandperiloussince1967andtothesufferingofthemillionsofourareaofland,continuestosufferthefragmentationanddiscontiguityofespeciallyEgypt,toalleviatethesufferingandtohelpussave
2009 anddeepertragedyremainsthesufferingofourPalestinianpeoplesincehavenotbeenimplemented.ThesufferingofthePalestinianpeopleasaresultofthecontinuedsufferingofthePalestinianpeopleunderhomelanddespiteallofthesufferingcausedbythedetentions,theInspiteofalloursufferingfromtheoccupationandits
2010 andcompletely,andthetragicsufferingbeinginflictedonourpeoplemustbeputtotheirsuffering.Thisisessentialforcreatingdespitetheprofoundandcontinuedsufferingtheyhaveendured,holds
2011 dispersedthroughoutthelandsandsufferedeveryevilunderthesun
say,after63yearsofsufferingtheongoingAl-Nakba:enoughhascometoendthesufferingandtheplightofmillionsoccupation,underwhichtheyhavesufferedterribly,arenotbeingdisplacement,colonialoccupationandceaselesssuffering,tolivelike
2012 Strip,whotothisdaysufferfromthedisastrousimpactofenduredit.Theycontinuetosufferfromitsongoingeffectstoday
2014 freedomofitspeople,whosufferterrorismatthehandsoftimewhenwearestillsufferingfromthehorrorsofwarpoint,whichisthatGaza’ssufferingwillneverbecompletelyover
2015 ofpatienceinexileandsuffering,andouracceptanceofpeaceGazaStrip,deepeningtheimmensesufferingofourpeoplethere,innottimetostopthissuffering?Isitnottimefor
65
Appendix6Netanyahu’sreferencestoAbbas
ContrarytothePalestinianleadersintheUNGAspeeches,NetanyahumentionsAbbasasakey
figureinthepeacenegotiations.In2010NetanyahusaidthefollowinginhisUNGAspeech;
IcontinuetohopethatPresidentAbbaswillbemypartnerinpeace.Ihaveworkedhardtoadvance that peace. The day I came into office, I called for direct negotiations withoutpreconditions.PresidentAbbasdidnotrespond.
Andcontinuedwith;
WhydoesPresidentAbbasnotjoinme?Wehavetostopnegotiatingaboutthenegotiations.Letusjustgetonwithit.Letusnegotiatepeace.
Netanyahuuses‘us’whichsuggestsapositivebilateralapproachtothenegotiations.However,
thesentence‘[w]hydoesAbbasnotjoinme?’,impliesthatitisAbbasnotwantingtonegotiate,
nottheIsraelis.Byaskingthisquestion,Netanyahuimpliesthatheissittingatthenegotiating
tablewaiting forAbbas to join, ifonlyhewould.From2011until2014Netanyahu ismore
focusedonthenuclearthreatof Iranbut in2015NetanyahumentionsAbbasagainseveral
times,thistimemoredirectly:
PresidentAbbas,Iextendmyhand—thehandofIsrael—inpeace.Ihopethathewillgraspthathand.WeareboththesonsofAbraham.MypeoplecallhimAvraham;hispeoplecallhimIbrahim.’(Netanyahu2010)
Thesentenceinthequoteaboveemphasizedinbold,isadirectaddresstoAbbas,followedby
anindirectmentionAbbas.Netanyahucontinueswithabilateral:‘wearebothsons’andlinks
togetherthetwopeoplesbasedontheircommonAbrahamicbackground.
Extendahandoranolivebranch
In1988ArafatgiveshissecondspeechtotheUNGA.Theleaderusesahandmetaphortwice
inthisspeech,bothusesofthemetaphorarenotdirectedtowardsIsraelbutrathertowards
theinternationalcommunity,firstArafatadvocatestoputanendtothe‘destructionofvillages
andcities’andcontinueswith‘[l]etallhandsjoinindefense(...)toendatragedy’. Directlyafter
Arafatusesahandmetaphoragain;‘IhavecometoyouinthenameofmyPeople,offeringmy
handsothatwecanmakerealpeace,peacebasedonjustice’.Arafat’sspeechin1988isnot
directed towards Israel. Likewise, inhis speechof1988,Netanyahumentionsanextending
66
handsmetaphorwithoutdirectlyaddressingthePalestinianpeople.Netanyahuemploysapast
tenseinhissentence:
ItwasinfactinthatspiritthatthefoundersofIsraelstretchedoutthehandofpeacetoourneighboursinourDeclarationofIndependencesome50yearsago.Now,halfacenturylater,asweviewwithprideournation’sextraordinaryaccomplishmentsandachievements,wearedeterminedtocompletethecircleofpeacearoundus.
AlthoughNetanyahustates:‘wearedeterminedtocompletethecircleofpeacearoundus’,he
doesnotchangethe‘stretchedout’handtothepresenttense.Hisstatementemphasizesa
positiveperspectiveonIsrael:IsraelasapeaceseekingnationandIsraelasaccomplishingand
achieving.BoththestatementofArafatin1988andofNetanyahu10yearslaterareintended
toimprovetheinternationalimageoftheirownpeopleratherthanshowingawillingnessto
theiradversarytonegotiatepeace(Gavriely-Nuri,2010).Contrariwise,aspeechgivenbythe
Israeli leaderBaraktwoyearslater(2000)showsmorewillingnesstonegotiate.Theformer
MinisterofDefencestatesstrongly;‘[i]tisinourhands’,referringtobothparties.Likewise,in
2008Abbasusesahandmetaphorfordialogueandnegotiation:
We extend our hands for dialogue and negotiation to resolve the conflict in away thatprovidesallthatisrequiredforcoexistenceandopennesstothefuturesowecanbuildoursocietiesandnationsinaccordancewiththeaspirationsofourpeoplestoprogressandinthespiritofthetimes.
Abbasspeaksof‘our’peoples,whichcouldbeviewedasapositivebilateraltone,howeverthe
extending‘ourhandsfordialogueandnegotiations’isnotbilateralbutreferstothePalestinian
peopleonlyextendingtheirhand.Inotherwords,thePalestinianpeoplearewaitingforthe
adversariestograspthathand.Abbasretainsanambiguoustoneanddoesnotdirecthishand
fordialogueandnegotiationtoaconcreteparty.However,in2011Abbasrefersmoredirectly
totheIsraeligovernmentandIsraelipeople;
IamheretosayonbehalfofthePalestinianpeopleandthePalestineLiberationOrganizationthatweextendourhandtotheIsraeliGovernmentandtheIsraelipeopleforpeacemaking.
Abbascontinues;
Isaytothem:letusurgentlybuildtogetherafutureforourchildrenwheretheycanenjoyfreedom,securityandprosperity.Letusbuildbridgesofdialogueinsteadofcheckpointsandwallsofseparation.
AlthoughAbbasmakesabilateralproposalofcreatingpeace(‘letusbuildbridges’),hestarts
ofbystating‘Isaytothem’(emphasisbyauthor).Byaddingthe“I”intohisspeech,Abbastakes
67
awaythebilateraltonedeployedinthe‘us’andemploysaperspectiveofmoralsuperiority,
portrayinghimselfandthePalestinianpeopleastheonewantingpeace.
Then, twelve years after his first speech as a leader at the UN, Netanyahu refers to the
extendedhandagain.Netanyahustartshisspeechin2011withmentioningtheextendedhand
8timesinhisfirst8sentences:
Israelhasextendeditshandinpeacefromthemomentitwasestablished63yearsago.Onbehalfof Israeland the Jewishpeople, I extend thathandagain today. I extend it to thepeopleofEgyptandJordan,withrenewedfriendship forneighbourswithwhomwehavemadepeace.IextendittothepeopleofTurkey,withrespectandgoodwill.IextendittothepeopleofLibyaandTunisia,withadmirationforthosetryingtobuildademocraticfuture.IextendittotheotherpeoplesofNorthAfricaandtheArabianpeninsula,withwhomwewanttoforgeanewbeginning.IextendittothepeopleofSyria,LebanonandIran,withaweatthecourageofthosefightingbrutalrepression.
Mostespecially,IextendmyhandtothePalestinianpeople,withwhomweseekajustandlastingpeace.
InsteadoffocusingmerelyonthePalestinianpeople,NetanyahuextendshishandtoEgypt,
Jordan, Turkey, North Africa and the Arabian Peninsula. He is not extending his hand and
makingeyecontactwithoneparty,insteadheinvolvesallthecountriesinhisregionintothe
metaphor.Netanyahu’srepeatedlyextendedhandbecomesratherillusoryandthereforefits
a postmodern usage of the metaphor (Gavriely-Nuri, 2010a). Much later in his speech
NetanyahuaddressestheArabcommunitywhilereferringto‘onehand’:‘[t]hereisanoldArab
sayingthatonecannotapplaudwithonehand’. Netanyahuthencontinues;
Well,thesameistrueofpeace.Icannotmakepeacealone.Icannotmakepeacewithoutaninterlocutor.PresidentAbbas,Iextendmyhand—thehandofIsrael—inpeace.Ihopethathewillgraspthathand.WeareboththesonsofAbraham.MypeoplecallhimAvraham;hispeople call him Ibrahim.We share the same patriarch.We dwell in the same land. Ourdestiniesareintertwined.
WhileNetanyahu employs a perspective ofmoral superiority, suggesting that he is on the
peacefulsideextendinghishandtoasidethatisyettobecomepeaceful,healsomentions
similaritiesbetweenhimandhisadversary.Byspeakingofthesimilaritiesbetweenthetwo
peoples, Netanyahu applies a bilateral positive tone that could allow for reconciliation
(Cameron,2007).
68
In2012AbbasexpresseshisdisappointmentwiththesettlementexpansionsandtheIsraeli
governmentpoliciesthatdisadvantagethePalestinianpeople.Afterasumupofwhatiswrong
abouttheIsraeligovernmentfromAbbas’perspective,theleadercontinues;
Despiteourdisappointment,wecontinuetosincerelyextendahandtotheIsraelipeopletomakepeace.Werealizethatultimatelythetwopeoplesmustliveandcoexist,eachintheirrespectiveState,intheHolyLand.
In2015Abbasreaffirmstheextendedor‘outstretched’handdespitehisdiscontentwiththe
Israeligovernment:
All that notwithstanding, my hand remains outstretched for the just peace that willguaranteemypeople’srights,freedomandhumandignity.Isaytoourneighbours,thesonsanddaughtersoftheIsraelipeople,thatpeaceisintheirinterestandinourinterestandintheinterestoftheirfuturegenerationsandourfuturegenerations.
Notehowever, thatAbbas is clearly talkingofaunilateral ‘just’peace,ashesays ‘thatwill
guaranteemypeople’srights’.Abbasshiftedfromamoderateexchangeofuniandbilateral
discoursetoanopenlyunilateraldiscoursewhenusingthemetaphor.Additionally,comparable
tohisspeechin2011,Abbasreiteratesthefactthatheissayingittoanabstract‘them’:‘Isay
tothem’.
Another metaphor similar to the ‘extend a hand’ is the ‘extending an olive branch’ by
Palestinianleaders.InsteadofextendingahandArafatextendsanolivebranchforthefirst
timeinhis1974speechtotheUNGAandrepeatsthisinhis1988speech;‘theolivebranchI
carriedthatday,andmadethatbranch,whichwehavewateredwithourblood,sweatand
tears,growintoatreefirmlyrootedinthegroundandreachingforthesky’.Theolivebranch
grewand is now firmly rooted in the ground. Theolive branchbecomes somethingworth
nurturingandprotectinginArafat’sspeech;‘wearefullyconfidentofourabilitytoprotectour
green olive branch in the hotbeds of political confrontation’. Arafat continues directlywith
pointingoutthat;
Theworld-wideembraceofour justcause,pressingfortherealizationofpeacebasedonjustice, clearly demonstrates that theworld has come to realize, unequivocally,who theexecutionerisandwhothevictimis,whotheaggressorisandwhothevictimis,whothefighterforfreedomandpeaceisandwhotheterroristis.
Offeringanolivebranchisreferringtobeingthepeaceful‘victim’and‘thefighterforfreedom
andpeace’.Arafatlinkstheolivebranchtohispeopleandbydoingthat,helinkspeacefulness
tohispeople.TheolivebranchisusedtoimprovetheinternationalimageofthePalestinian
69
people.‘Ifweoffertheolivebranchofpeace’Arafatexplains,‘it isbecauseitsproutsinour
heartsfromthetreeofourhomeland,thetreeoffreedom’.
In1995Arafatrefersbacktohisspeechin1974andspeaksofachange;
IcametothisAssembly21yearsagoasafighterforfreedom,liberationandindependence,carryingwithmethetormentsofmystrugglingpeople.Today,however,Icometoyouwithaheartfilledwithloveandpeace,nowthattheolivebranchhasbeenraisedoverthepeaceofthebrave.
Ourpeopleyearnsforpeace.
Arafat’s1995 speechusesbilateral terms suchas ‘living sideby side’ and ‘mutual respect’.
However,in2006thischangeseemstobereversedagaininAbbas’speech.Attheclosingof
hisspeech,AbbasmentionsArafat’solivebranchfrom1974,butwithoutmentioningthepeace
andloveof1995;
Thirty-twoyearsago,fromthisrostrum,thelatePresidentYasserArafatissuedhisfamousandresoundingcall:“Donotlettheolivebranchfallfrommyhand”(A/PV.2282,para.82).Inowreiteratethatcall.Donotlettheolivebranchfallfrommyhand.Irepeat:donotlettheolivebranchfallfrommyhand.
Arafat’s1974‘donotlettheolivebranchfallfrommyhand’soundsmorelikeathreatthanan
offerforpeace.Nevertheless,Abbaschoosetoreiteratethe1974threatinsteadofthe1995
offer by Arafat. Conversely, in 2008, Palestinian leader Fayyad chooses to emphasize the
peacefulnessofthesymbolinsteadoftheriskofthebranchfalling.
WhenarepresentativeofPalestinespokeforthefirsttimefromthisrostrum,he,thelatePresidentYasserArafat,raisedanolivebranch,asymbolofpeaceinthelandofpeace.Theolivebranchisdeeplyrootedinourlandasasymbolofcoexistenceandtolerance.
In 2010 Abbas victimizes the Palestinian people further by using the olive branch as a
metaphor;‘[o]urwoundedhandsarestillabletocarrytheolivebranchpickedfromthesplinters
ofthetreesthattheoccupationforcesuprooteveryday’.
Further,in2011AbbasrepeatsagainArafat’s1974fallingbranch;
In1974,ourleaderthelateYasserArafatcametothisHallandassuredthemembersoftheGeneralAssemblyofouraffirmativepursuitforpeace,urgingtheUnitedNationstorealizetheinalienablenationalrightsofthePalestinianpeople,stating:“Donotlettheolivebranchfallfrommyhand.”(A/PV.2282,para.82)
AbbasusesthemetaphortolinkitthethePalestinianpeopleasvictimsagain:‘[t]heybuildtheir
settlementsonour landsanduprootandburnolive trees thathaveexisted inPalestine for
70
hundredsofyears’.In2015themetaphorisnotusedbyAbbasandin2014,Abbasmentions
theolive treesbriefly; ‘[a]t the same time,armedgangsof racist settlerspersisted in their
crimesagainst thePalestinianpeopleandtheir land,mosques,churches,propertyandolive
trees’.
Reconciliationmetaphors
ThestrongestreconciliationmetaphorthatshowsawillingnesstounderstandtheOther’sstory
(Cameron,2007)isnotusedbyPalestinianleadersinreferencetotheadversary.OftheIsraeli
leaders,Shamirmentionsitonce;‘[l]etuslistentoeachotherdirectly’afterfirststatingclearly
thatitisthePalestiniansthatdonotwantpeace.However,NetanyahurepeatsShamir’scall
withoutreferringtothePalestiniansastheonesnotwantingpeacein2011;‘Isuggestwetalk
openly and honestly’. Similar to Abbas’ with the ‘extending a hand’metaphor, Netanyahu
emphasizesthathesuggeststotalkbutcontrarytoAbbas,Netanyahumakesadirectofferto
negotiatepeace;
Nowwe[referringtoAbbas]areinthesamecity;weareinthesamebuilding.Soletusmeetheretoday,attheUnitedNations.Whoistheretostopus?Whatistheretostopus?Ifwegenuinelywantpeace,what is theretostopus frommeetingtodayandbeginningpeacenegotiations?
After2011Netanyahudoesnotmentiontalkinganymorebutinsteadstates‘[w]ehavetosit
together,negotiatetogether..’andrepeatsthisin2015bysaying;
IwouldliketotellPresidentAbbasthatIknowitisnoteasy.Iknowitishard.Butweoweitto our peoples to try, to continue to try. Ifwe actually sit down together, ifwe actuallynegotiateandstopnegotiatingaboutthenegotiation,andifweactuallysitdowntotrytoresolvetheconflictbetweenus,recognizingeachotherandnotusingaPalestinianStateasasteppingstoneforyetanotherIslamistdictatorshipintheMiddleEastbutassomethingthatwillliveatpeacenexttotheJewishState,wecandoremarkablethingsforourpeoples.
Netanyahucallsfor‘directnegotiationswithoutpreconditions’in2011andin2015repeatshis
callfor‘negotiationswiththePalestinianAuthoritywithoutanypreconditionswhatsoever’,yet,
nonegotiationstookplacebetweentheadversariestodate.